Originally Posted by DLax85

Keep thinking - you’ll figure those things out.

Is being “not against” the same as being “for”?

Is this “double edge sword” sharp on either side, or dull on both? …like yours always seems to be.

The idea that our pilot group is, or should be, afraid to stand up for ourselves has proven to be untrue - especially among the younger guys.

Unity and fortitude will be required all the way to the end zone.

I post to present data, information & some insight, and to hopefully promote useful discussion & debate. Useful meaning an actual position or solution is ultimately articulated.

Your motivation and goals appear different.

VR,
DLax

Originally Posted by FXLAX

I made no judgements on what rates to use. I was simply trying to make the point that it doesn't matter that we can upgrade at 5 years and UPS cannot. Rates are rates and they should be industry standard at the very least regardless of how many pilot would be at the 5 year captain pay rate. We don't choose the fleet nor can control pilot age/retirement demographics which are the driving factors in upgrade time.

But if I was going to make the case, it would be that our previous contracts banded all of our WBs to everyone else's top paying aircraft. That's why our WB pay rate has been about the same as everyone else's 777 even though those other airlines had lower pay rates for their 767s and A300. So why does management get to make the convinient argument that it should be different now? In reality, we've had three pay rates: WB + BKO (777,MD11), WB (767,A300), & NB (757,737). If there was going to be a change (other than maybe a single blended rate ala IPA), it would be to band the 757 to our WB rate just like industry standard, WB rate meaning everyone else's top paying aircraft, just as in the past.



Industry standard also includes profit sharing of 10% pre-tax up to $2.5B and 20% pre-tax above $2.5B, and cash over cash, and 8 holiday pay days, and retro of 4/4/14/first pay raise, and snap up provisions, and training pay of 5 hours a day, and full B fund contributions during LTD, and no cap on LTD, and no offsets on LTD, and 1:3.5 duty rig, and hotels during CQ and sub, and scope that protects extraterritorial flying and belly freight assurances. That doesn't include reserve rules and I can keep going on other items as well. How much far behind do we have to get before you stop using the PBS excuse? The fact we are line bidding is one of about three things we may be ahead on.

Originally Posted by max8222

I use PBS as a quick example and the two of you run off on a tangent like I said I would trade your new born to keep PBS.

My friend is on the LEC at Delta and spent man hours duing their TA talking to pilots in their crew room and on the phone about the contract. So I assumed he was a good source.

Originally Posted by JustInFacts

Look at pay rate history. In 2000, the big pax carriers had huge contracts that dwarfed ours. UAL, for example, had their 777 captains getting $316 per hour in 2004. DAL's 777 rate was $320. How long did it take for us to get to that level? After all the bankruptcies, we became the lead by default. So no, our WB were not always tied to others 777 rates. Between the bankruptcies and 2016, UPS and us were the leaders. For example, DAL top 777 rate in 2006 was $186 while our MD11 rate, soon to be our 777 rate, was $225.

Now, just to clarify BKO, you do know that BKO isn't limited to the 777 and MD11. We have 767 trips that get BKO. There is nothing in the contract that limits BKO to any specific aircraft.

Which of these legacy airlines currently have B funds? I thought that their full retirement plan was a DC plan. And you might want to check how they determine the amount to contribute to that DC plan. With our A plan, you get funded while in LTD. If you hit your high 5 in the first 7 years of work, and then go out on LTD for 20+ years, you still get the full DB (A plan) benefit. The only reason that these plans were ever refered to as A and B plans is because the DB (A) plan was the primary retirement mechanism and the DC (B) plan was a secondary mechanism meant to make up for mandatory retirement before you could collect SS and medicare benefits. That history seems to have gotten lost.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Someone should be once the pay rate comparison tables for the 2006 and 2011 TAs and it showed our WB rates more or less in line with everyobody else's top pay rates. And I understand that that was more becuase others went through bk and came down. Which makes my point even stronger. We never went through bk so why shouldn't we keep up with other's top pay rates when they have had to go through bk?

Originally Posted by FXLAX

Lastly, AA/DA/UA all contribute 17% to their pilots' 401k. Its their equivalent of us getting years of servicee when we are on LTD. And they get 17% while on LTD. And their LTDs have no offsets.

Originally Posted by FXLAX

My point in all this Ive posted on this thread is, lets not argue on behalf of management. They certainly don't need the help. Lets focus on arguments FOR increases and different areas.

Originally Posted by JustInFacts

Prior to the bankruptcies, UAL and DAL had 777 rates that were $50-$60 per hour more than our top WB rates. After the BK's, we were about $30-$50 per hour higher until 2016, when DAL, UAL, and AA all took the lead again by about $30 per hour. So to say that our WB rates have alway been tied to the highest pax rates simply isn't true.

Originally Posted by JustInFacts

Prior to the bankruptcies, UAL and DAL had 777 rates that were $50-$60 per hour more than our top WB rates. After the BK's, we were about $30-$50 per hour higher until 2016, when DAL, UAL, and AA all took the lead again by about $30 per hour. So to say that our WB rates have alway been tied to the highest pax rates simply isn't true.

Yes, there are offsets, at least in DAL's contract. It's right there in section 26.

No one is arguing on management's behalf. If you don't think they can come up with these ideas themselves, then you are underestimating our opponent. By discussing their potential stances to our request for industry standard, hopefully we can avoid shooting ourselves in the foot.

Originally Posted by Viper25

They furloughed. And unfurloughed because of the bailout. And the pilots got back pay.

Delta sent furlough letters and would’ve done the same thing if not for an 11th hour LOA and the government bailout.

The American furlough during COVID wasn’t actually a furlough. It was a threat of furlough that didn’t truly happen, despite a tiny gap between (repaid) unemployment and the bailout. If the bailout by chance happened to be slightly earlier, that gap wouldn’t exist at all and they’d be the same as Delta (not furloughing).


The fact that American’s furlough “failed” is actually what proves my entire point anyway.