Notices

ALPA 1941 assistance

Old 09-15-2020, 10:32 PM
  #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 436
Default

Take the 5% and just buy FA pro union votes. At this point I'd rather stick it to the company since they seem so hell-bent on sticking it to the furloughs.
RAH RAH REE is offline  
Old 09-15-2020, 10:56 PM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 631
Default

Great ideas! I agree with those that are advocating no carve outs. Too many QOL bidders out there with family circumstances to entertain the A to B carve out.
LandGreen2 is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 12:55 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,905
Default

Originally Posted by Vsop View Post
Long time lurker 1st thread started... Be gentle and use some lube in your responses

This probably could have gone in the other 1941 thread. I did see it mentioned in there several pages ago, by Sailing I think. The idea seemed novel and it wasn’t discussed at all.

Before I go into detail on this idea, let me explain my thought process. I think the likelihood of furloughs being prevented by any of the possible means is very low. I also don’t fully trust the company to abide by any no furlough agreement, and I really don’t want to concede items in the contract that will take years/decades to recover.
I also want to help out our soon to be unemployed ALPA brothers/sisters. So the goal for me is to mitigate the suffering of the furloughed while not conceding anything to the company.
My solution is to have ALPA increase dues by 5% on all Delta pilots that have NOT been displaced from A to B. To me those pilots have less financial wiggle room than the rest of us. This extra 5% would then be distributed to the furloughed 1941. My initial thought is to have ALPA hire the 1941 as independent contractors.
Cocktail napkin math says about 8,000 pilots would be on the hook for this extra contribution. Average annual salary for that group I estimated at 200-215k. That generated a benefit for the 1931 furloughed of 40-45k per year. Obviously not as good as them keeping their job, but way better than nothing at all. And likely saving many marriages, bankruptcies, ect...
The extra dues would have a termination point sometime in the future. A year seems appropriate. At that time we would need a MERAT to continue the program.
The extra dues would immediately terminate if there were concessions in any part of the contract.
My favorite parts to this plan are
1) it solves attempting to regain losses in our contract.
2) it shows other employee groups the benefit of being in a union. Imagine a ramper hearing that the furloughed pilot is making +40k from ALPA
3) it helps take away some of the stigma with working GS while there are furloughs since 5% of that GS is going to a furloughed. (I know touchy subject about GS.)
4) it is almost instantaneously cancelable since we are negotiating with only ourselves.
5) it’s a much smaller pay give than the company floated 15% ALV reduction.

I’m looking for constructive feedback if the idea has merit or if there are some hurdles of which I am unaware.

For transparency I’m 1 of the rescued 617
Are you floating a 5% dues increase or adding 5% to the existing 1.85%? I think you actually mean to increase ALPA dues by almost 300%. Some of those rampers are going to hear we just added about a $1,000/month assessment to union dues and offset some of that union excitement.

My job is not to convince anyone about the merits of a union. Frankly, our FAs are going to compare their situation to FAs at UAL and AA, not to ours. I'd wager that the folks on the bottom actually feel pretty good about the management team that just promised not to furlough them when their peers hired as far back as 2000 at UAL (when many of ours were literally in diapers) could be on the street 1 Oct.

Many folks are going to do just fine during furlough. Stay at home moms and dads whose spouse does well at their job or even has more time to plus up their own income to get the family right back where they were. Retired O-5s and O-6s with sizable pensions, free GI Bill college for their kiddo and a government contractor side gig. Entrepreneurs with stable income elsewhere and health care funded by their union.

I'd rather have those who are really struggling apply for financial assistance. Everyone won't need it, so let's get the dollars flowing where they are needed. I've already donated to ALPA's fund for this purpose, and if people want to spend $1,000/ month of their own family COVID budget to do the same, they certainly can. VEOPers could do the same if they feel so moved.

I also think the A to B carve out in your proposal is a little odd. What's the purpose? Just because someone had a high water mark a little higher than mine, they needn't contribute? Plenty of my classmates took early opportunities to A positions while I prioritized QOL and seniority... and now my lower income starting point pre-MOAD obligates me to a record-setting dues assessment the other guy doesn't have because he used to make more money? Does being absolved of guilt for GS flying still extend to these exempt pilots?

Assuming you can easily determine which families do or do not have "financial wiggle room" seems pretty dangerous. We can all make judgements about where folks SHOULD be re:income vs. expenditures, but you never easily know. I don't have a dollar coming my way from poor, unhealthy aging parents and step-parents, so I save for my end years and theirs. On the other side, I have friends with $5M inheritance heading their way in the not-too-distant future from parents with long term care insurance funding their own care. I also happen to have education benefits for my kids, a reserve retirement someday, and a spouse who worked her a$$ off (and still does) to produce income...albeit at the significant expense of being away from her kids. I say all of that because I think anything we do, we do together. We're either all in, or all out - just like we all work under the same PWA. I personally think certain versions of ALV reduction (uniform, across all categories, long term or permanent that actually keep everyone working) are far more palatable than your proposal. Let's hope negotiations produce some results.

I don't see there being much enthusiasm for the plan you propose, but appreciate your creativity trying to problem solve for soon-to-be struggling brothers and sisters.
TED74 is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 05:28 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Position: 737 A
Posts: 881
Default

Originally Posted by Jiggawatt View Post
Interesting idea. One way to frame this would be to come up with a number, say $40K, that seems like an agreeable amount to help get furloughees through one year. Then figure out the % that would need to be deducted from the active guys’ paychecks to meet that. It might be, say, 4.2%. Then vote on that (basically this would make everything precise—it would define the benefit and hopefully drive a number even lower than 5%).

Even more likely to pass would be to basically just put out to everyone: “if all active pilots deducted 5%, furloughed pilots would receive $xxxx per month, so please consider a 5% deduction”, then make it voluntary and hope the majority of guys would opt in. I’m new in the airline biz and maybe it’s laughable to think many guys would do this voluntarily, just throwing ideas out there.

{ full disclosure, I’m in the 1941}
Quick math on this idea. To achieve a flat $40K. The average contribution would be $616/month by the 10,500 working pilots. That works out to 3.7-3.4% range if I assume an average annual salary 200-215K for the 10,500 pilots.
Vsop is online now  
Old 09-16-2020, 05:32 AM
  #15  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Jan 2020
Posts: 24
Default

Originally Posted by TED74 View Post
Are you floating a 5% dues increase or adding 5% to the existing 1.85%? I think you actually mean to increase ALPA dues by almost 300%. Some of those rampers are going to hear we just added about a $1,000/month assessment to union dues and offset some of that union excitement.

My job is not to convince anyone about the merits of a union. Frankly, our FAs are going to compare their situation to FAs at UAL and AA, not to ours. I'd wager that the folks on the bottom actually feel pretty good about the management team that just promised not to furlough them when their peers hired as far back as 2000 at UAL (when many of ours were literally in diapers) could be on the street 1 Oct.

Many folks are going to do just fine during furlough. Stay at home moms and dads whose spouse does well at their job or even has more time to plus up their own income to get the family right back where they were. Retired O-5s and O-6s with sizable pensions, free GI Bill college for their kiddo and a government contractor side gig. Entrepreneurs with stable income elsewhere and health care funded by their union.

I'd rather have those who are really struggling apply for financial assistance. Everyone won't need it, so let's get the dollars flowing where they are needed. I've already donated to ALPA's fund for this purpose, and if people want to spend $1,000/ month of their own family COVID budget to do the same, they certainly can. VEOPers could do the same if they feel so moved.

I also think the A to B carve out in your proposal is a little odd. What's the purpose? Just because someone had a high water mark a little higher than mine, they needn't contribute? Plenty of my classmates took early opportunities to A positions while I prioritized QOL and seniority... and now my lower income starting point pre-MOAD obligates me to a record-setting dues assessment the other guy doesn't have because he used to make more money? Does being absolved of guilt for GS flying still extend to these exempt pilots?

Assuming you can easily determine which families do or do not have "financial wiggle room" seems pretty dangerous. We can all make judgements about where folks SHOULD be re:income vs. expenditures, but you never easily know. I don't have a dollar coming my way from poor, unhealthy aging parents and step-parents, so I save for my end years and theirs. On the other side, I have friends with $5M inheritance heading their way in the not-too-distant future from parents with long term care insurance funding their own care. I also happen to have education benefits for my kids, a reserve retirement someday, and a spouse who worked her a$$ off (and still does) to produce income...albeit at the significant expense of being away from her kids. I say all of that because I think anything we do, we do together. We're either all in, or all out - just like we all work under the same PWA. I personally think certain versions of ALV reduction (uniform, across all categories, long term or permanent that actually keep everyone working) are far more palatable than your proposal. Let's hope negotiations produce some results.

I don't see there being much enthusiasm for the plan you propose, but appreciate your creativity trying to problem solve for soon-to-be struggling brothers and sisters.
There are certainly deeper issues that I, for one, haven't fully considered. So thanks for sharing your perspective and experience with us.
AirBob is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 05:50 AM
  #16  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Position: 737 A
Posts: 881
Default

Originally Posted by TED74 View Post
Are you floating a 5% dues increase or adding 5% to the existing 1.85%? I think you actually mean to increase ALPA dues by almost 300%. Some of those rampers are going to hear we just added about a $1,000/month assessment to union dues and offset some of that union excitement.

My job is not to convince anyone about the merits of a union. Frankly, our FAs are going to compare their situation to FAs at UAL and AA, not to ours. I'd wager that the folks on the bottom actually feel pretty good about the management team that just promised not to furlough them when their peers hired as far back as 2000 at UAL (when many of ours were literally in diapers) could be on the street 1 Oct.

Many folks are going to do just fine during furlough. Stay at home moms and dads whose spouse does well at their job or even has more time to plus up their own income to get the family right back where they were. Retired O-5s and O-6s with sizable pensions, free GI Bill college for their kiddo and a government contractor side gig. Entrepreneurs with stable income elsewhere and health care funded by their union.

I'd rather have those who are really struggling apply for financial assistance. Everyone won't need it, so let's get the dollars flowing where they are needed. I've already donated to ALPA's fund for this purpose, and if people want to spend $1,000/ month of their own family COVID budget to do the same, they certainly can. VEOPers could do the same if they feel so moved.

I also think the A to B carve out in your proposal is a little odd. What's the purpose? Just because someone had a high water mark a little higher than mine, they needn't contribute? Plenty of my classmates took early opportunities to A positions while I prioritized QOL and seniority... and now my lower income starting point pre-MOAD obligates me to a record-setting dues assessment the other guy doesn't have because he used to make more money? Does being absolved of guilt for GS flying still extend to these exempt pilots?

Assuming you can easily determine which families do or do not have "financial wiggle room" seems pretty dangerous. We can all make judgements about where folks SHOULD be re:income vs. expenditures, but you never easily know. I don't have a dollar coming my way from poor, unhealthy aging parents and step-parents, so I save for my end years and theirs. On the other side, I have friends with $5M inheritance heading their way in the not-too-distant future from parents with long term care insurance funding their own care. I also happen to have education benefits for my kids, a reserve retirement someday, and a spouse who worked her a$$ off (and still does) to produce income...albeit at the significant expense of being away from her kids. I say all of that because I think anything we do, we do together. We're either all in, or all out - just like we all work under the same PWA. I personally think certain versions of ALV reduction (uniform, across all categories, long term or permanent that actually keep everyone working) are far more palatable than your proposal. Let's hope negotiations produce some results.

I don't see there being much enthusiasm for the plan you propose, but appreciate your creativity trying to problem solve for soon-to-be struggling brothers and sisters.
thanks for the feedback. You are correct 6.85% total was the original idea. I liked jiggawatt’s thought of setting a distribution target rather than a contribution target. I came up with 5% as contribution because it is far less than the 15% ALV the company has been discussing. By approaching the issue from the other way and using the distribution target of $40/yr the the total contribution is reduced to 5.25-5.75%. It’s a range since I don’t know our collective average annual income and I’m trying to use conservative numbers of $200-215k. A vast majority of Captains out earn those figures and a large percentage of FOs beat those numbers too. ALPA has the actual data and would be able to set a much more accurate dues increase. If our income is higher, the dues increase is lower.

I’ve been sousing this idea out for a few days. I included the carve out because I saw the biggest potential hurdle in getting this approved was if pilot’s thought ALPA would be taking too much from those that recently lost the most income potential (out side of the furloughed pilots). However, the feedback so far from yourself and others has been in favor of everyone or no one. I am completely on board with that concept, and using all ~10,500 pilots lowers the dues increase as well.
Vsop is online now  
Old 09-16-2020, 06:00 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 2,933
Default

I like this idea MUCH better than concessions to the company. I could definitely get on board with this depending on the details.
m3113n1a1 is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 07:38 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 9,988
Default

Two things. One, this would have to be an assessment from and for DALPA pilots and not dues run through national. Two, I absolutely agree with the safety net but it should be based on need. The only way I see that being fair is to have the individual in need make the request. We have a furlough support structure and an assessment to fund that seems more appropriate. No interest loans that we may forgive would be my suggestion. Not sure how it all works but at a previous employer that’s how it was handled. My $.02.
notEnuf is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 07:52 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Schwanker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,224
Default

Do those previously furloughed also get paid $40k per year furloughed?
Schwanker is offline  
Old 09-16-2020, 08:01 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,223
Default

Originally Posted by m3113n1a1 View Post
I like this idea MUCH better than concessions to the company. I could definitely get on board with this depending on the details.
When I proposed the same thing most on here said no way. I can tell you from trying to push the same thing on past furloughs it won’t meet with wide approval. In the last furlough my proposal was we assess pilots 4% which matched the yearly raises we were getting with pilots on the street. I would say 25% were onboard to forgo one raise. The rest said let them eat cake.
sailingfun is online now  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Birddog
United
236
08-11-2016 07:55 AM
USMCFDX
FedEx
94
07-27-2016 07:14 AM
Ayfkm
Cargo
517
07-19-2014 03:37 AM
CRJAV8OR
Major
36
03-27-2012 11:06 AM
PEACH
Union Talk
8
03-30-2010 08:40 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices