*MINIMUM BALANCES* New Polling Needed
12-27-2019, 10:46 AM
#142
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2008
Position: VEOP Retired! 7ER A was last position
Posts: 978
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...
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...
12-27-2019, 12:44 PM
#143
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: NYC 330
Posts: 477
12-27-2019, 01:25 PM
#144
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: Power top
Posts: 2,960
Ok good, the majority of my friends did not and now complain about the direction. As a newer guy at delta, 5 years here, we are not doing a great job of trying to capture the conversation. I am not against the retirement plan except for the plus up. It is hard for me understand this part without taking into account an individuals PBGC, note and the number of shares they received during bankruptcy.
See were this is going? In fact, we split your portion based on seniority. And Captains get 5 stripes and their birthdays off.
12-27-2019, 02:16 PM
#145
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,535
No. That isn't how this works. You don't get to arbitrarily take things away. It's in the contract. It's mine just as much as it is yours.
12-27-2019, 02:21 PM
#146
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 795
Whoa nelly! So far this type of thinking has been confined to chit chat. That really escalated quickly.
12-27-2019, 02:29 PM
#147
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,637
As it stands this is a targeted payout to a subset of those who need it. Furthermore it encourages those considering an earlier retirement to stay until 65 for the "plus up". For those wondering "what's in it for Delta?", I found it for you. This plan reduces early retirements and buys them a little more time to fix the staffing problem.
12-27-2019, 04:15 PM
#148
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,463
So, eventually no profit sharing. BTW everyone gets profit sharing including the non-cons who have a frozen pension. How about this, we require everyone over 60 to come back at the bottom of the list as a an instructor or FE or other non-flying job. Grenades are fun.
12-27-2019, 05:12 PM
#149
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2008
Position: NYC 330
Posts: 477
Let’s fire outside of the circle, Delta has plenty of money, it isn’t “either or”
As far as I am concerned the day you step on the property as a Delta pilot you are covered by our agreement.
Sorry if you are retired you are not the same as a current pilot. This should be obvious.
Just my opinion
As far as I am concerned the day you step on the property as a Delta pilot you are covered by our agreement.
Sorry if you are retired you are not the same as a current pilot. This should be obvious.
Just my opinion
12-28-2019, 06:42 AM
#150
Can't abide NAI
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Douglas Aerospace post production Flight Test & Work Around Engineering bulletin dissembler
Posts: 12,038
I see exactly where this is going, which is why I am against a "plus up" that ignores the retirees. Those on property are benefiting nicely from the profit sharing. They have had years to recover compared to those who retired before the recent string of record profitability. Show us a plan that addresses those who went through bankruptcy and were kicked to the curb at 60, then we have something to talk about.
The problem with special interests is that everyone thinks their particular interest is special. I'd say a good case could be made for the DCI pilots who are actually flying Delta's passengers. Think of the difference DOH for benefits would be for their families.
The pilots who left early, when Delta was very literally on death's door (the sale of ASA is all that maintained Delta's cash reserves to continue to accept credit card payments) did probably get the worst deal. There is some aspect of selling at the bottom, and they did execute the transaction defensively. Age played a huge factor in the outcome. But we can't retroactively fix age or make the lost decade of the 2000's fair for thse of us who suffered tremendous losses as we begin 2020.
The only thing that makes sense is to negotiate for ALL pilots ALPA represents.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
