![]() |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3210290)
since 49.5% of the pilot group voted no, I’m not sure if “most” did or did not vote to avoid furloughs
|
Originally Posted by Bucking Bar
(Post 3210260)
The cost of your idea is about $1.1 million PER retiree; $600,000,000.00 to cover the 550 or so who are anticipated to retire annually.
My First Officer thought the idea was a "ponzi scheme." He is a hard sell I guess. Again you are losing me....my 2% COLA is $1,200 per year. If I live for 25 years after retirement the total value that what I am suggesting is a TOTAL of $ 40,000. Somehow we are talking past each other. The 60K per year that I get from PBGC is already paid for....the NW DB plan has already been "paid" for in promises from pervious contracts. It is only that incremental COLA of 2% or about $1,200/year that is up for negotiation and being "paid "for at the detriment of current pilots. It is pretty paltry and a COLA tied to the core rate of inflation would be more appropriate.....and prolly retro back to the date of the freeze. Still, comparably small potatoes compared to your $600,000 per retiree. I don't know what language you are talking ......FORTRAN or C+++ or JAVA....but you have me flummoxed.:confused: |
Originally Posted by AlphaBeta
(Post 3210300)
damn, I looked up the voting and looked at the one covering insurance. Either way, I know some of the people against the furlough mitigation and who are demanding deadzoners get their money(BB on Facebook does not help this cause with his antics) are annoying, but at a minimum we should be looking at retirement medical. I think my biggest gripe about it is the hard liners on both sides, we should not take stuff off the table until we have to. For me I agree with most on here that section 1 is the most important followed by 23.
Shoot....some sort of retiree medical would be great....that cost is about 8 times higher that my COLA suggestion. I see my "poisoned the well" argument fostered by the previous MEC overreach on this issue seems to be pretty spot on. Most posters are all in for identity politics and aren't even trying to understand. I see TED74 put too much stock in the "insight" of the average pilot. |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 3210311)
Shoot....some sort of retiree medical would be great....that cost is about 8 times higher that my COLA suggestion.
I see my "poisoned the well" argument fostered by the previous MEC overreach on this issue seems to be pretty spot on. Most posters are all in for identity politics and aren't even trying to understand. I see TED74 put too much stock in the "insight" of the average pilot. |
Originally Posted by AlphaBeta
(Post 3210280)
I am for enhanced retirement benefits for the people who need it. Most of these guys voted to pay you when times were bad, don’t be so short sighted. No matter what the excuse is they were dealt a rough hand and if we can fix it we should try. If it does not work at least we tried. No matter what, the next contract is not going to be a home run, I will be shocked if we end up getting much better than inflation when you count the missed pay raises in 20, 21, and prob 22.
Originally Posted by CBreezy
(Post 3210293)
From the feedback I've heard from the DZ, they absolutely voted no because "furloughs are part of your business."
|
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3210345)
LOA 20-04 made several improvements to the contract. (if you were of the persuasion we worked too much in the summer of 19, I did not see a downside) I don’t want to bring up pros vs cons but I remember reading on the FB page one of the reasons a certain DZ would be voting no was UNA pilots would remain active and still be able to vote (read; they are not getting furloughed) B&R B and Gang probably did more damage to sympathy for DZs than anything else. With that said I’m still not opposed to a modest increase to DC for pilots over a certain longevity, and I try not to let the vocal members taint my view of everyone, but I certainly don’t have as much sympathy as I did before.
|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3210357)
it was the 20-03 discussion that really started the bad blood
At the time I saw some affected pilots wondering if they (20-03 and 20-04) might have passed by a wider margin among non affected pilots had they not included the furlough mitigation. |
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3210363)
.
At the time I saw some affected pilots wondering if they (20-03 and 20-04) might have passed by a wider margin among non affected pilots had they not included the furlough mitigation. |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3210366)
An interesting thought, and I bet it would have
|
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 3210443)
The lack of insight is topic specific. Do DZer's understand the nuances of UNA pilots? Do civilian pilots understand USERA rules? Do senior pilots who are regular line holders and commuters truly understand reserve? Do wide body captains understand the plight of undermanned narrow body categories?
Do you ever get tired of being perennially butthurt? |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:15 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands