You forgot the smilies…. That’s what people usually put at the end to let people know they are being sarcastic!

 

Wrong on both statements. It was in the TA if you read it (clearly you didn't). The MBCBP increases with IRS limits: I'll make it easy, I even made it bold in case you can't read through an entire paragraph>>>>>Summary: The MBCBP Pension is the definition of sustainable and actually increases with the IRC 401 limit. If our current pension had this, the entire issue would have been moot. More=Better, Sustainable=Indexes up with your income.

From the joint council meeting a few weeks ago, they showed us the survey results: News flash! The TA was not rejected for retirement...that's what was explained in our meeting.(Scope and Pay were ranked the highest).

7. Benefit Accruals
a. Benefit Accruals under the MBCBP shall equal Compensation Credits
plus Interest Credits.
b. Compensation Credits under the MBCBP shall be 11% of
Compensation. Compensation Credits will be credited at least quarterly.
A Compensation Credit based on a Pilot’s Compensation for the period
will be credited as of the last day of that period or as of the pilot’s benefit
commencement date, if earlier.
c. Compensation shall be as defined in the Pension Plan, except as
follows:
i. Compensation used to determine Compensation Credits shall be
subject to the compensation limit under Code §401(a)(17), as
indexed.

 

Was Scope sold for our TA 1.0 retirement gains?

Are we still maintaining that the MBCB Plan is better, but wouldn’t have given our, possibly irrational, future new hires a choice ?

What about R16, Student Lines, VBB and other QOL scheduling concessions we traded?

Is everyone now saying (admitting) the quiet part out loud?

An Interesting Negotiation mindset - that we must sell in order to achieve. I think that’s what led us to this division.

Let’s try TRUE Unity instead.

VR,
DLax

 

I don't remember being asked on the survey how we voted on the TA. Was that a question? If not, then there is no way to know why what the top items were for the no voters. They can only know the items least liked by those that took the survey. Also, if there was a question on how you voted, then results also require an honest answer to the vote question. I thought the survey was leading in many place and certainly would not give an very accurate percentage scale on many of the questions. It was not a weak and the previous survey but still lots of poor question phrasing.

 

Please define “sustainable”?

I think you’re taking the company’s perspective.

Why is the company willing to index the MBCB Plan cap to 401(a)(17) limits, but unwilling to index our current A plan to those exact same limits instead.

I think I (we) understand why, but I’m genuinely interested in your perspective.

What specific gains does the company make by switching to a MBCB Plan ?

(Note: It’s would have been mandatory for all future pilots. Zero choice)

What did the company trade us for getting these gains?

VR,
DLax

p.s. In capitalism, everything has a market clearing price. Everything. TA 1.0 just didn’t reach it

 

cap (ˈkap)

a real or imaginary point beyond which a person or thing cannot go // a cap on player salary expenditures was suggested as a way to keep small market teams competitive

Synonyms

bound, boundary, ceiling, confines, end, extent, limit, limitation, line, termination

 

Dude. I think you need to sift through the information a little more deliberately.

From the latest LEC 26 communication:

During the recent chaos, we have been working. Our two recent surveys, as well as in-person focus meetings, have identified the four areas that need to be re-addressed from the baseline of the TA. Here are two slides from the data.

1. Pay and compensation, including the Amendable Period Recovery Payment
2. Retirement
3. Scope
4. QOL items
5. Medical freedoms are a show-stopper for some and likely not costly to incorporate.

These are the issues left to “crystalize and compact” by your MEC.

100% said Pay and Compensation was #1. Over 80% saying retirement was #2. Of those 80%, more than 40% said retirement needed major improvements. Another 40% said it needed minor improvements.

 

Nope. You're misapplying it. Two separate graphs shared. One was the priorities of the next TA, with retirement being #2 behind pay and compensation. The next graph was of those 5 (Pay, retro, retirement, scope, QOL), what requires the most improvement from TA1. Retirement was #5 in that graph.

 

I take your point, but I don’t think I am. I’ll give you an example based on the graphs.

Retro is number one on graph two. If the company raises retro to $125K/$85K, that would address the major changes requested. But if they don’t add cash over cap to the new MBCBP, then we are headed to another no vote.

Flip the roles and let’s say we get 25% MBCBP with cash over cap and retro is bumped up to $50K/$35K. That will easily pass. You have to take in account the priority in graph 1 and weight it with the the desire for major/minor changes. Retirement is a behemoth. If you get massive retirement and massive pay rates, then the retro becomes less significant even though it polled highly for major changes. Just my opinion. You’re free to disagree.

 

Retirement wasn't perfect, but I don't think it's the reason it failed. The graph seems to show that. We fix pay/retro to industry leading, get rid of the QOL concessions, alleviate scope concerns, and I think retirement is fine. Of course, I'll take more money in retirement, but if I had a choice, I'd prefer more in the DC side instead of increasing beyond the 11% in MBCBP.