Not this one, it’s time for the company to pay up.

Honestly it should have been fixed and personally voted no so we could fix it but I was in the minority. To be fair part of the reason it was not fixed last time is the company wanted to carve out he new hires to a different retirement and the union wouldn’t entertain that.

Well here is the history on that.

06. We gained QOL and pay was increased. Grid penalties were gained. International pay was increased. Those who had been here the longest gained the most. "there was no more money left to improve the pension"

11 Bridge contract one year with another one year extension if ratified by the pilots, shocker, it was extended for the 3% pay increase. Why was the bridge contract necessary, go read the MEC chairman's letter of the 28th of DEC 10.

15 MEC did not lead and the infighting was horrendous. They tried to work with the company for mutual benefits. Pillars were not clearly established with solid goals to fight for, the NC failed to improve the pension and the MEC excepted the failure. And oh yeah, we ran out of money after spending $14.1 million. We has 418K in the MEC coffers in the end.

Six years later here we were back in '21. Your pension is now worth a lot less. In 20-30 it will be worth a lot less still. Every negotiation becomes the foundation for the next. Fix pension now or good luck in the future, you can work from $130K now or then, it is your choice.


All that said, we are worth it, and we should demand industry leading everything and our pension should be brought up to the '99 standard. IRS limits were good enough then, they should be good enough now.

You look like you are new here. In 2015, we could have fixed our A plan, and cut out the new hires. Do you prefer that we had done that? We protected your retirement in 2015, at our expense, and now you want to throw us under the bus? You are a real piece of work. You are probably one of the new hires who got right seat wide body as a new hire and are entitled.

Also, I put 25% pay raise on my survey or I am a no vote. I want the pay, and I want everyone's (including your's) retirement fixed.

You need to think before you slam the guys who have been here longer. A lot of times, it was the union leadership that made decisions, and coerced the pilots into voting yes. I have lost count of how many times I have voted no. I think the last time I vote yes was 2006 and maybe 2012 (the second year of the bridge, when it would have been stupid to vote no).

Oh, and you probably didn't have to sit sideways for 4 years, now did you?

The guys hired since 2015 have reaped immense benefits, yet are eager to throw the old guys out the door and under the crew bus.

You should be more grateful.

Absolutely unbelievable. This attitude is exactly the problem.

Irrelevant and insulting.

How so?

State specifically where I said something untrue.

What was untrue? What was irrelevant? What was insulting?

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?

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.