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.

 

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.

 

You are correct...except for the fact that my anniversary is in early December and my wife and I had travel plans for that as well. That is where I put my golden days. She would have been more upset at me for missing that outing than the Christmas trip.

And it still goes back to "why?" Why should a guy in the top third of a large category have to choose between an important block of days in the early part of any month versus the late part of any month...especially since the company failed to schedule him in both the early and base month. Actually, that is exactly the question we asked at the Scheduling Optimization Team, which is what resulted in the much improved bidding for CQ system we have now.

In fact ever since I have always gotten exactly the sim session I bid for. In fact, since I live in ATL, and am now modestly senior, I have decided that I will first bid CQ patterns that are in the OC-3--much easier to find a parking spot than over at OC1/2! I guess I am pretty spoiled now....

 

This is what I received.

 

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant that it must not be allowed to happen again. From recent discussions with my reps, and from what I understand went down at the LOA 14-01 ratification meeting, it won't be.

That said, these "appointed admins" work at the pleasure and direction of the MEC Chairman. It is he who gives them their marching orders, both in terms of substance and in terms of style.

 

Clearly, we can only control the election of our own reps. To the extent that happens, we are then hopefully happy with the results. They must then work together to elect an MEC Chairman in whom we can all place our trust, and who will in turn appoint an administration equally worthy of our trust.

The committee members with whom I've had direct contact over the years, e.g., CA, R&I, Scheduling, are all great guys who work very hard to keep the Company on the straight and narrow with respect to contract compliance. I have noticed no agenda other than the above, and I applaud their efforts and willingness to serve their fellow pilots.

I must say that I have a tendency to assume the best in people, and that may well by why I am spring-loaded to take a person at his word until and unless there is a direct and specific reason not to. I see these guys as fellow pilots first and as folks who are willing to go above and beyond the requirements of that job for the betterment of all.

 

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!)

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

 

A raise in the DC contribution is as good or better then a regular raise. Depending on income you get it tax free or as straight income or some combination. That's one reason your not seeing pilots who retained their DB plans leaving. The raise on 1 Jan 14 was as high as 18 percent for some depending on DB income accrued.

 

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

 

Which is smart on the MEC's part and the method used in most negotiations. The opener exchanged at the start of negotiations is in fact conceptual. Only when they exchange term sheets in individual sections do they normally get detail oriented.