*MINIMUM BALANCES* New Polling Needed
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,258
Buck,
Other than Govt pensions I am not sure how many are adjusted. FDX for example, who never went through BK, has their DB capped at $130K. It has been at this level for a while and is a major issue of contention over there. Inflation is slowly but surely wiping out their DB benefit so the fact that “frozen” plans and PGBC don’t adjust is not an outlier.
Scoop
Other than Govt pensions I am not sure how many are adjusted. FDX for example, who never went through BK, has their DB capped at $130K. It has been at this level for a while and is a major issue of contention over there. Inflation is slowly but surely wiping out their DB benefit so the fact that “frozen” plans and PGBC don’t adjust is not an outlier.
Scoop
People typically only view things from their perspective. I was attempting to get them to think outside the box and put themselves in the shoes of DZers. A $5000 month retirement was ok in 2006...less so now and in 15 years might just cover federal taxes, state taxes, property taxes, health insurance and leave enough left over for beer and wings a coupla times a month. Need a new roof, water heater, AC unit, fence, food , recreation, medicine, long term care, new car, insurance, gas, electric, internet, phone? Those are expenses even if your house is paid off. Better have much more income/savings to defray those known expenses.
This is not a woe is me....just a factual observation
YMMV
Too late now, but a negotiated COLA for all DB and PBGC recipients would address the already retired and soon to retire pilots. Maybe more fair? Sounds reasonable at first blush. Unfortunately that would cost more than the current plan. Wow, that's staggering. 3% per year on accrued benefits would cost Delta more than what is on the table. 2-3% sounds reasonable but when you factor in the time element it is monumental. Goes both ways...got a long time to go at Delta staggering savings...got a long time in retirement? No cola?...staggering loss of buying power. No way to take a lump sum and outperform inflation, thein lies the rub
Last edited by Buck Rogers; 12-24-2019 at 12:47 PM.
#102
Well there's endless perspectives and no clear answer. I'll say this again. The "plus up" aspect to "fix" retirement is a huge disincentive for the company to negotiate. After all we have a whole lot of retirements coming. Every day the company stonewalls, there are that many fewer pilots that will be here to claim the "reward" of the lump sum, and every day the percentage of younger and middle aged guys who don't want or care about it grows. Why would the company be tripping over themselves to agree to this?
I think assessing retiree medical in a robust manner would sell to the entire seniority list a lot better, even if it doesn't sound as exciting.
I think assessing retiree medical in a robust manner would sell to the entire seniority list a lot better, even if it doesn't sound as exciting.
As for the medical, I don't think that's a big enough "get" especially with national healthcare and medicare on the front page, not to mention many Delta pilots already have retiree medical. Think Big!
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,258
The negotiating committee did the constituents a big disservice by just throwing this proposal out with no supporting story.
A history of past practices for the newer guys, some examples of previous contracts(eliminating B scale etc), talking about this COLA issue, TVM or lack thereof should have preceded the "just throw it out there approach"
All this "better communication" the new MEC brought in is an epic fail in this instance.
People became entrenched pro/con before having enough info to ponder the problem. They threw out a solution before they unequivocally stated the problem...unless I missed it
Just my thoughts
A history of past practices for the newer guys, some examples of previous contracts(eliminating B scale etc), talking about this COLA issue, TVM or lack thereof should have preceded the "just throw it out there approach"
All this "better communication" the new MEC brought in is an epic fail in this instance.
People became entrenched pro/con before having enough info to ponder the problem. They threw out a solution before they unequivocally stated the problem...unless I missed it
Just my thoughts
#104
The negotiating committee did the constituents a big disservice by just throwing this proposal out with no supporting story.
A history of past practices for the newer guys, some examples of previous contracts(eliminating B scale etc), talking about this COLA issue, TVM or lack thereof should have preceded the "just throw it out there approach"
All this "better communication" the new MEC brought in is an epic fail in this instance.
People became entrenched pro/con before having enough info to ponder the problem. They threw out a solution before they unequivocally stated the problem...unless I missed it
Just my thoughts
A history of past practices for the newer guys, some examples of previous contracts(eliminating B scale etc), talking about this COLA issue, TVM or lack thereof should have preceded the "just throw it out there approach"
All this "better communication" the new MEC brought in is an epic fail in this instance.
People became entrenched pro/con before having enough info to ponder the problem. They threw out a solution before they unequivocally stated the problem...unless I missed it
Just my thoughts
#105
Moderator
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 7,017
I agree the rollout was not optimal and Many of the younger posters don’t seem to like the fairness aspect and they have a point. With that said it appears you, Buck, and Denny are lining up in favor.
As long as the discussion remains civil I don’t care how many are in favor or against.
Merry Christmas All.
Scoop
#106
I am withholding judgement. We need to see the final version and the whole PWA before we can form an educated opinion.
I agree the rollout was not optimal and Many of the younger posters don’t seem to like the fairness aspect and they have a point. With that said it appears you, Buck, and Denny are lining up in favor.
As long as the discussion remains civil I don’t care how many are in favor or against.
Merry Christmas All.
Scoop
I agree the rollout was not optimal and Many of the younger posters don’t seem to like the fairness aspect and they have a point. With that said it appears you, Buck, and Denny are lining up in favor.
As long as the discussion remains civil I don’t care how many are in favor or against.
Merry Christmas All.
Scoop
I think the first question everyone should ask themselves is,
Do they support retirement improvements tailored to benefit ALL DEMOGRAPHICS AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE?
If so, it would seem to me that you have to have a lump sum or post retirement plan for the "old guys" I've posed this multiple times and no one has really answered.
#107
These PWAs are negotiated every 3-4 years. We have no idea what future contracts will look like. The vast majority if gains in this PWA should not go to those who work the fewest days under it.
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 795
Well speaking as a member of the younger generation, I’m not opposed to this sort of plan by itself. If we get a great contract with solid QOL and pay gains, AND this plus-up deal, I think that would pass by a wide margin. What I feel most of us are fearing is that the cost of this one item will be so great that either 1) there will be minimal gains in all the other areas of the contract and/or 2) the company won’t play ball and since the union won’t budge on this one item, negotiations will drag on far longer than necessary.
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: Looking left
Posts: 3,418
And to you too. Okay, I'll beat a dead horse.
I think the first question everyone should ask themselves is,
Do they support retirement improvements tailored to benefit ALL DEMOGRAPHICS AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE?
If so, it would seem to me that you have to have a lump sum or post retirement plan for the "old guys" I've posed this multiple times and no one has really answered.
I think the first question everyone should ask themselves is,
Do they support retirement improvements tailored to benefit ALL DEMOGRAPHICS AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE?
If so, it would seem to me that you have to have a lump sum or post retirement plan for the "old guys" I've posed this multiple times and no one has really answered.
2) it started as “ GOAL OF IMPROVING EVERYONE'S retirement” and has morphed to “ ALL DEMOGRAPHICS AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE?”...slightly different question.
#110
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post