Maybe, but then again maybe it's SCOPE - Delta really likes outsourcing. Then again those QOL asks are expensive too. I understand you are willing to fold on retirement. I only have a few years left but I am not willing to fold on anything. I will not benefit from it, however I am disappointed in the attitude that you display to those who came before you. You seem to think we are the enemy, you are wrong.

I don't view voting no based on MCBP as a fold.

I view it as a I'm not taking a plan that the union claims is optional that IRS regs say is not optional.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using Tapatalk

Yeah..I'm not gonna buy that one, Trip. An opening pass across the table is just that, an opener. Both sides ask for the moon (one side at "0" and the other at "100"). Negotiators then take those "asks" and begin working towards "50" through potential exchanges and conditions. If the zone of reasonableness is, say 30-70, and after some good faith negotiations, one side can't pull the other into the perceived zone of reasonableness, well now we have a matter to bring before the mediator. To simply present an opening position onto the table and have the other side look and then walk away makes me think the company had no intention of negotiating the "important" stuff. While our initial "ask" may have been out of the zone of reasonableness (no idea either way), are you 100% confident the Company's counter (if they even made one) is within the zone of reasonableness?

Fair enough, and I am not voting for a TA that fixes retirement for everyone but those about to retire.

Many of the newer pilots have told me they don't support a contract that favors one segment of the pilot population over another, the contract has to be equitable. But that begs the question; What is the value of supporting scope or QOL items when a pilot is walking out the door in a couple years? The answer is pretty close to zero. Should the senior pilot support these contract goals? I think so. Should the new hire support a fix to retirement for the older generation, I think so. If we support each other and the MEC we win.

Great argument but hard to monetize. Therein lies the problem I think.

this, exactly this

The plan does not fix retirement for everyone. The IRS has not approved the optional nature of the plan. If the contract were written that we received 25% DC and if approved by the IRS we will have an optional MBCBP, we may have something to talk about. We are being led down a road where it will likely result in a mandatory plan that handicaps a majority of pilots retirement with substandard returns.

What if we balanced the plus up by applying pay raises, additional training/vacation pay, improved DH seating and new WB positions created by scope language only to pilots under 61? Seems fair, since they won't be around to benefit from pay, QOL and scope.

Thats not actually how RLA negotiations generally go. The positions of both sides are not usually that far apart. In the two prior instances I am aware of where the union side opened for the moon they settled for less than they could have had with a reasonable opener. In the case of American it was 5 years later and with the Delta 777 3B6 talks half the aircraft were sold before a settlement was reached.

So the company doesn’t need to be in the “Zone?” Just the Union? I think this is both. When the company responds (because they haven’t yet), maybe the Union will too. It takes two to tango.

Denny

Based on past history, you are probably right. However, I think you and Trip are living too far in the past because I would posit that the zone of reasonableness has expanded/shifted based on corporate/industry performance over the last 5-10 years. What might have seemed unreasonable 3, 5 or 10 years ago may be with the zone now. Don't know enough about the AA ask that you referenced but I do know the B777 thing occurred because DALPA tried to leverage the former 3.B.6 provision regarding new equipment. Can you refresh me how that came out when the backdoor agreement was made between Leo the CEO and CG? What was the B777 pay rate? Didn't the same issue arise over the B73NGs too? And how did that impact pay rates for C2K? And, as I asked Trip, what was the company's counter to our ask? Were they solidly within the zone of reasonableness? I'm not so sure this thing is one-sided.