No one left behind!
11-20-2023 | 03:31 PM
#31
On Reserve
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 47
Likes: 6
It is hard to tell how TA2.0 will turn out. I do not want a TA1.1 (increase pay rates, tidy scope and keep TA1.0).
We have work to do on retirement package, pay rates, retro, scope language and those efficiencies that are really qol givebacks.
You said NO for splitting the pension with the pancake plan.
We said NO for a substandard deal during the most profitable time in our history.
We said NO for the first time ever under ALPA
It is time we gear up for NO for leaving a single member behind for retirement since amenable date.
I believe if our Union Leadership make the hard choice (with our input) to pursue no one left behind it would be truly industry leading and a first. It would also get more senior MSL members on board with a strategy for a TA2.0 vs 1.1. Lastly, it will start to address the penalty free zone we reward the company with for lengthy section 6.
This a long game not just for the near retiree, but to set a precedent for the junior MSL force (50%+ hired in the last ~6 years). You have your list, I have mine.
But, until the new surveys arrive save some room on it for true no one left behind since amenable date for retirement bump and true retro that appropriately rewards what we consistently bring to the table.
Add: the 300 retirees grow to over 500 by end of 2024. Let us not be willing to give the company a pass on ~10% of our current MSL.
Email your reps!
We have work to do on retirement package, pay rates, retro, scope language and those efficiencies that are really qol givebacks.
You said NO for splitting the pension with the pancake plan.
We said NO for a substandard deal during the most profitable time in our history.
We said NO for the first time ever under ALPA
It is time we gear up for NO for leaving a single member behind for retirement since amenable date.
I believe if our Union Leadership make the hard choice (with our input) to pursue no one left behind it would be truly industry leading and a first. It would also get more senior MSL members on board with a strategy for a TA2.0 vs 1.1. Lastly, it will start to address the penalty free zone we reward the company with for lengthy section 6.
This a long game not just for the near retiree, but to set a precedent for the junior MSL force (50%+ hired in the last ~6 years). You have your list, I have mine.
But, until the new surveys arrive save some room on it for true no one left behind since amenable date for retirement bump and true retro that appropriately rewards what we consistently bring to the table.
Add: the 300 retirees grow to over 500 by end of 2024. Let us not be willing to give the company a pass on ~10% of our current MSL.
Email your reps!
A union has a fiduciary duty to negotiate for all current members. A union cannot negotiate for a retired former member, at the expense of current members. No negotiating capital can be expended on non-members. It seems the only way would be to provide a retro payment for those who have retired during the amendable period.
11-20-2023 | 05:20 PM
#32
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 325
Likes: 17
I hear what you are saying, but the union will be sued in a New York minute if they give up anything for the benefit of someone who is retired. They would lose too.
A union has a fiduciary duty to negotiate for all current members. A union cannot negotiate for a retired former member, at the expense of current members. No negotiating capital can be expended on non-members. It seems the only way would be to provide a retro payment for those who have retired during the amendable period.
A union has a fiduciary duty to negotiate for all current members. A union cannot negotiate for a retired former member, at the expense of current members. No negotiating capital can be expended on non-members. It seems the only way would be to provide a retro payment for those who have retired during the amendable period.
Put me in the group “push to test on that theory”.
Until suit and/or judgement on that suit, no one left behind will be on my list. We have no problem negotiating for new hires as “non-members”.
I don’t know what best instrument to capture the idea but there are enough smart folks/resources here that we could find a way if the membership request support for it.
11-20-2023 | 06:06 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,201
Likes: 32
From: 4A2FU
I hear what you are saying, but the union will be sued in a New York minute if they give up anything for the benefit of someone who is retired. They would lose too.
A union has a fiduciary duty to negotiate for all current members. A union cannot negotiate for a retired former member, at the expense of current members. No negotiating capital can be expended on non-members. It seems the only way would be to provide a retro payment for those who have retired during the amendable period.
A union has a fiduciary duty to negotiate for all current members. A union cannot negotiate for a retired former member, at the expense of current members. No negotiating capital can be expended on non-members. It seems the only way would be to provide a retro payment for those who have retired during the amendable period.
FX ALPA has historically negotiated retro pay for members who have retired or resigned, though for some reason we decided to reward the company even more this round by not asking for retro for those who have resigned.
UA ALPA, DL ALPA, SWAPA, and many other airline unions do the same for their retirees and even those fired/resigned/etc and their retro payments are pensionable too.
11-20-2023 | 09:55 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
I'll bet 1000$ the TA we eventually sign does NOT have retro retirement (back to amenable date). Anyone want to take my bet?
Why are we even pretending this is going to happen. I wish it would be I am 100% sure it wont.
Why are we even pretending this is going to happen. I wish it would be I am 100% sure it wont.
11-20-2023 | 10:11 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,201
Likes: 32
From: 4A2FU
If we don't pursue retro retirement, we will be rewarding the company yet again for dragging negotiations out, and that is not in the best interest of the membership.
11-20-2023 | 11:06 PM
#36
On Reserve
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 47
Likes: 6
This is factually incorrect.
FX ALPA has historically negotiated retro pay for members who have retired or resigned, though for some reason we decided to reward the company even more this round by not asking for retro for those who have resigned.
UA ALPA, DL ALPA, SWAPA, and many other airline unions do the same for their retirees and even those fired/resigned/etc and their retro payments are pensionable too.
FX ALPA has historically negotiated retro pay for members who have retired or resigned, though for some reason we decided to reward the company even more this round by not asking for retro for those who have resigned.
UA ALPA, DL ALPA, SWAPA, and many other airline unions do the same for their retirees and even those fired/resigned/etc and their retro payments are pensionable too.
11-21-2023 | 08:10 AM
#38
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
I don't think there would be strong opposition to separate plans if done the right way and given choices. Obviousely NC plan needs to go to self controlled and cash over cap. The A plan going forward would have to have built in cap increases like the Big B plan option by linking it to something like the B plan cap.
Something I rarely see mentioned is something I think could work with respect to the A plan - Increase the age to something like 62 for full pension benefits. I think a super majority of our pilots already work to at least this age. I know there are some who go earlier, but everyone I seem to fly with goes to at least 62. By increasing the retirement age for the full retirement, the cost to improve the A plan would go way, way down. You can play around with annuity calculators and see that increasing the age would open up major money for lots of contract improvements. The NC never showed the math on the billions in retirement improvements and I'm certain it would have been fuzzy math if they did. I know there would be a few earlier reitrees who would be giving something up, but again, I think the number is very small compared to the reward. Just something I think is worthy of being explored.
Something I rarely see mentioned is something I think could work with respect to the A plan - Increase the age to something like 62 for full pension benefits. I think a super majority of our pilots already work to at least this age. I know there are some who go earlier, but everyone I seem to fly with goes to at least 62. By increasing the retirement age for the full retirement, the cost to improve the A plan would go way, way down. You can play around with annuity calculators and see that increasing the age would open up major money for lots of contract improvements. The NC never showed the math on the billions in retirement improvements and I'm certain it would have been fuzzy math if they did. I know there would be a few earlier reitrees who would be giving something up, but again, I think the number is very small compared to the reward. Just something I think is worthy of being explored.
11-21-2023 | 10:24 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2023
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
I don't think there would be strong opposition to separate plans if done the right way and given choices. Obviousely NC plan needs to go to self controlled and cash over cap. The A plan going forward would have to have built in cap increases like the Big B plan option by linking it to something like the B plan cap.
Something I rarely see mentioned is something I think could work with respect to the A plan - Increase the age to something like 62 for full pension benefits. I think a super majority of our pilots already work to at least this age. I know there are some who go earlier, but everyone I seem to fly with goes to at least 62. By increasing the retirement age for the full retirement, the cost to improve the A plan would go way, way down. You can play around with annuity calculators and see that increasing the age would open up major money for lots of contract improvements. The NC never showed the math on the billions in retirement improvements and I'm certain it would have been fuzzy math if they did. I know there would be a few earlier reitrees who would be giving something up, but again, I think the number is very small compared to the reward. Just something I think is worthy of being explored.
Something I rarely see mentioned is something I think could work with respect to the A plan - Increase the age to something like 62 for full pension benefits. I think a super majority of our pilots already work to at least this age. I know there are some who go earlier, but everyone I seem to fly with goes to at least 62. By increasing the retirement age for the full retirement, the cost to improve the A plan would go way, way down. You can play around with annuity calculators and see that increasing the age would open up major money for lots of contract improvements. The NC never showed the math on the billions in retirement improvements and I'm certain it would have been fuzzy math if they did. I know there would be a few earlier reitrees who would be giving something up, but again, I think the number is very small compared to the reward. Just something I think is worthy of being explored.
Two years less of an annuity would save some money, but nothing earth shattering.
Financial math to TA1 retirement is fairly simple actually. Check out an annuity calculator. Or use excel for the MBCBP. Spoiler, no one was lying about the value added.
TA1’s retirement wasn’t perfect. But it was solid. But not good enough to make up for the shortcomings elsewhere.
TA1 sold out for the pension increase and yet again people keep asking for even more pension. Please don’t waste more time on the pension and let’s try to get paid today for our services.
And it’s not “the NC plan”. It’s guidance given by the MEC. Read the openers for this contract negotiation.
11-21-2023 | 10:57 AM
#40
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Disagree completely about the stated value added to pension on TA1 and also the effects of an age increase. If you delay taking the current A plan for a year after retirement, I think you get an 8% increase for each year delayed. I'm willing to bet the NC and company are using age 60 retirement in their value added numbers. Seems to me that simply changing the age should result in significant pension gains.
The current B plan has a form of cola by being tied the IRS number. If we have 2 plans going forward, there will have to be some type of inflation adjustment for those remaining on the A plan because the B plan has one. You can't leave those of us with 10+ years to go with the same cap as someone retiring next year.
I'm not saying this is a perfect solution, but the gains are bigger than you are making them out to be. I'm for whatever gives everyone on property gains and instead of just those leaving in the next few years.
The current B plan has a form of cola by being tied the IRS number. If we have 2 plans going forward, there will have to be some type of inflation adjustment for those remaining on the A plan because the B plan has one. You can't leave those of us with 10+ years to go with the same cap as someone retiring next year.
I'm not saying this is a perfect solution, but the gains are bigger than you are making them out to be. I'm for whatever gives everyone on property gains and instead of just those leaving in the next few years.
Last edited by Sloper; 11-21-2023 at 11:41 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
