MEC Vote 10-4 to approve-Similar to DAL MEC
#21
#22
Also, the math is incomplete on example #1 . The "word problem" say "50% of the eligible earnings... " The example stops short of completing the "50%" part of the equation. 50% of $175,552 is $87,776. So the retiring pilot in the example will get the lesser of50% of his/her DSA ($98,098 in the example), or 50% of the "eligible earnings" ($87,776).
If you look closely, you'll see the math example begins with a pay computation for 2 years:
Pay: $286,000 x 1000 CH x 2 =
That means the pay rate is $286,000 per CH, right?
Is it too late to change my vote to YES?
Also, the Section Highlights shows this benefit as
"Company SLB of up to $110,000 at retirement."
They could have used $1,000,000 instead of $110,000 as long as it's computed as the "lesser of". With a maxed out DSA account and a $286/CH pay rate, it cannot be more than $98,098.But since there is a $110,000 limit, increased pay rates will result in an erosion of this benefit. An eligible pilot in DOS+4 will see a reduction in the benefit to only 49% of his DSA, and a pilot retiring a year later would only receive 48%.
I never cease to be amazed by their pettiness.
(And it's sad that I couldn't trust the math on the given example, but had to break out my own calculator.)
.
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 177
Surprised the MEC agreed to send this POS out for ratification. I can only guess that they are testing our resolve to see how bad we really want the contract that we deserve. If it is voted down, they will know we are unified and serious about our expectations, and so will the company...I'm ready to move to the next stage.
#24
.
#25
+1
Surprised the MEC agreed to send this POS out for ratification. I can only guess that they are testing our resolve to see how bad we really want the contract that we deserve. If it is voted down, they will know we are unified and serious about our expectations, and so will the company...I'm ready to move to the next stage.
Surprised the MEC agreed to send this POS out for ratification. I can only guess that they are testing our resolve to see how bad we really want the contract that we deserve. If it is voted down, they will know we are unified and serious about our expectations, and so will the company...I'm ready to move to the next stage.
#27
Attention to detail is really overrated, especially when it comes to contract language.
If you look closely, you'll see the math example begins with a pay computation for 2 years:
That means the pay rate is $286,000 per CH, right?
Is it too late to change my vote to YES?
[/COLOR]
If you look closely, you'll see the math example begins with a pay computation for 2 years:
Pay: $286,000 x 1000 CH x 2 =
That means the pay rate is $286,000 per CH, right?
Is it too late to change my vote to YES?
[/COLOR]
#28
155,
I must be missing your point? What kind of Professional Athlete are you? Your "Public Profile" doesn't say?
#30
It is a no for me. All I needed to see to make that decision is the pay increase and lack of retirement improvements. Fairly insulting.
New hire pay to $4000. Good for the new hires. And min $100/hr for FDA
Some of the Sec4 critical period stuff looks better.
Sec 7 Concerning vacation when awarded a VTO will be interesting to read. Now, If you bid 2, 3, 4 weeks of vacation in a month and are awarded a VTO, you get paid for all vacation days. Hopefully they didnt take that away.
Sec 8 Deviation bank looks better
Hotel cancellation bank is nice, but not much money
Sec 9 Passover pay changed, for the worse it seems; but I dont really understand it.
Sec 25 Established a 6 week bid period. I will have to look at the TA to see if we can be screwed by that.
Sec 26 No harm JS for all bases. Thats good
FDA Many improvements...which should have been in place originally.
Looks like the DSA payout screws guys that waited to retire hoping the contract would be better for them. Pathetic.
No obvious change to accepted fares-unsat
We did a bridge contract and allowed the CGN FDA stuff, which was a mistake. We cant keep up with inflation on the pay, after 6 years of negotiating and same goes for retirement.
I know that our NC put in a lot of effort on this, but after all this time we only received modest gains. And I cant wait to read the TA and see the legalese that has to be interpreted.
And, a 10-4 vote for. That tells us something too.
New hire pay to $4000. Good for the new hires. And min $100/hr for FDA
Some of the Sec4 critical period stuff looks better.
Sec 7 Concerning vacation when awarded a VTO will be interesting to read. Now, If you bid 2, 3, 4 weeks of vacation in a month and are awarded a VTO, you get paid for all vacation days. Hopefully they didnt take that away.
Sec 8 Deviation bank looks better
Hotel cancellation bank is nice, but not much money
Sec 9 Passover pay changed, for the worse it seems; but I dont really understand it.
Sec 25 Established a 6 week bid period. I will have to look at the TA to see if we can be screwed by that.
Sec 26 No harm JS for all bases. Thats good
FDA Many improvements...which should have been in place originally.
Looks like the DSA payout screws guys that waited to retire hoping the contract would be better for them. Pathetic.
No obvious change to accepted fares-unsat
We did a bridge contract and allowed the CGN FDA stuff, which was a mistake. We cant keep up with inflation on the pay, after 6 years of negotiating and same goes for retirement.
I know that our NC put in a lot of effort on this, but after all this time we only received modest gains. And I cant wait to read the TA and see the legalese that has to be interpreted.
And, a 10-4 vote for. That tells us something too.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post