Originally Posted by Shaman

Can we just refund this guy and those who think like him their dues and let those of us who understand what being apart of a union is make decisions for the collective?

This pilot group has far far too many folks in it who think this way.

It is why we cannot have nice things.

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

?..

However, there are consequences that come with their vote. Lack of A-plan improvements being a big one. Now some aren't willing to own those consequences and that's where I'm having a pretty big problem. IMO, this attempt to change our retirement now is a big mistake. ...

Originally Posted by Adlerdriver

I don't think that was his point, but it's certainly your prerogative to interpret it that way. I think he's simply voicing concerns many of us share about this process and what's being said by our leadership about it.

When the MEC chairman starts declaring "moral obligations" or what is "the right thing to do" ( a blast from the past), my BS meter pegs. If this process being considered fails and retirees leave between now and 2021 with our current retirement plan, I'm not going to feel ANY failure of morality - individually or collectively. How many of those 780 (MEC chair included) voted yes on this contract, supposedly agreeing to what now has suddenly become a morality check? YGBSM!!

Retirement in this industry is hardly a surprise. Hopefully all the folks approaching that milestone have done their due diligence and are ready. Thankfully, at our company, the losses in retirement experienced by many pax pilot late in their careers didn't happen. What the soon to be retired have planned on for their career will be there. Hell, thanks to the last MEC pang of morality, many got an extra five years they weren't expecting. Most, after decades on WB captain pay, a $130K A-plan and most likely millions in their B-plan will be juuuuuust fine. Characterizing junior pilot's reluctance to embrace this effort as "screwing those mean old pilots for the rest of their lives" is a bit of a stretch. Yeah, we keep bringing up the diminishing value of the A-plan over time. However, right now in 2017, $130K per year is still a worthy amount. It's also what the "yes" voters two years ago who will soon retire agreed to. CD will have to excuse me if I'm not feeling his "moral obligation" quite as strongly as he is.

The company stands to gain big (no.....HUGE!!) on this change to one targeted section of our contract. That's not how collective bargaining is supposed to work. Those gains for the company are supposed to be evaluated and the benefits the company stands to receive should be offset in our favor across the contract in areas that benefit the majority of us. I guarantee that whatever retirement gains we might make from changes made outside section 6 negotiations are going to be PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR when compared to what the company saves. But we'll never have the opportunity to use the leverage represented by the balance of those benefits to the company if this is done outside of normal negotiations.

What's going to result is a significant immediate benefit to a minority of our pilots while the majority of us are left to assume the risk. That's not moral and it's not the right thing to do either. The next chance to improve this situation is in 2021. If CD and anyone else doesn't like that timeline then he and the MEC shouldn't have sent this contract out for a vote and he sure as hell shouldn't have voted "yes".

Originally Posted by FrankTheTank

The danger, I see, with waiting for all the details to come out and then looking and evaluating, is it may be too late to stop this proposal. If the Company agrees and this thing goes to a vote. I expect 1) a sell job by the Union and 2) it will pass. I can't think of a single thing that the membership has voted down since I have been here.

Why not come out with the details and let us evaluate it and then present it to the Company. I really don't like the double talk and generalizations and assumptions being thrown around by the Union. If this plan is better then it should stand alone on its merits and should be easily approved for presentation; but why are we going through the motions the other way around? This so has the same patterns of which Age 65 occurred..

Originally Posted by Fdxlag2

So that would be 57%. You want a small union. Actually I think we ought to kick out the 78% who voted yes on the “Bridge” contract. That was the one that sold retirement down the river if anything.

Originally Posted by MaydayMark

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.cd430a138716

Originally Posted by busdriver12

^^Ya know, that is unnecessarily rude. Not too late to edit.