mikea72580

This week, the ALPA Negotiating Committee laid out in detail what was long speculated but never confirmed. Our representatives are actively negotiating for a targeted benefit. Despite being part of a broader memo by the Negotiating Committee regarding “Retirement”, the concept of Minimum Balances is in a sense unprecedented, and very deserving of its own debate and specific polling.

The concept of Minimum Balances is unique in several ways:

For one, it sheds the traditional forward looking focus of Section 6 Negotiations, by instead focusing on corrective solutions for the past.

It’s also unprecedented in the sense that it would introduce a new earned benefit that, unlike items such as Vacation and Payrates which are purely seniority based, would reward pilots disproportionately based on how close they are to mandatory retirement. This is most certainly a new concept in our industry with no discernible precedent.

Given the nature of our multigenerational workforce and the fact that each of us as individuals have an IDENTICAL employment relationship with Delta Air Lines one must assume at the very least the possibility for controversy.

The pilots of Delta Air Lines belong to a representative democracy as ALPA union members, each with the ability to cast a vote and communicate their wants and desires to their elected representatives. In a successfully implemented democratic system, the majority carries the day and the will of the majority dictates the direction of our profession.

So, given the unprecedented and potentially divisive nature of “Minimum Balances” and the recent revelation that our negotiators are now deep into negotiating for this benefit, one must assume that the majority have spoken and expressed a strong desire for this method of benefit distribution.

Problematic, however, is the fact that the concept of “Minimum Balances” was never specifically polled.

Since the revelation of “Minimum Balances”, more questions than answers have emerged:

-Why was this unprecedented concept not specifically polled?
-Why were there a disproportionate amount of questions about retirement in the surveys?
-Could the cost of “Minimum Balances” prevent or delay contractual gains in other areas such as Scope, Schedule, Pay? Not just for Delta pilots, but for the pattern bargaining opportunities of the industry as a whole.
-Is this the ideal way to advance our profession in the most favorable economic environment of our generation?
-Are there “fairness” problems with implementing a benefit like this?
-Are recent retirees less deserving of “plus-up”?
-Should there be accelerated earned benefits for pilots effected by the FAA “Age 65” ruling?
-Should the recent generation of regional pilots receive accelerated benefits for being effected by the Company/Union agreements of the 1990’s/2000’s that perpetuated the permanent existence of Regional Airline contracts?
-How damaging could “Minimum Balances” be to the otherwise unprecedented Unity that Delta pilots currently enjoy? Could this create an opportunity the company could exploit?

With these very important questions in mind, we should pause actively negotiating Section 26 of the Pilot Working Agreement and begin new comprehensive polling in light of the recently released information. Our negotiators have stressed that this negotiating cycle is about getting it done RIGHT, not FAST. Let us define more specifically what our desires are.

Posted below are important questions that need to be polled before proceeding. I would encourage each of you to post the questions you would like included in the next survey. Please also take the time to contact your representatives and request new specific polling.


-Are you in favor of “Minimum Balances”?

-Our retirement strategy has 3 proposed components. Rank each of these in order of importance.

1)Increased DC
2)Creation of a new supplemental tax sheltered personal account
3)Minimum Balances

-As part of a comprehensive package of improvements, would you be willing to limit improvements to Scope, Benefits, Quality of Life, and increased DC Contributions in order to create “bargaining space” for Minimum Balances?

-If a Tentative Agreement was nearly agreed upon, but ALPA Negotiators were at an impasse on Minimum Balances, how long would you support continued negotiations?

A)I’m not willing to wait. I would rather TA the agreement as is.
B)Up to 6 months
C)6 months-12 months
D)More than a year

NavyFlyer

I’m a reservist that just returned from abroad flying with 32 other Delta military aviators. All are mid-30’s/early 40’s with around 4-5 years on property.

Not one of us is in favor of a TA that includes anything inequitable between all pilots on the seniority list.

Increased DC: great. Fill up my 401k with company money: excellent. Invest my additional DC into the MBCP: eh, okay. It’s a different source of income later in life that’s still “estatable.” But give some people a “plus up,” and take more money for one group at the expense of all of us: absolutely not.

No one can tell me what my financial future holds and how the market will perform. No one can tell me if I’ll have social security benefits (and what age I’ll be able to utilize them), or what our future tax liabilities are (at some point our politicians will realize we have a deficit).

This is not to say that I don’t recognize that some people took it in the shorts, or that everyone won’t have a 60% FAE guaranteed annuity. But between increased DC benefits, Profit Sharing, PBGC/Frozen pension benefits, social security and insane market performance since ‘07, most captains I fly with are going into retirement doing very well.

Life happens. And I’m preparing for my salary decrease, or reduced benefits later in my career due to causes outside of my control. I’m certainly not going to ask others to cover for me later in my life at their own expense or that of the whole.

So yes, I’d like polling done. I’d tell the guys polling that I want scope protections, increased DC, increased pay, vacation and training increases, and QOL asks before I’d EVER consider plussing up someone else’s retirement at the groups expense.

And since we are not going to get even all of those important things, we are wasting negotiators and the company’s time even bringing this minimum balance up in any negotiation session.

Oh, and another thing. Polling numbers suck among my demographic because we don’t answer cell phone calls from random numbers. And these clowns don’t have a call back number, or allow us to make an appointment to do our poll (we’ve got kids, sports activities, recitals, crap trips to fly, and all of the other stuff that the Grandpa’s willing to answer their phones have long left in their rear view mirror). How about they email me and allow me to put some time on my calendar so they can get my feedback on this issue? They’d see that it’s a waste of time to bring a min balance to MEMRAT because it’ll be a huge failure and cause a massive delay in our contract...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TED74

My calls have always come from 6033970635. I have it as a contact in my phone ("Delta Polling"), so I know it's them. I often can't chat when they call, but I've asked them to call back at XYX and they've followed through more than once.

CBreezy

Why are we still doing phone polling in the 21st century? And why aren't MEC/LEC meetings not available to view online?

AlphaBeta

They did an online poll last year, did you fill it out? It seemed like not many people did because they kept extending the deadline.

CBreezy

I very much did.

AlphaBeta

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.

beis77

Short answer is “no”, I’m not in favor of MB. It’s a non-starter for me and I’d vote down any TA with such language. It’s a short term benefit for a select group of pilots with no long term guarantee for those of us with 20-30 years plus remaining in our careers. I’m personally not in favor of any benefit that isn’t equal for all pilots. I’d be willing to wait more than a year, I don’t mind the current contract and am in no hurry. The MEC should take whatever time is necessary to craft a TA that benefits all pilots equally.

Buck Rogers

Of course the new guys are "ALL FOR" a 9% increase in the DC plan. I am totally against it. That 9% should be straight line pay rates, otherwise, the pilots below the 415c limit are getting a windfall at the expense of the more senior pilots. Same game just different direction.

You do know that if you already hit the 415c limit that extra 9% comes as DC excess. As such, it is not pensionable, therefore no profit sharing on the DC excess. Consequently, the same 9% gets the newer guys a "windfall" at the senior guys expense.

But I guess they are "OK" with that?

Denny Crane

Well then I guess you will never vote yes on a contract. You DO realize that any percentage pay raise is NOT an equal pay raise for all pilots? The percentage might be the same but the dollar amount is not.

Denny