Delta’s New Pay Scale
03-03-2023, 07:55 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
So the attitude of "screw the old guys" is ok with you? How's that going to help unity?
I might add that in 2015, new hire pay rates were increased, while retirement was not. So once again, new hires benefitted, at the expense of our retirement.
You got yours, but you want to screw the old guys out of the retirement that they earned? And then you say I have an attitude problem? Your attitude is exactly the problem, not mine.
Retirement needs to be fixed. Pay rates need to be fixed. What's wrong with fighting for both?
I might add that in 2015, new hire pay rates were increased, while retirement was not. So once again, new hires benefitted, at the expense of our retirement.
You got yours, but you want to screw the old guys out of the retirement that they earned? And then you say I have an attitude problem? Your attitude is exactly the problem, not mine.
Retirement needs to be fixed. Pay rates need to be fixed. What's wrong with fighting for both?
The new guys haven’t had a chance to shoot down a contract yet. The old guys have had three opportunities to fix the pension. 2006, 2011, and 2015. But instead of holding the line to do it, they rolled over and voted yes on the first offer each time. You even admitted to voting yes on some of those awful deals.
Why should the new guys accept more concessions, or even a deal that's worth less than what all of us deserve in order to give the old guys a golden parachute pension bump when the old guys voted yes on concessionary and substandard contracts in 06, 11, and 15?
The old guys have had some of the best careers of any of their peers in the industry (especially the last 2-3 years, holy crap. Nothing like making peanuts on first year pay sitting next to a guy who's too cheap to grab the van tip for the newbie but happy to show you his pay stub that shows $500k YTD income and it's not even June yet) and now they want to choke the golden goose on their way out and leave the new guys with the corpse… any concession is ok as long as they get their pension.
No junior guy wants to “screw” the old guys, but we sure as hell don’t want to sacrifice the future to fund the retirement of the guys who were too feckless to improve it the last three contracts either. We’d all love to see all of us get a better retirement plan, but unlike the old guys we’re not interested in trading away the few work rules we have left in order to achieve that. Nor are we willing to accept pay rates that don’t lead the industry by a mile to achieve that.
And nobody owes you gratitude for not allowing the pilot group to be divided by two different retirement plans in 2015. You didn’t go above and beyond by doing that, that was literally the minimum expectation and you barely met it.
Whatever happened to leave a place better than you found it? Don’t throw a match on the squadron on your way out?
No new guy has “gotten theirs” yet. Not even close. They’re still trying to recover from training pay which, even at $4000/mo is less purchasing power than you had when it was $2000/mo.
You’re delusional.
Also your time on the panel is 100% irrelevant.
Last edited by threeighteen; 03-03-2023 at 08:07 AM.
03-03-2023, 08:07 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,377
Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude
The irrelevant/insulting part is thinking that somehow because one's first position at Purple wasn't Flight Engineer that they somehow aren't entitled to an opinion. It would be like me saying, "if you didn't spend the first four years in the gooney bird droning around with no radar or deicing equipment then count yourself lucky and take what you get son." Contract 2015 created the largest systematic seniority abrogation in Purple history. I think there is value in educating new hires that went directly to the 777 about what life is like for domestic flyers but it's not their fault that they took a position offered to them as a new hire. You lose the argument when you start trying to poke holes at the person you are communicating with by suggesting that their point of view isn't valid solely because the career paths don't look exactly the same.
The retirement needs to be fixed, pay rates need to be fixed. Perhaps if they did a good job on retirement, people might retire early, and the young guys can advance more quickly.
Why do the young guys have to continually say, "screw the old guys", "they should have fixed retirement before" like it is our fault it wasn't fixed? That's all I am trying to say.
Also, no one seems to give any props to those of us that said in 2015, "don't screw the new hires out of the A plan". NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE THAT WE PROTECTED YOU, AND YET YOU WANT TO THROW US UNDER THE BUS. That is my primary beef with the young guys.
Again, they should be more grateful. We could have fixed our retirement, and screwed them, but we didn't. Now they want to screw us. That is a bad attitude on their part, not mine.
Also, not one of the young guys, or the MEC gives a damn about retro-retirement, which should be equally as important as retro pay. Why is that? Because "I've got mine" works both ways.
They are setting themselves up for more delays during the next contract negotiations, because they are not being fair to the guys who have retired since the amendable date, but again, no one seems to care. We need leadership that is smart enough to think long term, and that has never happened here, at least as far as the union is concerned.
The company is laughing at us, and it is time for that to stop.
03-03-2023, 08:18 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,377
Originally Posted by threeighteen
You’re turning the classic “screw the new guys, I need to get mine” argument around and putting it on the new guys.
The new guys haven’t had a chance to shoot down a contract yet. The old guys have had three opportunities to fix the pension. 2006, 2011, and 2015. But instead of holding the line to do it, they rolled over and voted yes on the first offer each time. You even admitted to voting yes on some of those awful deals.
Why should the new guys accept more concessions, or even a deal that's worth less than what all of us deserve in order to give the old guys a golden parachute pension bump when the old guys voted yes on concessionary and substandard contracts in 06, 11, and 15?
The old guys have had some of the best careers of any of their peers in the industry (especially the last 2-3 years, holy crap. Nothing like making peanuts on first year pay sitting next to a guy who's too cheap to grab the van tip for the newbie but happy to show you his pay stub that shows $500k YTD income and it's not even June yet) and now they want to choke the golden goose on their way out and leave the new guys with the corpse… any concession is ok as long as they get their pension.
No junior guy wants to “screw” the old guys, but we sure as hell don’t want to sacrifice the future to fund the retirement of the guys who were too feckless to improve it the last three contracts either. We’d all love to see all of us get a better retirement plan, but unlike the old guys we’re not interested in trading away the few work rules we have left in order to achieve that. Nor are we willing to accept pay rates that don’t lead the industry by a mile to achieve that.
And nobody owes you gratitude for not allowing the pilot group to be divided by two different retirement plans in 2015. You didn’t go above and beyond by doing that, that was literally the minimum expectation and you barely met it.
Whatever happened to leave a place better than you found it? Don’t throw a match on the squadron on your way out?
No new guy has “gotten theirs” yet. Not even close. They’re still trying to recover from training pay which, even at $4000/mo is less purchasing power than you had when it was $2000/mo.
You’re delusional.
Also your time on the panel is 100% irrelevant.
The new guys haven’t had a chance to shoot down a contract yet. The old guys have had three opportunities to fix the pension. 2006, 2011, and 2015. But instead of holding the line to do it, they rolled over and voted yes on the first offer each time. You even admitted to voting yes on some of those awful deals.
Why should the new guys accept more concessions, or even a deal that's worth less than what all of us deserve in order to give the old guys a golden parachute pension bump when the old guys voted yes on concessionary and substandard contracts in 06, 11, and 15?
The old guys have had some of the best careers of any of their peers in the industry (especially the last 2-3 years, holy crap. Nothing like making peanuts on first year pay sitting next to a guy who's too cheap to grab the van tip for the newbie but happy to show you his pay stub that shows $500k YTD income and it's not even June yet) and now they want to choke the golden goose on their way out and leave the new guys with the corpse… any concession is ok as long as they get their pension.
No junior guy wants to “screw” the old guys, but we sure as hell don’t want to sacrifice the future to fund the retirement of the guys who were too feckless to improve it the last three contracts either. We’d all love to see all of us get a better retirement plan, but unlike the old guys we’re not interested in trading away the few work rules we have left in order to achieve that. Nor are we willing to accept pay rates that don’t lead the industry by a mile to achieve that.
And nobody owes you gratitude for not allowing the pilot group to be divided by two different retirement plans in 2015. You didn’t go above and beyond by doing that, that was literally the minimum expectation and you barely met it.
Whatever happened to leave a place better than you found it? Don’t throw a match on the squadron on your way out?
No new guy has “gotten theirs” yet. Not even close. They’re still trying to recover from training pay which, even at $4000/mo is less purchasing power than you had when it was $2000/mo.
You’re delusional.
Also your time on the panel is 100% irrelevant.
You can see the rest of my explanation above.
Also, if the retirement is fixed, the young guys will benefit as well. How is that "screwing the young guys" by fixing the retirement? I would say that is leaving the place better than you found it, as you want.
I don't want any concessions either. I never said we should give anything up to fund the retirement, so don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
You will have your chance to vote no. Let's see if you use it.
03-03-2023, 08:20 AM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
OK, I'll buy that, but there are an awful lot of new hire right seat wide body types who have zero appreciation for those that had to pay their dues in lower paying seats. How do fix that particular attitude? A lot of these same folks say "screw the old guys" every chance they get, and it is getting tiresome. The retirement wasn't fixed for multiple contracts, as it should have been. We are here because our union leadership failed us. How is that my fault? I voted "no" plenty of times, and I am willing to do so again.
The retirement needs to be fixed, pay rates need to be fixed. Perhaps if they did a good job on retirement, people might retire early, and the young guys can advance more quickly.
Why do the young guys have to continually say, "screw the old guys", "they should have fixed retirement before" like it is our fault it wasn't fixed? That's all I am trying to say.
Also, no one seems to give any props to those of us that said in 2015, "don't screw the new hires out of the A plan". NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE THAT WE PROTECTED YOU, AND YET YOU WANT TO THROW US UNDER THE BUS. That is my primary beef with the young guys.
Again, they should be more grateful. We could have fixed our retirement, and screwed them, but we didn't. Now they want to screw us. That is a bad attitude on their part, not mine.
Also, not one of the young guys, or the MEC gives a damn about retro-retirement, which should be equally as important as retro pay. Why is that? Because "I've got mine" works both ways.
They are setting themselves up for more delays during the next contract negotiations, because they are not being fair to the guys who have retired since the amendable date, but again, no one seems to care. We need leadership that is smart enough to think long term, and that has never happened here, at least as far as the union is concerned.
The company is laughing at us, and it is time for that to stop.
The retirement needs to be fixed, pay rates need to be fixed. Perhaps if they did a good job on retirement, people might retire early, and the young guys can advance more quickly.
Why do the young guys have to continually say, "screw the old guys", "they should have fixed retirement before" like it is our fault it wasn't fixed? That's all I am trying to say.
Also, no one seems to give any props to those of us that said in 2015, "don't screw the new hires out of the A plan". NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE THAT WE PROTECTED YOU, AND YET YOU WANT TO THROW US UNDER THE BUS. That is my primary beef with the young guys.
Again, they should be more grateful. We could have fixed our retirement, and screwed them, but we didn't. Now they want to screw us. That is a bad attitude on their part, not mine.
Also, not one of the young guys, or the MEC gives a damn about retro-retirement, which should be equally as important as retro pay. Why is that? Because "I've got mine" works both ways.
They are setting themselves up for more delays during the next contract negotiations, because they are not being fair to the guys who have retired since the amendable date, but again, no one seems to care. We need leadership that is smart enough to think long term, and that has never happened here, at least as far as the union is concerned.
The company is laughing at us, and it is time for that to stop.
How is it not your fault when you and your age group ratified 3 different contracts that didn't fix the pension?
How do you not see your own delusion?
03-03-2023, 08:25 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 909
Originally Posted by Greenhorn
that pushes us to a 28% increase DOS. I fly with plenty of senior folks who still think 12-16% is acceptable “as long as retirement is fixed” whatever that means.
Clarification, we need to look at the WHOLE contract and its impact to the ENTIRE pilot group. But that ain’t gonna happen.
Last edited by magic rat; 03-03-2023 at 08:44 AM.
03-03-2023, 08:27 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Position: Wichita
Posts: 682
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
The company is laughing at us, and it is time for that to stop.
03-03-2023, 08:31 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 795
My responses are in bold lettering.
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
OK, I'll buy that, but there are an awful lot of new hire right seat wide body types who have zero appreciation for those that had to pay their dues in lower paying seats. How do fix that particular attitude? A lot of these same folks say "screw the old guys" every chance they get, and it is getting tiresome. The retirement wasn't fixed for multiple contracts, as it should have been. We are here because our union leadership failed us. How is that my fault? I voted "no" plenty of times, and I am willing to do so again.
The retirement needs to be fixed, pay rates need to be fixed. Perhaps if they did a good job on retirement, people might retire early, and the young guys can advance more quickly. Very unlikely and not something that anyone should count on.
Why do the young guys have to continually say, "screw the old guys", "they should have fixed retirement before" like it is our fault it wasn't fixed? That's all I am trying to say. I have not heard anyone say that. No one is saying "screw the old guys." Maybe that is what you are hearing but that is not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is that there is a feeling that nearly every contractual issue has been ignored in the name of Retirement benefit increases. Most of the "young guys" would like to have seen a more balanced approach to negotiations. There is a denial about the widening gap between Purple and the rest when it comes to work rules and QOL and that isn't being addressed. I think the "young guys" feel like some of their concerns should have been addressed. Scope is maybe issue number 1 that has been totally ignored by this MEC/NC. I think there should be some understanding that the "young guys" want their future protected.
Also, no one seems to give any props to those of us that said in 2015, "don't screw the new hires out of the A plan". NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE THAT WE PROTECTED YOU, AND YET YOU WANT TO THROW US UNDER THE BUS. That is my primary beef with the young guys. My opinion is that every contract stands on it's on. I understand what you are saying and I don't really disagree with you. I think that asking the "young guys" to willingly and perhaps gleefully accept QOL and work rule concessions along with ignoring Scope improvements in the name of increased Retirement benefits is an unrealistic expectation.
Again, they should be more grateful. We could have fixed our retirement, and screwed them, but we didn't. Now they want to screw us. That is a bad attitude on their part, not mine. There was more to the story than, "we forwent retirement fixes just for you to have a retirement." The reality is that having a B-scale has long been problematic for ALPA and others because it starts a divide before the next round of negotiations even begins. The way you describe the history of the retirement plan and forgoing improvements as some charitable give to those coming behind you is not rooted in facts.
Also, not one of the young guys, or the MEC gives a damn about retro-retirement, which should be equally as important as retro pay. Why is that? Because "I've got mine" works both ways. I am personally in favor of retro-retirement and retro-pay for anyone who retired after the amendable date of the contract. I think you have a great idea and I would support that as a negotiated benefit. I would hope that would gain support of a large majority of our pilot group. To this point, this has not been asked for by any ALPA carrier to my knowledge. Let's be the first.
They are setting themselves up for more delays during the next contract negotiations, because they are not being fair to the guys who have retired since the amendable date, but again, no one seems to care. We need leadership that is smart enough to think long term, and that has never happened here, at least as far as the union is concerned. Your definition of fair and mine are not the same. I agree with you about lack of vision.
The company is laughing at us, and it is time for that to stop.
The retirement needs to be fixed, pay rates need to be fixed. Perhaps if they did a good job on retirement, people might retire early, and the young guys can advance more quickly. Very unlikely and not something that anyone should count on.
Why do the young guys have to continually say, "screw the old guys", "they should have fixed retirement before" like it is our fault it wasn't fixed? That's all I am trying to say. I have not heard anyone say that. No one is saying "screw the old guys." Maybe that is what you are hearing but that is not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is that there is a feeling that nearly every contractual issue has been ignored in the name of Retirement benefit increases. Most of the "young guys" would like to have seen a more balanced approach to negotiations. There is a denial about the widening gap between Purple and the rest when it comes to work rules and QOL and that isn't being addressed. I think the "young guys" feel like some of their concerns should have been addressed. Scope is maybe issue number 1 that has been totally ignored by this MEC/NC. I think there should be some understanding that the "young guys" want their future protected.
Also, no one seems to give any props to those of us that said in 2015, "don't screw the new hires out of the A plan". NO ONE SEEMS TO CARE THAT WE PROTECTED YOU, AND YET YOU WANT TO THROW US UNDER THE BUS. That is my primary beef with the young guys. My opinion is that every contract stands on it's on. I understand what you are saying and I don't really disagree with you. I think that asking the "young guys" to willingly and perhaps gleefully accept QOL and work rule concessions along with ignoring Scope improvements in the name of increased Retirement benefits is an unrealistic expectation.
Again, they should be more grateful. We could have fixed our retirement, and screwed them, but we didn't. Now they want to screw us. That is a bad attitude on their part, not mine. There was more to the story than, "we forwent retirement fixes just for you to have a retirement." The reality is that having a B-scale has long been problematic for ALPA and others because it starts a divide before the next round of negotiations even begins. The way you describe the history of the retirement plan and forgoing improvements as some charitable give to those coming behind you is not rooted in facts.
Also, not one of the young guys, or the MEC gives a damn about retro-retirement, which should be equally as important as retro pay. Why is that? Because "I've got mine" works both ways. I am personally in favor of retro-retirement and retro-pay for anyone who retired after the amendable date of the contract. I think you have a great idea and I would support that as a negotiated benefit. I would hope that would gain support of a large majority of our pilot group. To this point, this has not been asked for by any ALPA carrier to my knowledge. Let's be the first.
They are setting themselves up for more delays during the next contract negotiations, because they are not being fair to the guys who have retired since the amendable date, but again, no one seems to care. We need leadership that is smart enough to think long term, and that has never happened here, at least as far as the union is concerned. Your definition of fair and mine are not the same. I agree with you about lack of vision.
The company is laughing at us, and it is time for that to stop.
03-03-2023, 08:31 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,090
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
My time on the panel is not irrelevant. It took me 8 years to get to right seat wide body pay, then I was stagnated for 5 years (plus one more for the over 60 guys jumping back ahead of me) before I could hold Captain. How is that irrelevant when we are comparing careers to people who went straight to the right seat of a wide body? Again, the entitled youngsters, who were handed right seat wide body pay as a new hire have zero appreciation for those that went before them.
Newhires today can get hired into the right seat of widebody at DL, UA, etc... That's the new industry norm. They've paid their dues flying RJs. Did you ever have to fly an RJ for foodstamps? Probably not.
Also, if the retirement is fixed, the young guys will benefit as well. How is that "screwing the young guys" by fixing the retirement? I would say that is leaving the place better than you found it, as you want.
You will have your chance to vote no. Let's see if you use it.
03-03-2023, 08:32 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,377
Originally Posted by threeighteen
So now you're saying you voted no several times? Because earlier you said you voted yes and you would have been stupid not to, even though those deals didn't fix retirement. You didn't care about fixing retirement in 2006 or 2011, and now you're ****ed because new guys now don't care about it as much as you do?
How is it not your fault when you and your age group ratified 3 different contracts that didn't fix the pension?
How do you not see your own delusion?
How is it not your fault when you and your age group ratified 3 different contracts that didn't fix the pension?
How do you not see your own delusion?
I don't see "my own delusion" because I voted no several times, but not always.
The MEC and the NC committee are responsible for what was in the TA's. I only got to say yes or no, and I voted no plenty of times.
Even if retirement is fixed, but the pay rates are insulting, I will not hesitate to vote no again!
Why don't you want to see the retirement fixed, if not to spite the old guys?
Why does this have to be young vs. old?
03-03-2023, 08:34 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,377
Originally Posted by threeighteen
If you had been anywhere else in the industry you would have been furloughed. your personal bad timing doesn't give you a better platform to pontificate from. If anything you should be grateful for that time on the panel instead of being furloughed.
Newhires today can get hired into the right seat of widebody at DL, UA, etc... That's the new industry norm. They've paid their dues flying RJs. Did you ever have to fly an RJ for foodstamps? Probably not.
Don't get me wrong, we're absolutely excited to see the retirement fixed and would love to see retro retirement (and retro everything) become the new standard for all negotiations, but work rules, pay, QOL are equally important and we're not going to sacrifice those just to give a certain group their golden parachute retirement.
Maybe you can join us in voting no to make up for your "yes" votes earlier this century.
Newhires today can get hired into the right seat of widebody at DL, UA, etc... That's the new industry norm. They've paid their dues flying RJs. Did you ever have to fly an RJ for foodstamps? Probably not.
Don't get me wrong, we're absolutely excited to see the retirement fixed and would love to see retro retirement (and retro everything) become the new standard for all negotiations, but work rules, pay, QOL are equally important and we're not going to sacrifice those just to give a certain group their golden parachute retirement.
Maybe you can join us in voting no to make up for your "yes" votes earlier this century.
As I have stated several times. No concessions, and if there are concessions, I will vote no.
I will also vote no if we don't get pay rates at least equal to or better than Delta.
How many times do I have to say this?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
