It's one thig to keep claiming that people make things up and are lying, it's another to actually prove them wrong with factual data. What proof do you have that these aren't true, other than your word?

 

Your statement is incorrect system wide. It may be correct in your category. In general it's easier to build trips with minimum credit with longer trips. This is especially true when you have cities that require 30 hour layovers.
I suspect in your category if they did away with 4 day trips and went to all 2 day trips credit would soar. There are always shorter trips that can be built without credit. Building entire categories based on shorter trips with no credit increase is not workable.
The company has always been receptive to suggested scheduling changes even when they involve some increase in credit. That is why we have the survey out now. When you have a change however you have to show the effects. When you take concepts to reality the results rarely match what pilots believe.

 

APA did far more than that. The NMB came in to find almost every section of the contract open. They don't do that. Their charter is to try to narrow the differences when the end game is near...not negotiate every section of the contract. Then APA was demanding 50%+ pay raises to restore them at a time when AMR was losing money and AMR's competitors were in bankruptcy. That's what APA did. I'm sure you'll agree that was a lot more than "straying outside the zone."

Regarding USAPA, being parked was precisely their strategy. If a PWA had ever been agreed to, the Nicolau SLI would have automatically been implemented.

This is why your use of these two historical events as a reason to fear the NMB is so disingenuous and damaging to Delta pilots. You're trying to get us to accept defeat before negotiations begin. You did the same thing with C2012. I just don't know why you do it.

Agreed. "barred" is too strong a word and if I implied that, I was wrong to do so.

Carl

 

I had Carl on my jumpseat a few years ago. Great guy! And NOT one of the names on that list.

 

What was the law suit about?

 

Money..... Here is a good explanation http://alpawatch.org/PDF%20Newslette...30,%202007.pdf

 

What exactly was the lawsuit about.

 

What "perspective?" Why are you trying to "reach those people?"

To raise their expectations--or to lower them? To encourage them to fight for the best possible contract--or to settle for whatever management offers? To question the status quo and improve the "union--"or to demand obeisance to those who "know better" like yourself?

I'm not sure how many "tactics" are discussed here. Am I demanding accountability, transparency, and performance from "our" "union?" Absolutely.

The same could be directed towards DALPA's outdated, one-sided "constructive engagement" strategy, which has run its course. For crying out loud, Alfa. DALPA doesn't even have the juice to keep us out of an unapproved hotel in one city! And you think the same "engagement" will magically work to our advantage in C15? I don't.

This from possibly the most arrogant, belittling poster on this thread. AlfaRomeo claims the high ground. Bravo.

 

In early 2006 NWA froze the pension plan and replaced it with a DC plan that rose to 8% over a few years. NWALPA proposed a targeting of that money to give more of it to junior pilots who had the biggest gap between their frozen DB amount and what they would have received if the DB plan was never frozen. The targeting plan was a complicated actuarial exercise that had as a goal getting everyone to a $$ amount at age 60 that, when added to their frozen monthly benefit, would approximate the value of a 50% FAE pension (DB had originally been 60% FAE). This plan was voted on and passed by the NWA pilot group.

Many senior pilots at the time had a frozen DB benefit that exceeded the 50% FAE goal. Under the targeting plan those pilots therefore received $0 monthly since they had already achieved the 50% goal. More junior pilots with a large gap between their frozen DB benefit and the 50% FAE (the plan used assumptions of normal career progression) received a targeted $$ amount semi-monthly into the NWA DC plan. The amount varied according to complex actuarial calculations based on age, age at date of hire, etc.

A group of senior pilots, with frozen pension amounts already greater than the agreed goal of 50% FAE sued NWA and ALPA claiming that this plan represented age discrimination and damages to their retirement. Lots of back and forth over a long time and it was all eventually dismissed.

The prevailing view of many: They already had their $$, but also wanted other pilot's $$.

 

Ok, got it we had the same targeted type of DC plan when the DB was frozen. We had at least one lawsuit also however I believe it was over the distribution formulas for the note and claim money.