Next Up in the RLA Conga Line

Maximilian_Jenius said:
Honestly... would you even care if it happened to them, and not you? Honestly...
Click to expand...

Well if it TRULY was a vax-related disability, then of course I would feel bad for them. In that case, the solution was worse than the problem.


But when one starts posting article links to how a Covid vaccine alters your DNA, you lose me.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Well if it TRULY was a vax-related disability, then of course I would feel bad for them. In that case, the solution was worse than the problem.
Click to expand...

I mean, even then, that's not necessarily true. Covid has killed millions of people. Disability is better than death. The vaccine is always the wiser choice, even if it causes side effects for a small number of people.
 
Box hauler said:
Question from an idiot : people love to say that the union will shove a garbage contract down our throats just to get a deal done but how does getting a crap TA to pass benefit them? When a TA comes out every look at the negotiating committee as if they’re on managements side and I don’t understand why.
Click to expand...

@BobDDuck gave a pretty good explanation here: people love to have someone to blame other than themselves.

But you're absolutely right that the NC and MEC have no incentive to sign a deal that screws themselves over. The only time this can be considered a reasonable concern is if the MEC or NC is loaded with people who have different priorities than the pilot group in general. For example, if your NC and MEC are majority pilots nearing retirement age, then you can end up in a situation where they only care about the money and don't give a damn about things like reserve work rules, or junior line quality. But with ALPA's system of CA reps and FO reps, this is usually not a concern, as the MEC is typically pretty diversified by default.

That said, we're talking about a small number of people. An NC might only be 3 people, and an MEC less than a dozen at any carrier other than the biggest. This isn't necessarily a suitable sample size, so just because they truly believe it's a good deal doesn't mean that the pilot group will, which is why MEMRAT is so important for new CBAs and major changes to existing CBAs.
 
jetBlue AIP numbers floating around:

D1349A6D-1F8A-4A70-A643-E08B561EE48E.jpeg
 
Last edited:
The Delta AIP drama has been interesting. I think it will still pass but it will be closer to the 51-60% range. Tons of old guys have a hard-on for a bigger retirement. They actually are shocked it wasn't 25% for the 401k. I honestly have no idea what leverage they think we have as a pilot group.
 
Maurus said:
The Delta AIP drama has been interesting. I think it will still pass but it will be closer to the 51-60% range. Tons of old guys have a hard-on for a bigger retirement. They actually are shocked it wasn't 25% for the 401k. I honestly have no idea what leverage they think we have as a pilot group.
Click to expand...

The world has gone kinda crazy and no one understands what the current market is. We are actually experiencing what old Amos Burton called The Churn. It's going to be an interesting few more years as the current generation of pilots is replaced by the next.

IMHO, the 51-60 range is actually a 'failure' on the part of the union to achieve the goals of membership. I also can see the AIP not making it to a TA and being sent back. And I can also see it passing around 70-30. But, it's not my shop. My shop is going through it's own online backlash of intraorganizational barganing as our current TA is going to MEMRAT in a week or so.

In the end; it's one pilot and one vote. Does the agreement meet your personal goals for this cycle. Vote accordingly.
 
ClearedForOption said:
IMHO, the 51-60 range is actually a 'failure' on the part of the union to achieve the goals of membership.
Click to expand...

I think you’ve got that wrong. It would actually be a failure of the MEC to properly manage the expectations of the membership. Anyone expecting a 25% B-fund contribution is a lunatic and should have been thoroughly disabused of such fanciful notions long before a TA was reached.

But my guess as an outsider is it passes by 80%+.
 
Maurus said:
The Delta AIP drama has been interesting. I think it will still pass but it will be closer to the 51-60% range. Tons of old guys have a hard-on for a bigger retirement. They actually are shocked it wasn't 25% for the 401k. I honestly have no idea what leverage they think we have as a pilot group.
Click to expand...
Funny because every single captain I’ve flown (each has less than 2-3 years to go) is in overall support of the AIP so far. I expected more backlash but really none so far. The other FOs I fly with are probably 60-40’ish in favor with most of us agreeing it’s best to wait for TA language.

One my main questions was how they’d handle ‘retro’ after 1/1/23 and glad to see that answered.
 
Maurus said:
The Delta AIP drama has been interesting. I think it will still pass but it will be closer to the 51-60% range. Tons of old guys have a hard-on for a bigger retirement. They actually are shocked it wasn't 25% for the 401k. I honestly have no idea what leverage they think we have as a pilot group.
Click to expand...
I would be shocked if it is in the 51-60% range.
 
bike21 said:
Funny because every single captain I’ve flown (each has less than 2-3 years to go) is in overall support of the AIP so far. I expected more backlash but really none so far. The other FOs I fly with are probably 60-40’ish in favor with most of us agreeing it’s best to wait for TA language.

One my main questions was how they’d handle ‘retro’ after 1/1/23 and glad to see that answered.
Click to expand...
So far I fly with all sub 2000 seniority guys and they are not too happy. But they won’t say they are voting no in it, funnily enough. Just what they don’t like. I get the want for higher pay, retro, and contribution But the bullet points is a good offer and most fleets do get a 2 in the front of their pay raises with pay banding. I don’t and it sucks flying 767 isn’t a “widebody” despite my 11 hour flights. But that’s not enough for me to vote no.

I also surveyed I wanted QOL focused on. I have a long time left here and I get it if you’re sub 5 years you don’t really care except the $ sign. But some of these changes would still include a lot more soft time pay to our checks. Of course we have to see the final writing. I’m also not convinced voting no is going to make the next offer better and the lost money from voting no on this to a next offer (who knows how long that will be) will be paid back to me. Not saying I’m voting off fear because overall I like the offer, but it’s at least a consideration.

I had to unfollow the contractFB group. I could not take another post about how my generation needs to pay back our elders for something that occurred 20 years ago and the all out war of boomers vs millennials. Ever since I unfollowed that group my happiness has never been higher … lol
 
tcco94 said:
So far I fly with all sub 2000 seniority guys and they are not too happy. But they won’t say they are voting no in it, funnily enough. Just what they don’t like. I get the want for higher pay, retro, and contribution But the bullet points is a good offer and most fleets do get a 2 in the front of their pay raises with pay banding. I don’t and it sucks flying 767 isn’t a “widebody” despite my 11 hour flights. But that’s not enough for me to vote no.

I also surveyed I wanted QOL focused on. I have a long time left here and I get it if you’re sub 5 years you don’t really care except the $ sign. But some of these changes would still include a lot more soft time pay to our checks. Of course we have to see the final writing. I’m also not convinced voting no is going to make the next offer better and the lost money from voting no on this to a next offer (who knows how long that will be) will be paid back to me. Not saying I’m voting off fear because overall I like the offer, but it’s at least a consideration.

I had to unfollow the contractFB group. I could not take another post about how my generation needs to pay back our elders for something that occurred 20 years ago and the all out war of boomers vs millennials. Ever since I unfollowed that group my happiness has never been higher … lol
Click to expand...
Yeah I bailed on the Widget FB stuff awhile ago and refuse to join any more such travesties :)

It is a bummer the 7ER is getting left out of the larger increase, having come from that bird I can empathize with those scratching their heads on this one. My biggest hangups are the lack of PSC (at least to work), not knowing full extent of separate Scope TA and now feeling we are potentially missing out on an at least a partial contract cycle.

Essentially we will only get one contract signing from 2019 - 2027 and who knows how long the next one will take and whether or not potential retro will recoup enough value. Perhaps an early opener on 1/1/26 could be in order but of course no promises. Not a deal breaker alone, but food for thought.

I remain neutral-positive overall still with all things being considered.
 
BobDDuck said:
Laughs in 415(b)(1).a
Click to expand...


I don't get it. Even at our old 15.5% rate I hit the limit and started getting cash-over-cap. So when you're asking for DC retirement above 17%, you're basically just asking for more cash over cap, or in other words, just more cash. Perhaps that could just be negotiated into the hourly pay rates?
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I don't get it. Even at our old 15.5% rate I hit the limit and started getting cash-over-cap. So when you're asking for DC retirement above 17%, you're basically just asking for more cash over cap, or in other words, just more cash. Perhaps that could just be negotiated into the hourly pay rates?
Click to expand...

Exactly. A super high rate helps newer guys who have lower pay but even then, with first year pay coming up the way it has, it's not helpful for long.

To be fair, with the Delta ask of 25%, they were going to couple it with a MBCB plan. Basically, this would take the spill over (instead of it being cash over cap) and invest (pre tax) it in what is essentially a pension. The limits are much, MUCH higher (based on age) than the 415.c and 401.a limits. The issue is that a MBCB plan, unlike a 401k, has a fixed interest credit, and that number is usually set very low (often tied to US Tbills). That means that the company is only on the hook for a small interest increase over the actual investment amount, and as such the plan is invested ultra conservatively. These plans are not investment vehicles but rather tax hit delay plans.

The other issue DALPA is going to face is that they have promised their membership that this plan will be voluntary, meaning a pilot can choose to get cash over cap instead and invest the money (post tax) however they want or let it flow into the MBCB plan. This is not currently legal under the federal code, and as of yet, the IRS has declined to make a change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top