Totally agree. Rock solid pensions at critical infrastructure companies screw young employees unless the plans are totally redesigned every few years into something financially-unrecognizable (also known as non-pensions). We must protect our younger colleagues from the financial ruin inflicted by solvent and healthy A plans. Hopefully the company will heed our cry for help and destroy this dinosaur before it starts paying us for the rest of our lives no matter how much we worked. God help us all. DR K

I’m sure the great pension minds of this forum will show up to “educate” everyone on what type of “pension” is best. I won’t be attending because I trust the true experts on this subject. The last PUB call was an attempted hijack by a few known quantities. It was funny to hear these individuals stutter and scamper when called to the mat for the false facts they attempted to present.

Now back to arguing over the definition of a pension based on our own definition we each individually make up.

I wonder if the MEC plans on answering any questions this time around? I hope they watched the tapes from the last one and realized how foolish they looked dodging questions from their own association members. Shameful really.

I was on the call and me and numerous others sitting together in the AOC didn't see it that way at all. What we saw was a select few “pension expert pilots” trying to highjack the call and make leading statements and frame them as questions. Then when said pilot was asked to define the “IRS Limits” he spoke of it was a stutter fest. Another person tried to redefine the term pension and was swiftly corrected. Much like the argument played out on this forum.

Lets all just make up our own facts and definitions….Then lets post then to an internet forum and argue about them. Or we can use the definitions laid out by the regulators. What a thought!

Here are the questions I asked:

How do you expect to get membership buy-in if you refuse to tell us what you are negotiating. No I am not asking for the table position, I am asking for the concepts being considered. Since you are leaving the membership, IE the ALPA foundation, in the dark, how can you envision any success moving forward? Do you plan to just surprise us with the TA and hope we like it? HOW did that work in ’15? And how will it be different this time?

Has the MEC reps been given retirement options to compare and contrast prior to voting on the openers document and did the MEC select the path forward in regards to retirement. If not how could they have voted for the openers not knowing what they allowing the NC to bargain for on our behalf. And were they given a cost benefit analysis on each choice?


Does PSPP, a variable benefit plan, have the same three to one funding protection requirement our current Defined Benefit has? And if not, where does that burden lie, and what is the value of that burden?


Why were there reps saying the Defined Benefit retirement fund is under funded during the last council 7 online briefing? Is it under funded and is/are the ramifications?

Asked for a friend.


When will the MEC know what our retirement proposal is, and who decides, MEC or NC?


Why are comments turned off? Who made that decision?

Only one of those questions were read and answered. I guess they are picking and choosing which questions they want to answer rather than allowing the members ask unfiltered questions. So much for transparency !

Maybe they will circle back.

or maybe not.

First off, I was glad to see the membership participation, listening in to the officers. After they turned on the participant list I could see just over 100 pilots on the first call, I saw a high of 87 on the second call.

It was interesting to hear the NC chairman walk back his earlier comments about who decides the negotiating goals, the path to those goals, and when the MEC would know what the NC was going to bargain.

Sadly, it is very hard to watch our union officers in transmit only mode by not allowing us to ask our questions directly, allowing for no follow up, and turning off comments. The last time that happened, we got contract '15, and a lot of our dues were spent.

I hope it is not "here we go again". But without the membership involvement, do they have any boundaries?

Final thought, I am tired of hearing about the wonderful surveys and how they are following the results. But ask yourself, did they ever ask us HOW WE would like retirement improved? NOPE. They do not want that question answered or they would not be able to go after PSPP.

Ok, and when is the new secondary line generator coming? You know the one from contract '15. Union leadership seems to have forgotten that as well, but then again, how many of them use the secondary system anyway?


Its time to decide, do you want to be a crewbus commando, or do you want to ensure favorable results by giving 1% of your time to your contract?