FreightFlyer91

In what world are you living in that you think there wouldn't be MEC recalls when they voted 14-1 to send a terrible TA to the pilot group that didn't even come close to meeting the goals ? They were obviously way way way out of touch with the pilot group. Even the people I know that voted for the TA admitted that it was a terrible deal. They did what was in their best interest and I don't fault them for that. But don't act like it was even a reasonable deal. Have some self respect.

Yuko

^^^^^^this

Tuck

You can't be this obtuse.

ALPA Legal did NOT approve it - nor has he ever said they did...publicly. There's a reason for that. They didn't - his supporters like to say it was approved by legal with zero evidence whatsoever.

He posted tons of information he got only off of company data - LCA list (not public ever), phone numbers and names from VIPs - full names were not initally used and CT got them from a backwards search off of VIPs well either he did or someone else got them from VIPs for him - but he posted it. Yes he clearly violated Company rules.

The idea that this is some sort of management ploy to punish this guy is just absurd.

CactusMan

If you didn’t immediately process the TA as junior (concessions in scope, pay, QOL, split retirement, etc) vs senior (pension bump), then you clearly didn’t read the TA or it’s summary. Quit blaming other pilots for our fractured union and start looking at PM, the SM and others holding on to something (a cozy relation with mgmt) that’s simply no longer there.

max8222

I viewed the TA as a whole, The pension bump has been needed for a long time. We gave up a lot to keep the A plan in place and not have a separate retirement for new hires in 2015. I did not like the give ups on training lines, and other give backs that should not have been included. The R 24 to R 16 was not that big of an issue. The scope all of a sudden became a big boogy man. I do not think many pilots here really understand scope and how it really pertains to our operations.

The A plan was improved for all pilots on the seniority list in the TA. No one on the seniority list was going to be forced out of it. However the MCBP was woefully lacking in funding by the company. When I fly with pilots that do not want an A plan they cannot even give me the numbers of it's value plus the how our current 9% B fund works. Can't give me IRS caps for both either. They just say they want Delta 18% and cash over cap. They would be giving up a lot of money taking that.

They want control over the MCBP, by law it is a pension and tax deferred and the company has to manage it. Otherwise it would be just like the B-Fund.

I could go on and on but the biggest problem with our crew force is the lack of knowledge on our contract and how the different areas affect us. I just flew with a guy that has been here 6 years and didn't know the difference between a hard time trip and a trip rig or how our block over 8 and ten is paid out and what is included in the original trip BLG and what you need to fly to get the rest.

So you can lecture me and say I don't know what the TA was about and how it affected the different groups. I think I have a lot better understanding of it than a big portion of the keyboard warriors.

CactusMan

That makes two of us, and thanks for providing some actual details, fellow keyboard warrior.

I concur the pension bump was long overdue, but you gloss over the fact that it’s the last one ever (even multiple MEC reps admitted as much) due to split retirement plans/priorities among the pilot force, let alone an insufficient bump after 24 years. TA1 retirement changes force the middle half of the crew force into a sh!t decision - lackluster A-plan bump that’ll be worth crap in 20+ when I retire or settle for the poorly thought out MBCBP.

Yet the biggest failure of the retirement negotiations was the acceptance of a zero valuation for sunsetting the A-plan to new hires, which has come out after the fact and has not been denied by a single MEC member. We hear the value is “too hard to calculate due to so many variables” so we accept the company’s A-plan exit as a zero dollar win for them? PM and the MEC got hoodwinked on that one. Pay some actuaries to come up with reasonable estimates for what we gave up in section 28 and apply that to the $3.8B number they touted…it’s gonna go way down. PM got played.

All those section 28 “gains” above justify concessions throughout essentially every other section of the contract? I can agree with bits and pieces (R24/16, for example) not being that major but some were. Student lines and their second/third order effects on VTO lines are getting the attention they deserve.

I agree that more people need to educate themselves on the details of our work rules and contract relative to our peers. That said, one need not know every detail to realize TA1 failed to deliver on retirement reform, pay rates, expense updates or needed QOL changes (SUB, Dev banks, expense reporting) while containing far more concessions than any of our peer groups recently gave up. PM and his team simply failed, and the more we kick the can down the road replacing him the longer we’ll wait for a respectable contract.

max8222

When you say an the A plan even with the bump will not be worth anything in 20+ years, lets ask some questions. Do you think that $130K a year now is worthless now? We have had the same number for 26 years. So move the $169K a year 25 years ahead. Do you think it will be worthless?

The value that needs to be captured in sunsetting the A plan is in the bump for current pilots and the true value of its replacement. The replacemnt needs to be as good or better than the A plan plus our current 9% B fund. My rough numbers value those two together at 31% contributions by the company in the MCBP. Starts to get difficult for wide body captains because you reach caps and start to pay a lot in taxes.

When you start making over $600K a year taxes become a big problem. We are W-2 earners and get crushed. I have a few business and go for every deduction I can and I still get hammered. I use one of the top CPA firms on the west coast so they know what they are doing and capture everything they can for me.

Our peer groups were in a better bargaining position than we are currently. Their companies needed contracts to keep the planes moving. Ours not so much.

DLax85

31%-9% = 22%

Are you stating that the MBCB Plan would need to be 22% for future new hires to be equivalent to the A plan with higher caps?

....meaning the 11% negotiated in TA1.0 would need to be doubled?

Thanks for clarifying.

VR,
DLax

100 Continue

He was placed on NOQ status? Reason?

Emmerson Bigs

NOQ is a paid status. So, his trips were pay protected. Sounds like "they" really showed him.
Although I have to waive the BS flag on it even happening. Punitive changes to qualification status? Doubtful.