Any "Latest & Greatest" about Delta?
11-17-2014, 04:56 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: JFK A-330 A
Posts: 277
11-17-2014, 05:32 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
Posts: 1,898
Wow, Japan's economy is just cratering. Could be a drawdown of NRT sooner than later methinks...
11-17-2014, 05:58 PM
Looking for a laugh
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,099
True Headings is pretty much the publication of the Special Committee. They never sign that document because they don't discuss who are members of the Special Committee.
Because the Special Committee only lives to destroy the DPA or any other alternative union drive that ever happens within Delta. When your only reason for existence is to destroy other entities, you tend to be mostly negative in tone and spirit.
Yes, and he's clearly not. My opinion is that he's working as hard as he can to minimize pilot costs to his friends and partners in management. His challenge is doing that while pretending to be fighting for us.
Carl
Because the Special Committee only lives to destroy the DPA or any other alternative union drive that ever happens within Delta. When your only reason for existence is to destroy other entities, you tend to be mostly negative in tone and spirit.
Yes, and he's clearly not. My opinion is that he's working as hard as he can to minimize pilot costs to his friends and partners in management. His challenge is doing that while pretending to be fighting for us.
Carl
First, I would contend it is not an official MEC newsletter. No where does it state that, on any of them. I could sit down today, write a bunch of what I believe are pertinent facts, publish them on line under the banner of 'True Headings' and hang them out as fact. An official MEC newsletter would be labeled as such and signed by a communications chairman and the author.
Ok. Next.
The Railway Labor Act makes the government a factor in every pilot contract, whether the involvement of the National Mediation Board is actual, or merely implied. There could be nine Section 6 notices in play a year from now, and the outcome of one contract has consequences for all the others. The failure or success of one pilot group plays a factor in the potential of all the others.
The managing of expectations has begun. Those expectations are being managed down. Without stated goals present in any communication from the MEC, this above statement does just what it is designed to do. Downward expectation management.
"With rationalized top and bottom wages in our industry, we are certainly better positioned to bargain for contract improvements than in the recent past."
Rationalized. What the phuque does that mean. Is that like Lee Moaks statement to Bloomberg/Business Week Magazine? "Our contracts are mature and need only adjustments on the margins."
Rationalized at the top says to me that DALPA is ok with the current benefit and compensation level at the top of our contract in relation to the industry. Worse, "rationalized wages at the bottom in our industry" implies ALPAs condoning the whip saw antics that see the lowering of wages at the regional level of our industry.
This is a giant fail. I expected more for the constituents prior to entering negotiations. Not this unsigned, meandering missive that has little value. Come on Dalpa. Step it up.
Not a way to start the eve of negotiations.
Ok. Next.
The Railway Labor Act makes the government a factor in every pilot contract, whether the involvement of the National Mediation Board is actual, or merely implied. There could be nine Section 6 notices in play a year from now, and the outcome of one contract has consequences for all the others. The failure or success of one pilot group plays a factor in the potential of all the others.
The managing of expectations has begun. Those expectations are being managed down. Without stated goals present in any communication from the MEC, this above statement does just what it is designed to do. Downward expectation management.
"With rationalized top and bottom wages in our industry, we are certainly better positioned to bargain for contract improvements than in the recent past."
Rationalized. What the phuque does that mean. Is that like Lee Moaks statement to Bloomberg/Business Week Magazine? "Our contracts are mature and need only adjustments on the margins."
Rationalized at the top says to me that DALPA is ok with the current benefit and compensation level at the top of our contract in relation to the industry. Worse, "rationalized wages at the bottom in our industry" implies ALPAs condoning the whip saw antics that see the lowering of wages at the regional level of our industry.
This is a giant fail. I expected more for the constituents prior to entering negotiations. Not this unsigned, meandering missive that has little value. Come on Dalpa. Step it up.
Not a way to start the eve of negotiations.
Exactly.
Maybe Malone will have a surprise run for MEC chairman in Jan.
A gallon of jet fuel is down $1 since the peak in 2013. Netting Delta an additional $4 billion in profits for 2015. Why do we care what other air lines are in section 6?
Zero goals. Zero leadership. We need a new leader in Jan. I think we should hire RA and pay him $25 million. He sets goals, communicates and succeeds.
Maybe Malone will have a surprise run for MEC chairman in Jan.
A gallon of jet fuel is down $1 since the peak in 2013. Netting Delta an additional $4 billion in profits for 2015. Why do we care what other air lines are in section 6?
Zero goals. Zero leadership. We need a new leader in Jan. I think we should hire RA and pay him $25 million. He sets goals, communicates and succeeds.
That's nonsense as you well know. Pilot 2 Pilot already has its name. Same with Delta Pilot Network and the Communications Committee. There is only one Special Committee and that is the committee that has the actual name of "The Special Committee." The Special Committee has been funded to date at over $100,000 and was created by ALPA national to destroy any alternate pilot union activity at Delta. I know you know this, so why the attempt at subterfuge Bar?
What does that have to do with the topic of The Special Committee?
Typically, yes. But not for The Special Committee. Their publication is called True Headings and they are ALWAYS unsigned. True Headings also NEVER uses the term Special Committee anywhere in the publication even though that is the name of their committee.
You're probably smarter than I am Bar. Which is so puzzling as to why you feel the need to purposely mislead.
When one is reading a document, the author should sign said document. One should not have to call the publisher or sign on to its website to determine who authored it. Donatelli signs his stuff. So do my reps. So does the negotiating committee. The Special Committee should be no different. But they are. They NEVER sign any of their publications. That's why my name for them is The Secret Police. Every dictatorship needs one.
Carl
What does that have to do with the topic of The Special Committee?
Typically, yes. But not for The Special Committee. Their publication is called True Headings and they are ALWAYS unsigned. True Headings also NEVER uses the term Special Committee anywhere in the publication even though that is the name of their committee.
You're probably smarter than I am Bar. Which is so puzzling as to why you feel the need to purposely mislead.
When one is reading a document, the author should sign said document. One should not have to call the publisher or sign on to its website to determine who authored it. Donatelli signs his stuff. So do my reps. So does the negotiating committee. The Special Committee should be no different. But they are. They NEVER sign any of their publications. That's why my name for them is The Secret Police. Every dictatorship needs one.
Carl
11-17-2014, 06:11 PM
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2014
Posts: 11
PBGC 2014 Deficit
[B][SIZE=2]A Wall St Journal Article for everyone's enjoyment. Our single employer plans seem to be in much better shape.
Federal Private-Pension Safety Net Running $62 Billion Deficit
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Report Warns of Problems with Multiemployer Pension Plans
By John D. McKinnon
Updated Nov. 17, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET
The federal government’s safety-net program for private pensions is running a near $62 billion long-term deficit, largely due to long-standing problems in a type of pension plan that is common in transportation, construction and some other industries, according to a new report.
The problems are likely to bankrupt the federal safety-net program for so-called multiemployer pension plans within the next decade, perhaps in the next few years. Such an outcome could hit more than 1 million people, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. said.
The findings in the agency’s annual report mirror earlier projections. But the official numbers are growing so stark they are sure to raise pressure on Congress to act in the next year or two to tackle the looming crisis.
The PBGC operates by collecting insurance premiums from employers that offer pensions and paying usually-reduced benefits to retirees in insolvent plans. The PBGC has two separate insurance programs, one for multiemployer plans and a larger one for single-employer pension plans.
The multiemployer program—which is in much worse shape—insures benefits of more than 10 million workers and retirees in about 1,400 plans, the agency says. The plans typically are jointly managed by employers and unions.
But for years, those plans have been lightly regulated, and the federal safety net for them has been criticized as inadequate. Now, amid broad economic shifts in some industries, a few troubled plans are threatening not only to go broke themselves, but to bring down the entire safety-net program.
The agency said that the projected long-term deficit in its multiemployer program rose to $42.4 billion, compared with $8.3 billion last year. The increase is largely to due to the fact that several large multiemployer plans are now officially projected to become insolvent within the next decade.
The PBGC report didn’t name the troubled plans, but two have previously been identified as a United Mine Workers plan and a Teamsters Central States plan.
The executive director of the Teamsters Central States pension fund, Tom Nyhan, said the report underscores the need for legislation to help his plan avoid insolvency. United Mine Workers didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Congress has been working on a solution but hasn’t yet come up with a way to fix the long-running problems, which likely would require either a bailout or sharp benefit cuts for the plans, as well as premium increases or other new revenue sources for the PBGC insurance program for multiemployer plans.
Lawmakers face politically dicey choices. Industry-specific bailouts and benefit cuts are seen as political poison. But relying too much on premium rises could worsen the problems by hastening the decline of individual plans or the whole program.
Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the multiemployer pension system “is a ticking time bomb that will inflict a lot of pain on workers, employers, taxpayers and retirees if Congress fails to act.”
He called the annual report “a sober reminder that time is running out and should serve as a wake-up call for those few naysayers who believe this is too hard to get done.”
Senate Finance Committee leaders Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Orrin Hatch (R., Ore.) issued a statement that they remain “very concerned” about the multiemployer system and are committed to addressing its problems.
“We owe it to American workers to do everything feasible to ensure that retirees receive the promised pension benefits they worked hard to achieve,” they said. Mr. Wyden is the committee’s current chairman; Mr. Hatch is expected to take over in the next Congress.
Agency officials said they believe they have enough money to continue financial assistance to insolvent multiemployer plans for several more years, but that over time the risk of the PBGC fund running dry is increasing.
The separate, larger program for single-employer plans is much healthier. The agency said the long-term deficit in that program narrowed to about $19.3 billion from $27.4 billion in 2013. The single-employer program insures the pensions of nearly 31 million workers and retirees in about 22,300 ongoing plans sponsored by private-sector employers.
Write to John D. McKinnon at [email protected]
Federal Private-Pension Safety Net Running $62 Billion Deficit
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Report Warns of Problems with Multiemployer Pension Plans
By John D. McKinnon
Updated Nov. 17, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET
The federal government’s safety-net program for private pensions is running a near $62 billion long-term deficit, largely due to long-standing problems in a type of pension plan that is common in transportation, construction and some other industries, according to a new report.
The problems are likely to bankrupt the federal safety-net program for so-called multiemployer pension plans within the next decade, perhaps in the next few years. Such an outcome could hit more than 1 million people, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. said.
The findings in the agency’s annual report mirror earlier projections. But the official numbers are growing so stark they are sure to raise pressure on Congress to act in the next year or two to tackle the looming crisis.
The PBGC operates by collecting insurance premiums from employers that offer pensions and paying usually-reduced benefits to retirees in insolvent plans. The PBGC has two separate insurance programs, one for multiemployer plans and a larger one for single-employer pension plans.
The multiemployer program—which is in much worse shape—insures benefits of more than 10 million workers and retirees in about 1,400 plans, the agency says. The plans typically are jointly managed by employers and unions.
But for years, those plans have been lightly regulated, and the federal safety net for them has been criticized as inadequate. Now, amid broad economic shifts in some industries, a few troubled plans are threatening not only to go broke themselves, but to bring down the entire safety-net program.
The agency said that the projected long-term deficit in its multiemployer program rose to $42.4 billion, compared with $8.3 billion last year. The increase is largely to due to the fact that several large multiemployer plans are now officially projected to become insolvent within the next decade.
The PBGC report didn’t name the troubled plans, but two have previously been identified as a United Mine Workers plan and a Teamsters Central States plan.
The executive director of the Teamsters Central States pension fund, Tom Nyhan, said the report underscores the need for legislation to help his plan avoid insolvency. United Mine Workers didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Congress has been working on a solution but hasn’t yet come up with a way to fix the long-running problems, which likely would require either a bailout or sharp benefit cuts for the plans, as well as premium increases or other new revenue sources for the PBGC insurance program for multiemployer plans.
Lawmakers face politically dicey choices. Industry-specific bailouts and benefit cuts are seen as political poison. But relying too much on premium rises could worsen the problems by hastening the decline of individual plans or the whole program.
Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the multiemployer pension system “is a ticking time bomb that will inflict a lot of pain on workers, employers, taxpayers and retirees if Congress fails to act.”
He called the annual report “a sober reminder that time is running out and should serve as a wake-up call for those few naysayers who believe this is too hard to get done.”
Senate Finance Committee leaders Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Orrin Hatch (R., Ore.) issued a statement that they remain “very concerned” about the multiemployer system and are committed to addressing its problems.
“We owe it to American workers to do everything feasible to ensure that retirees receive the promised pension benefits they worked hard to achieve,” they said. Mr. Wyden is the committee’s current chairman; Mr. Hatch is expected to take over in the next Congress.
Agency officials said they believe they have enough money to continue financial assistance to insolvent multiemployer plans for several more years, but that over time the risk of the PBGC fund running dry is increasing.
The separate, larger program for single-employer plans is much healthier. The agency said the long-term deficit in that program narrowed to about $19.3 billion from $27.4 billion in 2013. The single-employer program insures the pensions of nearly 31 million workers and retirees in about 22,300 ongoing plans sponsored by private-sector employers.
Write to John D. McKinnon at [email protected]
11-17-2014, 06:17 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Posts: 19,599
A Wall St Journal Article for everyone's enjoyment. 
Federal Private-Pension Safety Net Running $62 Billion Deficit
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Report Warns of Problems with Multiemployer Pension Plans
By John D. McKinnon
Updated Nov. 17, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET
The federal government’s safety-net program for private pensions is running a near $62 billion long-term deficit, largely due to long-standing problems in a type of pension plan that is common in transportation, construction and some other industries, according to a new report.
The problems are likely to bankrupt the federal safety-net program for so-called multiemployer pension plans within the next decade, perhaps in the next few years. Such an outcome could hit more than 1 million people, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. said.
The findings in the agency’s annual report mirror earlier projections. But the official numbers are growing so stark they are sure to raise pressure on Congress to act in the next year or two to tackle the looming crisis.
The PBGC operates by collecting insurance premiums from employers that offer pensions and paying usually-reduced benefits to retirees in insolvent plans. The PBGC has two separate insurance programs, one for multiemployer plans and a larger one for single-employer pension plans.
The multiemployer program—which is in much worse shape—insures benefits of more than 10 million workers and retirees in about 1,400 plans, the agency says. The plans typically are jointly managed by employers and unions.
But for years, those plans have been lightly regulated, and the federal safety net for them has been criticized as inadequate. Now, amid broad economic shifts in some industries, a few troubled plans are threatening not only to go broke themselves, but to bring down the entire safety-net program.
The agency said that the projected long-term deficit in its multiemployer program rose to $42.4 billion, compared with $8.3 billion last year. The increase is largely to due to the fact that several large multiemployer plans are now officially projected to become insolvent within the next decade.
The PBGC report didn’t name the troubled plans, but two have previously been identified as a United Mine Workers plan and a Teamsters Central States plan.
The executive director of the Teamsters Central States pension fund, Tom Nyhan, said the report underscores the need for legislation to help his plan avoid insolvency. United Mine Workers didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Congress has been working on a solution but hasn’t yet come up with a way to fix the long-running problems, which likely would require either a bailout or sharp benefit cuts for the plans, as well as premium increases or other new revenue sources for the PBGC insurance program for multiemployer plans.
Lawmakers face politically dicey choices. Industry-specific bailouts and benefit cuts are seen as political poison. But relying too much on premium rises could worsen the problems by hastening the decline of individual plans or the whole program.
Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the multiemployer pension system “is a ticking time bomb that will inflict a lot of pain on workers, employers, taxpayers and retirees if Congress fails to act.”
He called the annual report “a sober reminder that time is running out and should serve as a wake-up call for those few naysayers who believe this is too hard to get done.”
Senate Finance Committee leaders Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Orrin Hatch (R., Ore.) issued a statement that they remain “very concerned” about the multiemployer system and are committed to addressing its problems.
“We owe it to American workers to do everything feasible to ensure that retirees receive the promised pension benefits they worked hard to achieve,” they said. Mr. Wyden is the committee’s current chairman; Mr. Hatch is expected to take over in the next Congress.
Agency officials said they believe they have enough money to continue financial assistance to insolvent multiemployer plans for several more years, but that over time the risk of the PBGC fund running dry is increasing.
The separate, larger program for single-employer plans is much healthier. The agency said the long-term deficit in that program narrowed to about $19.3 billion from $27.4 billion in 2013. The single-employer program insures the pensions of nearly 31 million workers and retirees in about 22,300 ongoing plans sponsored by private-sector employers.
Write to John D. McKinnon at [email protected]
Federal Private-Pension Safety Net Running $62 Billion Deficit
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Report Warns of Problems with Multiemployer Pension Plans
By John D. McKinnon
Updated Nov. 17, 2014 7:21 p.m. ET
The federal government’s safety-net program for private pensions is running a near $62 billion long-term deficit, largely due to long-standing problems in a type of pension plan that is common in transportation, construction and some other industries, according to a new report.
The problems are likely to bankrupt the federal safety-net program for so-called multiemployer pension plans within the next decade, perhaps in the next few years. Such an outcome could hit more than 1 million people, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. said.
The findings in the agency’s annual report mirror earlier projections. But the official numbers are growing so stark they are sure to raise pressure on Congress to act in the next year or two to tackle the looming crisis.
The PBGC operates by collecting insurance premiums from employers that offer pensions and paying usually-reduced benefits to retirees in insolvent plans. The PBGC has two separate insurance programs, one for multiemployer plans and a larger one for single-employer pension plans.
The multiemployer program—which is in much worse shape—insures benefits of more than 10 million workers and retirees in about 1,400 plans, the agency says. The plans typically are jointly managed by employers and unions.
But for years, those plans have been lightly regulated, and the federal safety net for them has been criticized as inadequate. Now, amid broad economic shifts in some industries, a few troubled plans are threatening not only to go broke themselves, but to bring down the entire safety-net program.
The agency said that the projected long-term deficit in its multiemployer program rose to $42.4 billion, compared with $8.3 billion last year. The increase is largely to due to the fact that several large multiemployer plans are now officially projected to become insolvent within the next decade.
The PBGC report didn’t name the troubled plans, but two have previously been identified as a United Mine Workers plan and a Teamsters Central States plan.
The executive director of the Teamsters Central States pension fund, Tom Nyhan, said the report underscores the need for legislation to help his plan avoid insolvency. United Mine Workers didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Congress has been working on a solution but hasn’t yet come up with a way to fix the long-running problems, which likely would require either a bailout or sharp benefit cuts for the plans, as well as premium increases or other new revenue sources for the PBGC insurance program for multiemployer plans.
Lawmakers face politically dicey choices. Industry-specific bailouts and benefit cuts are seen as political poison. But relying too much on premium rises could worsen the problems by hastening the decline of individual plans or the whole program.
Rep. John Kline (R., Minn.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said the multiemployer pension system “is a ticking time bomb that will inflict a lot of pain on workers, employers, taxpayers and retirees if Congress fails to act.”
He called the annual report “a sober reminder that time is running out and should serve as a wake-up call for those few naysayers who believe this is too hard to get done.”
Senate Finance Committee leaders Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Orrin Hatch (R., Ore.) issued a statement that they remain “very concerned” about the multiemployer system and are committed to addressing its problems.
“We owe it to American workers to do everything feasible to ensure that retirees receive the promised pension benefits they worked hard to achieve,” they said. Mr. Wyden is the committee’s current chairman; Mr. Hatch is expected to take over in the next Congress.
Agency officials said they believe they have enough money to continue financial assistance to insolvent multiemployer plans for several more years, but that over time the risk of the PBGC fund running dry is increasing.
The separate, larger program for single-employer plans is much healthier. The agency said the long-term deficit in that program narrowed to about $19.3 billion from $27.4 billion in 2013. The single-employer program insures the pensions of nearly 31 million workers and retirees in about 22,300 ongoing plans sponsored by private-sector employers.
Write to John D. McKinnon at [email protected]
The Delta plan is under the single employer umbrella for those wondering.
11-17-2014, 06:36 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Position: JFK A-330 A
Posts: 277
BuzzPat:
What station/program was the Navy Seal documentary you mentioned earlier on? Just back from vacation, and I'd like to see it.
Thanks!
DFW
What station/program was the Navy Seal documentary you mentioned earlier on? Just back from vacation, and I'd like to see it.
Thanks!
DFW
11-17-2014, 06:43 PM
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
11-17-2014, 06:59 PM
Works Every Weekend
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: 737 ATL
Posts: 3,506
11-17-2014, 07:23 PM
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2011
Position: Hates Commuting
Posts: 957
***?? What's the backstory to this?
EDIT: Wow... "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot" gets the asterisk treatment?? That's it's own WT... well, you get the idea....
Last edited by Jughead135; 11-17-2014 at 07:26 PM. Reason: incredulousness
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
