FangsF15

Somewhat playing Devil's advocate here... Why didn't the union focus on retirement back in C12 or C15? An argument could be made THAT was the time to fix the retirement problem, so as to capture as many pilots as possible. But they didn't, and now there is a DZ of DZers that will have retired before C19 begins.

So why? Because that's not what the majority of the union members wanted then. Now, I get that the DZers see C19 as thier last chance to 'fix' retirement, at least as it applies to them, because after that, the newer hire will far outnumber the DZers. If not now, never. But if the majority of the union looks at the MB and says no, then the governance did exactly what it is supposed to do.

So, your task is to persuade. I am sympathetic, particularly when looking back at all the things that were done disproportionately through BK and its aftermath. The rollout of the NN didn't help your cause as the battlefield was not prepped well for it.

Having said all that, I see this as a non-starter. Not so much because the union won't vote for it, but because the company will never agree. It's hugely morally bankrupt of them, as they could 'fix' us all for life with 20% of only one of those year's profits (putting back what was taken in BK), not to mention throwing piles of cash into the fireplace of buybacks...

Bucking Bar

Yet absolutely zero sympathies for the pilots who worked for airlines flying their own code, acquired by Delta, dragged through bankruptcy, caught up in age 65 and the trade of 76 seat RJ flying for $600,000,000 in "bargaining credits." Some of us made it to Delta. The rampers, gate agents and managers got DOH for benefits, vacation, etc. .... Some are now getting 20 year pins although they've been on the propertly less time than us.

Of the Endeavor guys, who were also dragged through two bankruptcies, a slow flow, all while flying Delta passengers the whole time.

So, the Delta pilot group is being asked to shift $2 billion forward because it is "fair." As much as a $500,000 day one benefit for some pilots. (($400k*10)* .025) * 5 years

What would make the scope deals of bankruptcy "fair" to the pilots who lost 7 to 10 years of their careers?

Bucking Bar

The good part of this deal for ALL pilots is the creation of a tax sheltered entity for excess DPSP cash (2/3rd's of our pilot group is paying around 40% tax on that money).

We can do the good for all without the $500,000.00 bucks part.

gloopy

This is one flank of the blinding emotions surrounding us on this issue. The other is the emotional bagage of "I was promised" from several contracts and coming up on 20 years ago. If instead of the burnback money, which I agree is largely worthless even from a shareholder perspective, and borderline scandalous from a conflict of interest perspective, they "could afford" to give all of us all our hopes and dreams no problem.

6-7 weeks of scamming touch drop vaca? Easy! Bow wave hard lines with relatively low ALV? Afforded! 60% lifetime FAE for the A350 millionaires and short staffed NB tripple dippers? No problem! Free zero deductable healthcare for life? Funded!

Of course this assumes the pilot group has full access to whatever percentage of the wasted burnback funds in the future that we need to fund our proposals, and further assumes we're in the good time salad days of a highly cyclical industry at the historical end of the longest bull run ever that will continue to fund them, but hey, snapshot economics are always sustainable.

By releasing such an incredibly optimistic ask to the membership at this point in negotiations, we have painted ourselves into a corner and started the process of us negotiating with ourselves like never before. That cat's out of the bag now though and we have to deal with it.

In the end I don't think there will be thousands of 6 figure checks going out to make reparations for 2001/2005 events, and because we dangled that as a possibility there will be some very dissapointed pilots in some demographics as well as the entire group as any improvements are delayed even more as we all work under an optimized redlined operation with inadequate work rules for such an optimized redlined operation.

And meanwhile the burnbacks will continue.

tennisguru

I agree. No matter one's thoughts on the proposal it sure seems like the union has put themselves into a position with no clear, clean exit strategy...

notEnuf

The share buy backs are especially egregious to me because they are a targeted use of cash that targets management and not the long term investor. The company knows there's a glass ceiling at $60 and it won’t break until their is a down turn and we prove we are still profitable as promised. On top of this we borrowed money for buybacks so this myth that we are just doing the best we can with excess cash is complete BS. Don’t forget that during this last contract cycle the board also approved the issuance of additional shares. The buybacks are an attempt to look like we are flush with cash and have our big boy corporate pants on but those shares were for additional executive compensation.

notEnuf

Also think about the DC percentage they have already collected. 16%, or any percentage for this matter is a greater dollar amount at senior captain pay than further down the pay ladder. While they got an additional 5 years collecting 16%, 15% etc. everyone else made less and got less real dollars. 16% of $350K is $56000, that’s nearly double what I got. With an age 60 retirement age I’d be 4000 numbers more senior and my retirement contributions would have been substantially more.

No one ever wants to quantify what those additional 5 years did to the careers of those more junior. It is what it is and I can’t do anything about it but to claim a disadvantage while ignoring the disadvantages of others for your own purpose is disingenuous. Earning, retirement and profit sharing have all been reduced for those who had to endure 5 years of seniority stagnation while those funds went directly to those who got the additional 5 years.

RonRicco

DALPA needed to release as much info as they could on this plan as early as possible. Even if they achieved something close to their goals, it still is a toxic issue and would have created a lot of single issue voters. At least with the details out there and if they will do “honest” polling or surveys on this single issue, they can potentially revise the plan or strategy going forward.

There is probably a way to overhaul our retirement strategy where as one group doesn’t feel like they are being shafted, but can you imagine if we are at the end game, yet in a continuous holding pattern waiting on this potentially toxic issue to be agreed to? An issue if successful could actually be the issue that causes the TA to fail?

gloopy

Agreed. They put out big check numbers for this, so now let's see the EF'N-A costs for it, which you know they know because they have to know.

ERflyer

I sure hope they ran the numbers because a cursory look would seem like it’s worth about half the increased value of the last TA. Is that the weighted value of what the survey said we wanted?