mdeshazo

Just own it, you said what you said. The only two options from your comment are that you value a fast contract now, whatever that looks like, over a good contract that takes a while, or you believe there are people who value delaying a contract, regardless of its merits, for some unknown reason. If the NC had done its job we would have a good contract now. THEY have set this process back by producing the worst contract in the industry.

UnusualAttitude

What I learned today, after a legnthy discussion with a "Silent Majority" contributor, is this:

• Many near retirees view the NO voters as having mounted some personal attack against the senior pilots. The SM does not believe any of the NO voters have a legitimate complaint but firmly believe that the NO votes were purely out of spite. I reject this notion entirely.
• There is a strong desire by the SM to prove a point and while I heard a lot of looking back, I did not hear one solution for a path forward to a passable TA. There was a lot of talk about skinny jeans, the ignorance of youth, etc. but not one minute of acceptance that junior pilots have serious concerns about the future of their careers.
• I heard a complete denial that the SM is made of up of a lot of single issue voters despite this person admitting that there was not a pay rate low enough that would have caused this pilot to vote NO because he, "doesn't care about pay rates."
• There is obviously a complete lack of knowledge about the gains that other carriers have made and while this individual attempted to frame some unrealistic scenarios about other operations into the context of the purple network.
• I heard a great deal of hyperbole and broad assumptions about the attitude and concerns of junior pilots, many of these claims I have never heard despite reading social media/APC and talking to many "junior" pilots throughout the bottom 50%, which I will define as "junior." Some of these claims bordered on absurdity.
• The SM feels as though junior pilots are very entitled. I would remind anyone that is still reading that any pilot off of probation pays dues and deserves to have their opinions heard, you are paying an organization thousands of dollars a year to REPRESENT your needs and desires, this TA did not offer balance and was tilted heavily in the favor of those nearing the end of their career. Ultimately, each pilot gets one vote on a TA and must determine if it suffieciently met their goals, hopefully their goals are realistic in context. 57% of our pilots decided that TA 1.0 did not meet their goals. Voting NO was not out of a sense of entitlement. In fact, I woud counter that it is more entitled to expect or even demand that "Junior" pilots must vote YES on what they consider a substandard TA because there were gains in the one are of the contract that you care about, Sec 28.
• Many near retirees did not understand the MBCBP and don't care to learn about it. The union did a terrible job educating the crew force on how it works and how they came to their assumptions, i.e. a 6% annual return in the calculator that is not guaranteed. In fact, it is nearly impossible for most of our pilots to elect the MBCBP and retire with $169,000/yr in inflation adjusted dollars. I personally didn't have an issue with the idea of the MBCBP but I thought the amounts were too low for the plan in the TA to be considered "on-par" with pilots that elect the new FAE cap. There wasn't parity but there were some nice advantages to the MBCBP, I don't personally discount that.
• Ultimately, I heard a lot of desire to be able to say, "I told you so." I heard a senior Captain say, "I hope we do furlough. I have no appetite to save anyone from furlough by flying reduced BLG." I understand the sentiment but the desire for that to actually happen in order to secure an "I told you so" was disheartening.
• In the end I heard a lot of complaining about the the TA failing but not one inch towards attempting to understand concerns that NO voters had. I heard a complete dismissal of Sec 1 concerns despite being provided hard truth about what is happening in the network, namely in the EU. Incorrect data points were used as talking points. I heard a complete dismissal of pattern bargaining expectations, and a more personal less pragmatic approach to the past and the future. I don't find this to be productive.
• I believe most "junior" pilots want a better retirement for our "senior" pilots but deemed the lack of gains/compensation, coupled with concessions to work rules to be too great an obstacle to overcome, hence a NO vote. I have not heard of one pilot that said, "screw the old guys. I want all gains in Sec 3 and no change in Sec 28." That attitude just doesn't exist.
• If the SM wants to be a real player in TA 2.0 I would hope that they start offering real solutions, start actually listening to some of the goals of the NO voters and help forge a path forward. This is the only path to success for our group that I see. Simply hating TC and suddenly hating the way that FDXALPA is organized is not going to clear the obstacles in front of them. I think most of the SM would be very happy to hold another vote on TA 1.0 and somehow they think it would pass. It would not, in fact, it would likely fail by a larger margin than the first time.

Stan446

[QUOTE=UnusualAttitude;3728139]What I learned today, after a legnthy discussion with a "Silent Majority" contributor, is this:

So one guy is what everyone thinks, hardly.

UnusualAttitude

[QUOTE=Stan446;3728142]From what I have read from the group, coupled with this disucssion, I find that to be the general sentiment of that group. Feel free to respond with your own opinion of their goals/aspirations/general plans. Unlike my colleague, I am prepared to listen.

Nightflyer

I am a senior Block 2 guy who voted no. I do not agree with the "Silent Minority" as described above. I believe the solution is a better retirement for all, and pay rates equal to the big 3, and real retro pay.

I confess I did not study the MBCBP, because I would not have chosen it. However the gains in the A plan were not enough for me. I would have wanted to see IRS limits for FAE or at the very least over 200k and no erosion in scope and pay equal to the big 3 and real back pay to the amendable date.

Oh, and the other give backs didn't sit well with me either.

I think the way to do this, is to give the young guys a retirement that would be equal to whatever the old guys are going to get, and the choice of which plan to take. I would think, but I don't know, that a large B fund with cash over cap and each person controlling their own investment and fund would be preferable to the MBCBP.

I stopped reading about MBCBP when I realized that the interest rate was not guaranteed, and that the company would control the investments. Both were deal breakers. Even the "pancake plan", which seems really similar to MBCBP, had a "floor" interest rate.

I hope this group can come together. I don't think we can, as long as our current NC chair remains in charge. I voiced my opinion, in no uncertain terms, on both recent surveys that he should be replaced, but the "silent minority" is against that, so I am against them.

If TA 1.1 is substandard, I do not have a problem voting no again.

I would hope that the MEC is smarter this time around, but I am afraid the "silent minority" is arrogant and learned nothing from their recent poor judgement.

Yuko

Louder for those in the back.

Thanks for your “senior” vote! It took 500+ senior voters to get us to 57% with so many junior voters on probation and a second chance at a TA2.0.

My guess, we are closer to a 65-70% ratification environment when TA2.0 rolls around.

kronan

The pancake plan had a floor rate in that returns below that rate were retained by the company...all that was truly guaranteed was the notional 2% contributions. For the MBCBP, value that was guaranteed was the notional 11% contribution.

The 6.5% retirm the updated modeler projected simply mirrored the expected rate our current pension trust is forecast to return at.

There was some consternation that the actual pension trust returns, over the past year were at 5.7%. So, yes, in the absolutely worst bond market performance in like foreover...our Pension trust didn't actually return the 6.6% it's modeled at. One thing I can predict is that "we" didnt go 100% cash and the likely investment choices the various groups we have managing our current pension trust is going to have the pensiont trust performaning greater than expected over the next few years

max8222

Nice broad brush Picasso. You sure gleamed lot of information from one senior no voter. AlMost like you complied ta bunch of made up crap.as much as you can to stir up the Indians.

Almost like you complied it all yourself just to stir up the pot and cause more division in our ranks. Produce a name or it is all BS.

Big three go to $454 WB pay in Jan. What are we doing circlejerking calling each other names.

No discussion on value of B Fund 401K A plan ,the rules that govern them and the limits. No discussion on what would be a gpod replacement for the A plan if people want it. The government controls on it. How it has to be invested. The checks and balances on it.

Pension funding why you can't get all this money in your named account with control due to pension funding requirements.

tax implications, I could go on, nothing of substance.

only *****ing that the no voters are yes men. Show me some numbers that you even have half a clue. I bEt you can't. Only a bunch of made up Bs, You are pathetic

FreightFlyer91

Is this English ?

TheBear

No, it’s bourbon.