Originally Posted by MJP27

I’ll bet you wouldn’t like the to see the results if the MEC polled on the “plus up”. I would, unfortunately we won’t see them because they (and I’ll bet most people on this forum) know what the results would be.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

I wouldn’t mind seeing the polling on the entire proposal not just the plus up. It’s a package deal not just the one item. I think you might be surprised.

I would guess the majority of posters on this forum are in the bottom half of the seniority list and on the younger side. So yes, I too can guess what the sentiment here would be.

Denny

Originally Posted by tennisguru

I'd vote yes on a top-notch package that included a plus up, I just don't think the TA is going to look like that...

Originally Posted by AirbusPTC

No, not BS, did a quick Google search, '74 Caddy retailed for just over $7k. Funny you should mention 1974 because that year saw a NEW contract at Delta with senior Captains making over $100,000 for the first time (google it:"At Delta Air Lines Has the Industry Agog" WSJ Sept.24 1974). So that's where the term came from, some Delta Capts. making more per month than the retail cost of a new Cadillac!

So you're saying Delta used pension funds to buy NE and a bunch of 727's...now who's BSing? I know the Teamsters used pension money to buy things but Delta? Who exactly did Delta take over the pensions from...just curious? Also, you were allowed to fund an IRA. The IRS didn't prohibit airline employees from funding IRA's ever. Also there were other non-Delta ways to save money back then, as there are today.

Just so I understand...are you saying that if Delta didn't purchase NE Delta wouldn't have survived? OR if Delta hadn't purchased all those 727's they wouldn't have survived? Just curious.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane

I wouldn’t mind seeing the polling on the entire proposal not just the plus up. It’s a package deal not just the one item. I think you might be surprised.

I would guess the majority of posters on this forum are in the bottom half of the seniority list and on the younger side. So yes, I too can guess what the sentiment here would be.

Denny

Originally Posted by Gen6

Can we quit wasting time on what everyone thinks the other person should or shouldn’t have? We have to deal in reality.

Is there merit in expending time and money during negotiation on a Minimum Balance? Would we be having this discussion had the DB not gone away in lieu of the DC? In order to answer that question DALPA needs to show what the loss to the DB guys was under the actual contracts that were in play (not what woulda, coulda, shoulda happened). Had the the DB not gone away what would be it’s value for a DZ’r today under the pay rates that existed in our actual contracts vs what they have which should include PBGC, BK claim payout, merger money and DC invested at a conservative rate of return (say 5%) over the same period. If the DB # is significantly bigger than what happened then maybe there is merit.

Please stop throwing out subjective examples to support your position for or against. Having to deal with inflation affects everyone. Saying a young guy has time may be valid using the last 10 years but what if that guy gets a 2000 to 2010 decade at the end of his career? Throwing out examples like how much housing is compared to years ago or a Cadillac in 1974 serves no purpose. The median sized house in 1974 was about 1500 ft and today it is 2700ft. The mortgage rate in 74 was 9.0% and today around 3.0%. So yes home prices went way up but the cost of money dropped tremendously. A car today compared to 1974 has roughly doubled but so has the amount of equipment and performance of that same car.

Everyone lost a decade. Try to be objective which means we need our union to provide objective, actionable data and not give us an agenda or clearly loaded questions on phone polling that steers responses to provide wildly large majorities on issues that weren’t explained or discussed in the context of the whole contract.

Originally Posted by Gen6

Can we quit wasting time on what everyone thinks the other person should or shouldn’t have?

Please stop throwing out subjective examples to support your position for or against. Having to deal with inflation affects everyone. Throwing out examples like how much a Cadillac in 1974 serves no purpose.

Originally Posted by badflaps

DAL's expansion up the East coast (DC-10's) saved their bacon. The 727's filled out NE's routes which were under developed. The pension fund was administered by Lazard Freres if I remember correctly. You contributed monthly and were vested at 5 years.(Money I never saw again.) DAL took over the fund in 1972, promising unicorns. We know what happened. DAL was still operating 747's in 1974 which accounted for the $100,000 figure. Few folks involved. Remember as late as 1965, DAL was operating 98 aircraft. A peanut group in comparison to EAL, UAL , Twenty Wobblies. Not exactly a market maker.

Originally Posted by AirbusPTC

We're all talking about the 35 pages of Section 1: Scope. NOT sure where you're all of sudden coming up with the "Bottom end" scope? Like I said, you've benefited from Scope protections x10 more than the junior military guys you're calling names. From both bottom-end scope (when you were junior) and top-end scope (now that you're apparently senior). We all understand the importance of ALL 35 pages of Section 1. THAT'S WHY IT'S SECTION ONE AFTER ALL right?

Originally Posted by JamesBond

Not surprisingly, the point flies right over your head