New MEC Sales Video
03-21-2018, 11:23 AM
#341
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 FO FDX, C130 ANG
Posts: 538
Originally Posted by Miso
Today’s missive from the Union:
“We have received the arbitrator's decision pertaining to Grievance 16-01 (Deadheading/Flat Bed Seat provision). Unfortunately, the arbitrator sided with the Company. The arbitrator based his ruling largely on the Company's reading of language in the agreement despite the fact that extensive evidence of bargaining history, including the 2015 ALPA Negotiating Committee Chairman's explanation of the overall function of the language, was provided during the proceeding. We assure you that this outcome will be given due consideration as we formulate plans for bargaining in the future.”
Once again the Union bungles the language in the Contract and ultimately, we lose...Playing checkers when the Company is playing chess...
This “disconnect” has occurred on numerous occasions. Unfortunately it has become the new norm, and we have been trained to accept it...Are we going to allow these same negotiators to negotiate away what is a certainty, our current pension, in exchange for a VARIABLE Benefit Retirement Plan?...
The VB plan simply leaves too much to “interpretation” and market variables...Is the Union going to send out a similar letter to us at some point in the future announcing that what is left of our Pension has been cut by a third due to “market fluctuations” and an Arbitrator’s decision? It sickens me to consider this possibility.
Our Union couldn’t negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag.
Please consider hiring professional negotiators instead of hiring “consultants” pushing their own agenda.
“We have received the arbitrator's decision pertaining to Grievance 16-01 (Deadheading/Flat Bed Seat provision). Unfortunately, the arbitrator sided with the Company. The arbitrator based his ruling largely on the Company's reading of language in the agreement despite the fact that extensive evidence of bargaining history, including the 2015 ALPA Negotiating Committee Chairman's explanation of the overall function of the language, was provided during the proceeding. We assure you that this outcome will be given due consideration as we formulate plans for bargaining in the future.”
Once again the Union bungles the language in the Contract and ultimately, we lose...Playing checkers when the Company is playing chess...
This “disconnect” has occurred on numerous occasions. Unfortunately it has become the new norm, and we have been trained to accept it...Are we going to allow these same negotiators to negotiate away what is a certainty, our current pension, in exchange for a VARIABLE Benefit Retirement Plan?...
The VB plan simply leaves too much to “interpretation” and market variables...Is the Union going to send out a similar letter to us at some point in the future announcing that what is left of our Pension has been cut by a third due to “market fluctuations” and an Arbitrator’s decision? It sickens me to consider this possibility.
Our Union couldn’t negotiate their way out of a wet paper bag.
Please consider hiring professional negotiators instead of hiring “consultants” pushing their own agenda.
Anyone tired of our current union leadership and negotiating team yet?? I am, RECALL NOW!!!
03-21-2018, 03:22 PM
#342
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,052
Man, I sure get a lot less pis*ed off when I don’t visit APC.
It’s all been said on this thread regarding this idiotic push from our MEC and NC to be the first pilot group to ever negotiate away a pension and exchange it for a second B plan.
And now, our lost arbitration on lie flat seats - which people like Albie, fdxlag and Kronan on here were confident would go by the “intent” of the document, because our NC Chair said so. To be fair, more of the blame there lies on SL, but the remainder of the responsibility is on those who voted yes on our vague-language, concessionary contract. You get what you sold, and you get what you voted for.
I only have one eloquent, insightful, and classy comment, which will add zero value to the thread regarding the push to get rid of our A plan: FU*K YOU ALPA!!!
It’s all been said on this thread regarding this idiotic push from our MEC and NC to be the first pilot group to ever negotiate away a pension and exchange it for a second B plan.
And now, our lost arbitration on lie flat seats - which people like Albie, fdxlag and Kronan on here were confident would go by the “intent” of the document, because our NC Chair said so. To be fair, more of the blame there lies on SL, but the remainder of the responsibility is on those who voted yes on our vague-language, concessionary contract. You get what you sold, and you get what you voted for.
I only have one eloquent, insightful, and classy comment, which will add zero value to the thread regarding the push to get rid of our A plan: FU*K YOU ALPA!!!
Last edited by CloudSailor; 03-21-2018 at 03:42 PM.
03-21-2018, 03:34 PM
#343
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by cloudsailor
man, i sure get a lot less pis*ed off when i don’t visit apc.
It has all been said on this thread, and now on our lost arbitration on lie flat seats (which people like fdxlag and kronan on here were confident would go by the “intent” of the document - to be fair, the blame there squarely lies on sl, the nc chair who repeated that over and over regarding 1st class/lie flat new section of 2015 cba).
I only have one eloquent, insightful, and classy comment, which will add zero value to the thread regarding the push for a vb plan and our latest lost arbitration: Fu*k you alpa!!!
It has all been said on this thread, and now on our lost arbitration on lie flat seats (which people like fdxlag and kronan on here were confident would go by the “intent” of the document - to be fair, the blame there squarely lies on sl, the nc chair who repeated that over and over regarding 1st class/lie flat new section of 2015 cba).
I only have one eloquent, insightful, and classy comment, which will add zero value to the thread regarding the push for a vb plan and our latest lost arbitration: Fu*k you alpa!!!
03-21-2018, 04:41 PM
#345
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Some Monster thread drift,
but Okay
I am Not looking forward to reading the Arbitrator's judgement. Can NOT even begin to fathom how he (or she) can read the history\past practice\negotiating notes\testimony from SL and somehow, some convoluted way decide Regardless of what the following Paragraph says Business is the Equivalent of the highest Class of Service available on a particular flight.
"Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s
deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the
highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled
deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight"
So, Regardless of what I think, an Arbitrator has decided that there is apparently NO value in that Paragraph, so it escapes me why it was even published in the first place.
As to VB plan, gets tiring arguing with people who think a Defined Benefit Plan is exactly like our current Defined Compensation plan, aka The B plan.
But here's a Clue. A Defined Compensation plan does NOT have guaranteed payouts for your life (and Beneficiaries life should you so desire).
A Defined Benefit is Also NOT subject to the same Compensation Limits. The Only Limits on a Defined Benefit Plan are whether or not it's a qualified plan. For 2018, the Qualified Pension limit is 220k. So, our 130k is easily within qualified limits now.
So, do the Math, if we had tagged our FAE to IRS limits in 2006, our FAE would be 440k now.
And I have Agreed with TonyC that improving our FAE would result in Better results than the Proposed VB plan. I just think it's Unlikely that the Same Company who Hasn't shared any of the Tax Cut benefits with us, and whose Unwilling to Credit the Deviation bank of Intl flyers with the Highest Fare available on a flight...is going to somehow agree to what should be a 70% increase in our FAE limits to restore the value of our A plan to a level that would Still be below 1999 limits
but Okay
I am Not looking forward to reading the Arbitrator's judgement. Can NOT even begin to fathom how he (or she) can read the history\past practice\negotiating notes\testimony from SL and somehow, some convoluted way decide Regardless of what the following Paragraph says Business is the Equivalent of the highest Class of Service available on a particular flight.
"Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s
deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the
highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled
deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight"
So, Regardless of what I think, an Arbitrator has decided that there is apparently NO value in that Paragraph, so it escapes me why it was even published in the first place.
As to VB plan, gets tiring arguing with people who think a Defined Benefit Plan is exactly like our current Defined Compensation plan, aka The B plan.
But here's a Clue. A Defined Compensation plan does NOT have guaranteed payouts for your life (and Beneficiaries life should you so desire).
A Defined Benefit is Also NOT subject to the same Compensation Limits. The Only Limits on a Defined Benefit Plan are whether or not it's a qualified plan. For 2018, the Qualified Pension limit is 220k. So, our 130k is easily within qualified limits now.
So, do the Math, if we had tagged our FAE to IRS limits in 2006, our FAE would be 440k now.
And I have Agreed with TonyC that improving our FAE would result in Better results than the Proposed VB plan. I just think it's Unlikely that the Same Company who Hasn't shared any of the Tax Cut benefits with us, and whose Unwilling to Credit the Deviation bank of Intl flyers with the Highest Fare available on a flight...is going to somehow agree to what should be a 70% increase in our FAE limits to restore the value of our A plan to a level that would Still be below 1999 limits
03-21-2018, 06:01 PM
#346
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by kronan
Some Monster thread drift,
but Okay
I am Not looking forward to reading the Arbitrator's judgement. Can NOT even begin to fathom how he (or she) can read the history\past practice\negotiating notes\testimony from SL and somehow, some convoluted way decide Regardless of what the following Paragraph says Business is the Equivalent of the highest Class of Service available on a particular flight.
"Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s
deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the
highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled
deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight"
So, Regardless of what I think, an Arbitrator has decided that there is apparently NO value in that Paragraph, so it escapes me why it was even published in the first place.
As to VB plan, gets tiring arguing with people who think a Defined Benefit Plan is exactly like our current Defined Compensation plan, aka The B plan.
But here's a Clue. A Defined Compensation plan does NOT have guaranteed payouts for your life (and Beneficiaries life should you so desire).
A Defined Benefit is Also NOT subject to the same Compensation Limits. The Only Limits on a Defined Benefit Plan are whether or not it's a qualified plan. For 2018, the Qualified Pension limit is 220k. So, our 130k is easily within qualified limits now.
So, do the Math, if we had tagged our FAE to IRS limits in 2006, our FAE would be 440k now.
And I have Agreed with TonyC that improving our FAE would result in Better results than the Proposed VB plan. I just think it's Unlikely that the Same Company who Hasn't shared any of the Tax Cut benefits with us, and whose Unwilling to Credit the Deviation bank of Intl flyers with the Highest Fare available on a flight...is going to somehow agree to what should be a 70% increase in our FAE limits to restore the value of our A plan to a level that would Still be below 1999 limits
but Okay
I am Not looking forward to reading the Arbitrator's judgement. Can NOT even begin to fathom how he (or she) can read the history\past practice\negotiating notes\testimony from SL and somehow, some convoluted way decide Regardless of what the following Paragraph says Business is the Equivalent of the highest Class of Service available on a particular flight.
"Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s
deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the
highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled
deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight"
So, Regardless of what I think, an Arbitrator has decided that there is apparently NO value in that Paragraph, so it escapes me why it was even published in the first place.
As to VB plan, gets tiring arguing with people who think a Defined Benefit Plan is exactly like our current Defined Compensation plan, aka The B plan.
But here's a Clue. A Defined Compensation plan does NOT have guaranteed payouts for your life (and Beneficiaries life should you so desire).
A Defined Benefit is Also NOT subject to the same Compensation Limits. The Only Limits on a Defined Benefit Plan are whether or not it's a qualified plan. For 2018, the Qualified Pension limit is 220k. So, our 130k is easily within qualified limits now.
So, do the Math, if we had tagged our FAE to IRS limits in 2006, our FAE would be 440k now.
And I have Agreed with TonyC that improving our FAE would result in Better results than the Proposed VB plan. I just think it's Unlikely that the Same Company who Hasn't shared any of the Tax Cut benefits with us, and whose Unwilling to Credit the Deviation bank of Intl flyers with the Highest Fare available on a flight...is going to somehow agree to what should be a 70% increase in our FAE limits to restore the value of our A plan to a level that would Still be below 1999 limits
You’re absolutely correct, the company won’t be willing to increase the A Plan. If you leave up to them, they won’t be willing to give any future cola or pay raise either. But if the crew force stick together and fight for what they’ve earned and work hard for, the company will get the message and will have no choice but to come to some agreement. That great job thanks for the best peak year in and year out is not enough. The crew force needs to demand more.
03-21-2018, 09:53 PM
#347
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by kronan
A Defined Benefit is Also NOT subject to the same Compensation Limits. The Only Limits on a Defined Benefit Plan are whether or not it's a qualified plan. For 2018, the Qualified Pension limit is 220k. So, our 130k is easily within qualified limits now.
Here's a clue. The new plan is a VARIABLE BENEFIT, not a Defined Benefit plan. Did you watch the modeler video. In that video the NC specifically said that compensation was limited to the 401(a)(17) limits. It is between the 3 and 4 minute mark.
You also said earlier that the MEC said that they would walk away if the company didn't agree to the minimums that the models were based on. Again, which communication was that stated in?
03-22-2018, 07:11 AM
#348
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by pinseeker
Hey Kronan,
Here's a clue. The new plan is a VARIABLE BENEFIT, not a Defined Benefit plan. Did you watch the modeler video. In that video the NC specifically said that compensation was limited to the 401(a)(17) limits. It is between the 3 and 4 minute mark.
You also said earlier that the MEC said that they would walk away if the company didn't agree to the minimums that the models were based on. Again, which communication was that stated in?
Here's a clue. The new plan is a VARIABLE BENEFIT, not a Defined Benefit plan. Did you watch the modeler video. In that video the NC specifically said that compensation was limited to the 401(a)(17) limits. It is between the 3 and 4 minute mark.
You also said earlier that the MEC said that they would walk away if the company didn't agree to the minimums that the models were based on. Again, which communication was that stated in?
So maybe, the FAE Cap in a Variable BENEFIT plan could be tied to the 1000 WB Capt Rate TonyC thinks should be the minimum for our Traditional BENEFIT plan which is currently tied to a static FAE Cap Below the 401(a)(17) limits.
Here's another CLUE. The IRS DC Contribution limit is a Total of 55k. Think THAT might have merited at least a mention in the discussions of altering our Pension plan. Here's some more numbers for you.
55k minus the 18.5 401k contribution is 36.5k minus the B Fund 8% of 22k gets you to 14.5k.
Think you can accumulate anywhere close to the numbers presented in the video on 14.5k a Year
03-22-2018, 07:21 AM
#349
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Boy,
there are Times I really Love the Internet. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
The Same people who argue our 3% pay raise isn't really a pay raise because the real rate of Inflation is 7% tell me that when I use a 2.5% future rate of inflation to indicate the VB models predicted pension for todays 35 yr old newhire isn't a huge windfall tell me that the rate of Inflation is Too High because Inflations be running below 2% for years and it's an unrealistic assumption
So which is it? Inflations running at 2% so our 3% is a 1% gain, or is our 3% not even a COLA.
Can't be both
there are Times I really Love the Internet. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
The Same people who argue our 3% pay raise isn't really a pay raise because the real rate of Inflation is 7% tell me that when I use a 2.5% future rate of inflation to indicate the VB models predicted pension for todays 35 yr old newhire isn't a huge windfall tell me that the rate of Inflation is Too High because Inflations be running below 2% for years and it's an unrealistic assumption
So which is it? Inflations running at 2% so our 3% is a 1% gain, or is our 3% not even a COLA.
Can't be both
03-22-2018, 07:37 AM
#350
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by kronan
Here's a Clue. Watch it Again. Say's the FAE cap is assumed to be tied to the 401 (a)(17) Limits. But again, that's subject to NEGOTIATION.
So maybe, the FAE Cap in a Variable BENEFIT plan could be tied to the 1000 WB Capt Rate TonyC thinks should be the minimum for our Traditional BENEFIT plan which is currently tied to a static FAE Cap Below the 401(a)(17) limits.
Here's another CLUE. The IRS DC Contribution limit is a Total of 55k. Think THAT might have merited at least a mention in the discussions of altering our Pension plan. Here's some more numbers for you.
55k minus the 18.5 401k contribution is 36.5k minus the B Fund 8% of 22k gets you to 14.5k.
Think you can accumulate anywhere close to the numbers presented in the video on 14.5k a Year
So maybe, the FAE Cap in a Variable BENEFIT plan could be tied to the 1000 WB Capt Rate TonyC thinks should be the minimum for our Traditional BENEFIT plan which is currently tied to a static FAE Cap Below the 401(a)(17) limits.
Here's another CLUE. The IRS DC Contribution limit is a Total of 55k. Think THAT might have merited at least a mention in the discussions of altering our Pension plan. Here's some more numbers for you.
55k minus the 18.5 401k contribution is 36.5k minus the B Fund 8% of 22k gets you to 14.5k.
Think you can accumulate anywhere close to the numbers presented in the video on 14.5k a Year
It’s only a 5.7% increase over the current A plan limit. (We have some negotiation skills, right?)
No need to get rid of the “High 5”
No need to get rid of a truly Defined Benefit for a Variable Benefit
No need to take investment risk in BOTH of our retirement plans
No need to worry that the “hurdle rate” we negotiate will be adequate/fair/reasonable in the future
No need to assume the stock & bond markets will behave as they have in the last 20 years
No need to worry that the retirement fund will underperform in the first few years right after you retire (...the most critical)
No need to freeze the A plan
No need to figure out how disability will work
No need to assume zero breaks in service
No need to assume a specific upgrade timeline
No need to figure out how new guys with less than 5 years, who are not currently vested in our A plan, will be treated.
No need to divide the crew force
No need to OPEN UP ANY of this new verbiage to an ARBITRATORS interpretation in the future
KISS Principle please!!
I simply don’t see the company agreeing to WB Capt Pay x 1,000 hours. It’s just too big of a jump. They will argue vehemently that it’s too expensive.
The MEC isn’t even showing us VB models based on that.
We know the company wants an ALL B plan like the pax carriers have
We shouldn’t accept that
We can work to improve our current A plan marginally & permanently by indexing it to the 401(a)(17) limits, and push the B plan up another 50%....from 8% to 9%...to 13% and stay within the IRS limits there too.
We could pursue “cash over cap” in the B fund
We may be able to get some small YOS multipliers increases for those who choose to work beyond 25 YOS, but I wouldn’t expect those to be 2%
Let’s research broadly & think critically.
The ending of the most recent video was very troubling and telling.
It was doom & gloom - it was the VB plan or bust!
I think there are many more options and a much better middle ground
In Unity (for All),
DLax
Last edited by DLax85; 03-22-2018 at 08:01 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
