Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
*MINIMUM BALANCES* New Polling Needed >

*MINIMUM BALANCES* New Polling Needed

Search

Notices

*MINIMUM BALANCES* New Polling Needed

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-24-2019, 12:29 PM
  #101  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,258
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop
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
Totally realize that. Wasn't insulating the lack of COLA is an outlier. My point for bringing it up was that when things were frozen the monthly stipend covered a lot of expenses. As time progresses...less and less. We all know that, but many fail to take that into account because their retirement(16%DC) is effectively indexed due to ROR and increasing salaries.

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.
Buck Rogers is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 12:33 PM
  #102  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Cogf16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
Posts: 978
Default

Originally Posted by Herkflyr
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 agree that the company would probably delay a TA for their advantage, but when has it been any different? Doesn't mean we don't try to get this through, and use whatever leverage to make it happen.
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!
Cogf16 is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 12:55 PM
  #103  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Posts: 3,258
Default

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
Buck Rogers is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 01:20 PM
  #104  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Cogf16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
Posts: 978
Default

Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
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
Youre right, probably a huge mistake. Anecdotally, I haven't come across one guy on here who(seems to) support this. And most are fairly adamant.....
Cogf16 is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 01:40 PM
  #105  
Moderator
 
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: DAL 330
Posts: 7,017
Default

Originally Posted by Cogf16
Youre right, probably a huge mistake. Anecdotally, I haven't come across one guy on here who(seems to) support this. And most are fairly adamant.....
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
Scoop is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 01:54 PM
  #106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Cogf16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
Posts: 978
Default

Originally Posted by Scoop
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
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.
Cogf16 is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 01:57 PM
  #107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Schwanker's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,237
Default

Originally Posted by Cogf16
Because it would be a huge, unbalanced increase that would largely "miss" the old guys. It would mean hundreds of thousands of dollars for the majority of the list and HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS for the "old guys"
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.
Schwanker is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 02:06 PM
  #108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 795
Default

Originally Posted by tennisguru
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.
Yes this is the fear. And why would a soon to retire pilot vote no in such an instance? They don’t have to work under the contract, but they still get their payout.
4fans is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 04:18 PM
  #109  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2016
Position: Looking left
Posts: 3,418
Default

Originally Posted by Cogf16
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.
1) you have been asking the question in the negotiator notepad thread, not this one

2) it started as “ GOAL OF IMPROVING EVERYONE'S retirement” and has morphed to “ ALL DEMOGRAPHICS AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE?”...slightly different question.
DWC CAP10 USAF is offline  
Old 12-24-2019, 05:13 PM
  #110  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Cogf16's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
Posts: 978
Default

Originally Posted by Cogf16
Because it would be a huge, unbalanced increase that would largely "miss" the old guys. It would mean HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for the majority of the list and THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for the "old guys"
Corrected!!!
Cogf16 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Fly Boy 2
Flight Schools and Training
2
03-03-2008 07:47 AM
698jet
Hiring News
0
02-27-2008 03:35 PM
698jet
Hiring News
6
02-26-2008 10:17 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices