Originally Posted by Herkflyr (Post 1693510)

So could I! I agree that our pay rates are far too low. I think we disagree more on the method than the goal. All of our reps and negotiators live and get paid by this contract as well. I think that the compounded effects of lots of modest improvements on a fairly regular basis are more effective in the very long run than holding out for one big improvement, that you eventually get, but had to wait a long time for. You disagree. That's fine.

One thing about all the work rule improvements is that in my opinion, we don't need to expend much negotiating capital to improve what has recently already been improved. Now we can focus more of our efforts on pay, retirement contributions, and health care costs.



True. I only mentioned this at all because the original post briefly touched on 117 degrading his quality of life (though I do not agree). Obviously neither the company nor union brought that about.



Nope--only that money isn't everything. The example I always give is the one of the last times I had CQ the old way. My base month was November, and I wasn't scheduled for CQ in either October or November. I had Christmas plans to visit family out in Texas. Want to guess when I was scheduled for CQ? Back to back A period sims (which I hate) on December 26 and 27. Yep, the two days after Christmas, in the 86th and 87th day of my 90 day window. The rest of my family still traveled. I got to stay home and go to the sim at 5 am--and this while I was top third in a big category (ATL 7ERB).

Why? Why did we tolerate a system (for decades) where the company decided when even the #1 pilot in a category attended CQ, rather than letting him or her bid via their seniority? "Because that's just how it is." All the C2K payrates in the world didn't prevent my holiday plans from being hosed due to an antiquated system of scheduling training. As it is, I am very glad we changed things, added vacation slide (I've brought that up so many times I'm becoming boring), positive space for deviating from DH on both sides of the trip (when I got hired we didn't have it for either, then we got it for end of trip, but not for the beginning, and now we have it on both sides).


So, no I am not claiming that our improved work rules make up for huge pay cuts (though we are nowhere near the depths of 2005) but it does not have to be an either-or equation either.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1693514)

I much prefer the new system however you could have saved your holiday plans by taking 30 seconds and designating them as golden days for training.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1693415)

We have no idea what our opening position for C2012 was.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1693418)

Why can't that happen again? I'd love to believe that, but what changed to specifically disallow it in the future?

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1693418)

The big house cleaning wasn't so much the MEC chairman and two of the negotiators, it was the appointed admins. Those guys were the really bad actors at the road shows with the fear campaign. They were the ones that worked so hard to portray the TA as a fait accompli to the reps and demanded their support.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1693423)

I do mistrust a few sitting reps and that's for very good and proven reasons. The vast majority of our current reps I do trust. It is that awful MEC administration that I don't trust and that is also for very good and proven reasons. The safety chairman and a few others are great guys, but the rest I have no trust in whatsoever.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1693474)

That's an excellent question.

From my perspective, I think our retirement is fine as is. With the company 15% contribution and claim/note/equity combined with the power of the BrokerageLink within our DPSP, I should have an income in retirement that is comparable if not more than what I would have had with the pension.

I think our focus should be on increasing our W2. Remember that the company contribution is a PERCENTAGE of whatever we make. Increase our PAY, and the increase to our retirement benefit takes care of itself.

In terms of restoration... yes, we did lose a lot of "value" with the loss of the pension. I have no problem with being compensated for that but prefer for that compensation to be in the form of additional pay.

I figure between the pay cuts and the loss of pension, I've probably contributed around $100K/year for the past 10 years to Delta's recovery from its financial crisis. That's $1 million. Pretty nice "contribution" huh? And I'm not suggesting I should be repaid for that. Just fix our contribution going forward. Make it right from this point forward and I'll call it even. I think that's more than reasonable.

Originally Posted by shiznit (Post 1693546)

Denny, Scambo, DAL88, and gzsg,

Great thoughts from the group, and it's significant that "more percentage" in the 401k isn't as big a thing to the group (not that we wouldn't still like it)since the rising rates and 415c limit is a factor for a number of captains (I'd like it to be a factor for FO's too!).

With higher rates that multiply onto W2's it will do the work needed like DAL88 says. Would a 16-18%? 401k count toward the goal of "rates" restoration in the future then or not? It is another way to hide it from other employee groups, yet like Denny says it is just another line of his taxable income once the 415c limit is reached that is part of our W2's.

My math says 18.25% above 2015 to equal 2004 rates (for 7ERB).

As a purely hypothetical example let's say we somehow do something similar to C12 (but in a better way!): 6.5% early/9.5% on amendable/ 4%/4% (with no PS change) and another 2% into the 401k... That is a combined raise on the amendable date of 18.95%, or does 401k play no role in the restoration for you?

(I'm not allowed to include any PS talk in the "restoration equation", thanks 80!:p)

Would that meet one of your thresholds gzsg? (We need other stuff fixed, but this discussion is about Section 3 and 26)

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1693528)

This is what I received.

Originally Posted by Carl Spackler (Post 1693563)

I remember it well because there were hundreds of posts here that resulted from this memo from the MEC administration. It was NOT our opener. Not even close. It was a recap of goals that the MEC apparently had. The real rub was the blatant lie stated in the preamble of your attached PDF that stated: "Like most openers (including the Delta pilots’ opener for C2K), it is broadbased and conceptual in nature." The MEC was taking a lot of heat for their decision to not release the opener...ever. The lie came from the fact that all openers are a detailed list of what both sides want - right down to the percentages of pay you are asking for, etc. Great detail on both sides. They are NEVER broad based or conceptual. Never.

My reps were disgusted that this was how the MEC administration responded to the demand of pilots getting to see what we were asking for in our opener. The MEC administration kept its promise and never released the opener. They'll undoubtedly do the same for C2015.

Carl