I didn’t say worthless…I said worth crap. I’ll rephrase and simply say a $169K FINAL bump is insufficient, and we know it’s a final bump because splitting all new (and some current) pilots to a different plan essentially guarantees it never gets revisited.

$130K adjusted for inflation of only 3% (optimistic) in 20 years would be $235K. How do we get there from here? Several options exist - FAE cap raise annually (even if it isn’t tied to CPI, I’d listen to 2% bump a year), B-plan increase, buyout - I’m sure there’s are other creative options. They were not presented to us, though. What we got was a sweetheart deal for the company, which they then valued at a zero dollar net change and used it to squeeze dozens of concessions out of PM.

I was at that meeting, they were on the ballot for recall.

They did. Every one of those QOL givebacke were costed out and the value taken out to get to 3.8 Billion. Alpa National has a group that is the gold standard of costing contracts. Even non Alpa carriers come to Alpa to have their contracts valued and costed out. our MEC didn't like the number so they hired another firm and they came up with the same number.

Like it or not our failed TA is valued at Delta +30%. That is the number that the mediator and the company are working with. We are going into a situation where we were offered the most money in the industry and we said no. What do you think is going to happen when we ask for another Billion or more? TC described it as moving the deck chairs around. What he failed to say was the company was moving the deck chairs on the Queen Mary not on a pontoon boat.

If the number for ending the A plan for new hires was costed out, please tell me what that number is.

That question has been asked before, but nobody seems to know the answer.

Either that, or they don't want to tell us.

In either case, us not being able to know that number is... unconscionable.

Dude. I hear you. Trying to inject reality into this discussion at this point is an exercisie in futility. If the pie gets bigger, it will happen with an associated match in the money we've lost (and the company has gained) from TA 1.0 to whatever comes out of the next process. Every month that goes by is a huge gain for the company. Anyone who thinks we can place the additional cost of retro pay (or whatever it's labeled) on the company that results from OUR collective decision to throw this TA back into the hopper is delusional.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be happy to end up with a TA that doesn't have some of the give backs in TA 1.0. But it's gonna cost. We'll end up paying for EVERY single negative we kept out of the end document. The scope bogey man needs to die. The "wet lease us out of jobs" is a fools concern. If someone starts talking to you about that as an actual threat then nod, move away and label them an idiot. The biggest issue is belly freight. If the company's plan is to use less of our own purple lift to move freight, then that's what they're gonna do. We're not going to be successful in getting scope language into our TA that stops that from happening. How much are your willing to give up and at what price for unenforceable language in a TA that doesn't stop the company from doing whatever they want extra-terrirorially? Point at Atlas or UPS language all you want, but it's very likely the only reason they agreed to that CBA language is that their plans for the future meshed with the CBA. They didn't want to do what the CBA said they couldn't do. It's easy to agree to CBA language that doesn't restrict your plans for the future. Win-win. That's Atlas and UPS. If FedEx has other plans for the extra-territorial environment or belly freight, they're gonna do what they want and they're NEVER gonna agree to language that limits their ability to run the airline the way they choose. They love control and they have a lot of airplanes that are paid for and available for our pilots to fly. It's more expensive to wet lease airplanes to fly our freight and reliablity goes way down. So, come up with a doomsday scenario that involves a wet lease scenario to fly our freight domestically, but it's going to be difficult to take you seriously when your actually crunch the numbers.

😂😂😂
You two clowns are hilarious. Keep juggling delusions and fear, because you’ve already dropped reason and conviction.

so where am I wrong

Precisely. The rumor that it was assigned a zero dollar value has come from many sources - conversations with MEC reps, cockpit chatter and, yes, online. I’m aware that not all rumors are true, but our MEC has a bad recent history of negative rumors (concessions, inflation-lagging pay rates, SM shenanigans, etc.) being true.

The reason I’m convinced we got zero dollar credit specifically for the A-plan sunset is BECAUSE the MEC refuses to address it after it’s been brought up so many times. The silence speaks volumes.

No 31% to just replace the A Plan.

Future contracts can have bumps in the B fund or in the MCBP to keep up with inflation. Seems pilots with 20+ years to go want their retiring contract now. Of course the costing of extending out the cost of this is going to show big numbers in the value of the contract.

Simple math says 39,000 X 4 = 156,000 X 5808 (number of pilots on MSL) = 906,048,000. Our aplan increase cost 900 Million bucks. Delta and United got a 2% increase in their retirement. They got a huge increase in Pay and a small increase in retirement, we got a huge increase in retirement and a half of their increase in pay.

In my opinion as a 23 year fedex guy, if you want Delta payrates we need to take money out of retirement.