Denny Crane

Shiz,

IMO, the value of a higher DC percentage loses it's effectiveness when one reaches the 415c contribution limits. So for more senior guys who already fill up to the limit now, it's essentially a taxable raise.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a higher percentage!

As far as making us deadzoners whole, my only comment would be, if I had my frozen pension, I'd retire at 60. Being a PBGC PC-4 guy, I'm probably going to push 65. We'll see....

Denny

Carl Spackler

Yes it is prohibited by the RLA.

The RLA only allows for a unionized group of employees to bargain for themselves, and for management to bargain with and for said unionized employee group. Neither side can bargain for another employee group whether that other group is unionized or not.

Carl

Carl Spackler

We did not. We have no idea what our opening position for C2012 was. We won't see it for C2015 either. That's the way it's done here now.

Carl

Carl Spackler

Why can't that happen again? I'd love to believe that, but what changed to specifically disallow it in the future?

The big house cleaning wasn't so much the MEC chairman and two of the negotiators, it was the appointed admins. Those guys were the really bad actors at the road shows with the fear campaign. They were the ones that worked so hard to portray the TA as a fait accompli to the reps and demanded their support. One of those bad actors is also just recently back at the trough however.

Carl

Carl Spackler

That's just not right. I do mistrust a few sitting reps and that's for very good and proven reasons. The vast majority of our current reps I do trust. It is that awful MEC administration that I don't trust and that is also for very good and proven reasons. The safety chairman and a few others are great guys, but the rest I have no trust in whatsoever.

Carl

scambo1

There is a small elephant in the room wrt this. The frozen pension guys have continued funding which the rest do not have. I am not advocating anything regarding this changing, but would like to see everyone get equal pieces of pie. Retirement is important, or should be, for everyone.

Also, you pulled a number out of the air, isn't unical or aa at 16%. Why can't we pattern up from there anyway.

For me, the more the company contributes, the less I need to in order to max out. Then I can just do IRA catchup and my wife's IRA. I also invest on an after tax basis and diversify with other tangible depreciable assets which decreases my tax burden and limits my risk in the next bubble burst.

As you alluded, everyone's situation is different. There is an income point where there is a diminishing value on higher pay due to taxes. At that point, everyone needs a farm for the schedule F and or rental properties for depreciation and residual income. (Not advice just examples that people should look into).

The answer to your question ultimately comes down to its effect on taxes and that's a really individualized answer.

GogglesPisano

Apparently some here would call a pay increase in return for pay banding a "demand."

I understand what you're saying. Pay banding is a concession, period. My response is, "What are they willing to give up for that?"

DAL 88 Driver

That's an excellent question.

From my perspective, I think our retirement is fine as is. With the company 15% contribution and claim/note/equity combined with the power of the BrokerageLink within our DPSP, I should have an income in retirement that is comparable if not more than what I would have had with the pension.

I think our focus should be on increasing our W2. Remember that the company contribution is a PERCENTAGE of whatever we make. Increase our PAY, and the increase to our retirement benefit takes care of itself.

In terms of restoration... yes, we did lose a lot of "value" with the loss of the pension. I have no problem with being compensated for that but prefer for that compensation to be in the form of additional pay.

I figure between the pay cuts and the loss of pension, I've probably contributed around $100K/year for the past 10 years to Delta's recovery from its financial crisis. That's $1 million. Pretty nice "contribution" huh? And I'm not suggesting I should be repaid for that. Just fix our contribution going forward. Make it right from this point forward and I'll call it even. I think that's more than reasonable.

Hillbilly

Thanks for the info/answers Carl.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gzsg

Shiznit

Given Delta's profitability there is not doubt we can make gains across the board. It is difficult with such a large pilot group to make major shifts for the reason you mentioned. Each seniority group/age has different priorities.

I don't think we will change our retirement system. I do think moving past the UAL 16% is easily doable.

I was hired in 1985. Older pilots don't have that many years to catch up, but the are getting 15% of a higher number generally speaking.

We will make other gains across the board in min day, value of a vacation/training day, per diem, medical, number of vacation days and that is critical.

The one area where we must make a large step forward is our hourly pay rates. IMO we must exceed the 2004 Delta pilot rates at date of signing or we have failed. The line pilots have been clear and unequivocal. They have said it over and over and over.

Our executives are doing a great job and in return their compensation is up 300% to 700% since bankruptcy. For us to hit 20% plus date of signing is more than fair and easily doable. For us to make hourly rates that are over a decade old is more than fair.

I have to agree with Carl. Our admin and a few others will do anything to ensure we don't get the 2004 rates date of signing. Our MEC for the most part, will fight for these gains.

We will repeat 2012? Will the MEC be in control or the admin?

Hoping for the best.

Jerry