UAL TA
07-11-2022, 07:12 AM
#101
Furloughed Again?!
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: Boeing 737
Posts: 4,804
I know there are a lot of “No” reasons on here. My wants are really simple:
1. 3% or the actual CPI whichever is greater annually.
2. LTD til age 65 matching or exceeding the best of any other 121 carrier
3. Hourly pay rates that meet or exceed any other carrier flying 737’s.
4. Full retro pay - you can call it a bonus, chicken scratch, or pond scum for all I care. This includes full 401k contribution and per diem. There can be no financial benefit to the company for protracting negotiations. Every penny has to be paid. We cannot reward bad behavior.
5. A fair Per Diem set with annual adjustments of 3% or the annual rate of inflation, whichever is greater. No more flat rates throughout the term and any company bonus period because they protracted negotiations.
There is no compromise on these. I will get all or the vote will be no. Get them all, and I will consider the balance of the contract and likely accept it. I am financially and mentally prepared to strike to achieve these.
Y’all can quibble about parking, uniforms, and the other nickel and dime stuff. Experience has taught me that the pain in getting the nickel and dime stuff, generally causes you to yield on something for more important such as LTD or per diems. Just my opinion.
While they are 5 simple requests, I fear my commitment to this list will likely cause me to be a No vote, even on the finally accepted TA.
1. 3% or the actual CPI whichever is greater annually.
2. LTD til age 65 matching or exceeding the best of any other 121 carrier
3. Hourly pay rates that meet or exceed any other carrier flying 737’s.
4. Full retro pay - you can call it a bonus, chicken scratch, or pond scum for all I care. This includes full 401k contribution and per diem. There can be no financial benefit to the company for protracting negotiations. Every penny has to be paid. We cannot reward bad behavior.
5. A fair Per Diem set with annual adjustments of 3% or the annual rate of inflation, whichever is greater. No more flat rates throughout the term and any company bonus period because they protracted negotiations.
There is no compromise on these. I will get all or the vote will be no. Get them all, and I will consider the balance of the contract and likely accept it. I am financially and mentally prepared to strike to achieve these.
Y’all can quibble about parking, uniforms, and the other nickel and dime stuff. Experience has taught me that the pain in getting the nickel and dime stuff, generally causes you to yield on something for more important such as LTD or per diems. Just my opinion.
While they are 5 simple requests, I fear my commitment to this list will likely cause me to be a No vote, even on the finally accepted TA.
Just heard a Scott Kirby (UAL) interview where he said that 34% of all pilots over age 64 were out on medical. Over a THIRD. That means it is insanely important that SWA not only provide income replacement until age 65, but also retirement replacement!
07-11-2022, 08:49 AM
#102
At your mom's house
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: cpt 737
Posts: 2,798
So the initial DOS bump might be 20% (example) and 3-4% every year thereafter. Contract became amendable Sept 2020. So if we got a TA this Sept, you’d basically be a getting 10%/yr raise….$150/tfp would snap up to $170/tfp.
If you were hired on Jan 1 and are on 5th yr pay now, then in Sept 2020 you were about to start 4th yr pay. So from Sept-Dec you were on 3rd yr pay. 4th yr pay in 2021. 5th for 2022.
Swapa would take the rates in the new CBA and pay you the difference. So you’d get the difference of 3rd yr pay for Sept-Dec 2020. Difference of 4th yr pay for what you made in 2021, etc.
So those who didn’t take ExTO or VSP and killed it stand to get a huge retro check.
If you were hired on Jan 1 and are on 5th yr pay now, then in Sept 2020 you were about to start 4th yr pay. So from Sept-Dec you were on 3rd yr pay. 4th yr pay in 2021. 5th for 2022.
Swapa would take the rates in the new CBA and pay you the difference. So you’d get the difference of 3rd yr pay for Sept-Dec 2020. Difference of 4th yr pay for what you made in 2021, etc.
So those who didn’t take ExTO or VSP and killed it stand to get a huge retro check.
definitely need way more than that.
07-11-2022, 11:18 AM
#104
At your mom's house
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: cpt 737
Posts: 2,798
that's what these guys were saying but also adding they think it's fair. I dont know how I got on a string of yes men. They were, however, all over 60 so maybe they just want one done now before getting retire etc
07-12-2022, 07:40 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: FIRE ALPA
Posts: 3,097
07-14-2022, 10:31 AM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,264
I like it!
I would caution you on the A-plan as that's the promised money, not the actual money. In previous life, because our A-plan was terminated in bankruptcy and pawned off to PBGC, I'm literally set to get enough from PBGC to buy a case of beer a week at current prices when I retire. I would much rather take a substantially higher NEC and when I max it out, I'll do my own investments or take it as cash. During hard times, think it's bad now with Pollyannas? Wait until people sell everything in the contract to protect the A-plan only to have it terminated anyway. Because our pension numbers would be substantially higher, the PBGC will simply cap it off. To give you an idea, guys hitting the retirement age at that time were literally retiring with about 20% of what they were counting on as their A-plan payments.
I'm not a fan on A-plans for that reason. Lived it once.
I would caution you on the A-plan as that's the promised money, not the actual money. In previous life, because our A-plan was terminated in bankruptcy and pawned off to PBGC, I'm literally set to get enough from PBGC to buy a case of beer a week at current prices when I retire. I would much rather take a substantially higher NEC and when I max it out, I'll do my own investments or take it as cash. During hard times, think it's bad now with Pollyannas? Wait until people sell everything in the contract to protect the A-plan only to have it terminated anyway. Because our pension numbers would be substantially higher, the PBGC will simply cap it off. To give you an idea, guys hitting the retirement age at that time were literally retiring with about 20% of what they were counting on as their A-plan payments.
I'm not a fan on A-plans for that reason. Lived it once.
First, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 changed the requirements for the way companies fund their pensions. I’m not claiming to have a firm grasp on this subject, but apparently it’s much more conservative now, making the possibility of underfunded pensions that end up in the hands of the PBGC much less likely. And then, the law changed some things about the PBGC to make it less likely that pensions that end up being taken over by them less likely to take a hit.
Second, the 2007 changes to chapter 11 bankruptcy law significantly reduce the incentive for airlines to enter into bankruptcy compared to before. My understanding is that all of the big airlines entered bankruptcy prior to the new changes became effective and that they wouldn’t have fared nearly as well after the changes. But regardless, the Pension Protection Act still would have likely resulted in pensions remaining preserved.
I definitely don’t have my mind wrapped very firmly around how these two changes impact the situation other than a little bit of my own research that I’ve done and what is being said by the guys over on the United forum.
I’d appreciate it if you could offer your two cents on how these two changes do or don’t change the situation for pensions.
07-15-2022, 01:27 AM
#108
Gets Weekend Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,776
Over on the United forum, a couple of their guys are pointing out changes since the big airline bankruptcies of the mid-2000’s that they’re saying make the situation you’re describing much less likely, maybe even near-impossible, to occur again.
First, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 changed the requirements for the way companies fund their pensions. I’m not claiming to have a firm grasp on this subject, but apparently it’s much more conservative now, making the possibility of underfunded pensions that end up in the hands of the PBGC much less likely. And then, the law changed some things about the PBGC to make it less likely that pensions that end up being taken over by them less likely to take a hit.
Second, the 2007 changes to chapter 11 bankruptcy law significantly reduce the incentive for airlines to enter into bankruptcy compared to before. My understanding is that all of the big airlines entered bankruptcy prior to the new changes became effective and that they wouldn’t have fared nearly as well after the changes. But regardless, the Pension Protection Act still would have likely resulted in pensions remaining preserved.
I definitely don’t have my mind wrapped very firmly around how these two changes impact the situation other than a little bit of my own research that I’ve done and what is being said by the guys over on the United forum.
I’d appreciate it if you could offer your two cents on how these two changes do or don’t change the situation for pensions.
First, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 changed the requirements for the way companies fund their pensions. I’m not claiming to have a firm grasp on this subject, but apparently it’s much more conservative now, making the possibility of underfunded pensions that end up in the hands of the PBGC much less likely. And then, the law changed some things about the PBGC to make it less likely that pensions that end up being taken over by them less likely to take a hit.
Second, the 2007 changes to chapter 11 bankruptcy law significantly reduce the incentive for airlines to enter into bankruptcy compared to before. My understanding is that all of the big airlines entered bankruptcy prior to the new changes became effective and that they wouldn’t have fared nearly as well after the changes. But regardless, the Pension Protection Act still would have likely resulted in pensions remaining preserved.
I definitely don’t have my mind wrapped very firmly around how these two changes impact the situation other than a little bit of my own research that I’ve done and what is being said by the guys over on the United forum.
I’d appreciate it if you could offer your two cents on how these two changes do or don’t change the situation for pensions.
Another point is the Chapter 11 threat. The basic premise of the Chapter 11 hasn't really changed. If you look at our own non-qual plans, they're the at-risk plans if we were to go into Chapter 11, much like our A-plan would be. The reason why you may be thinking it may not be as beneficial to go into Chapter 11 nowadays is because A-plans have been primary targets in Chapter 11 and with the exception of UPS and FedEx, all pilot groups have transitioned to defined contribution plans. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to obtain concessions from employee groups via negotiations than going through Chapter 11, but it's still a viable tool for the management - if you recall, Republic filed for bankruptcy to get itself out of 50-seat deal while still being a healthy company.
I'd really need to dig into it deeper, but as human race, we are prone to not learning from the past mistakes.
07-16-2022, 10:49 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Posts: 1,897
Lew, I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the PPA in 2006 made it so the taxpayers can still partially bail out the company's pension liabilities, and they tightened up the amount by which the company can underfund the plan requiring the companies to provide more cushion during good times. But is that enough? A major downturn in the market would still require the company to make up the losses and it's still difficult to account for that, and especially during the bad times. Imagine if Southwest had to make up the difference after COVID hit and the markets tanked... it's bad enough that our revenues dropped so dramatically, now imagine the increased cost of having to make up the pension liability due to market drop. I know the new law would have made it be a tad stronger in good times, but think of the bean counter reaction during the drop. As I mentioned in my previous post, think it's bad now that people vote yes on substandard contracts, you should have seen the dumpster fire when the A-plan was under threat. It was a fire-sale on pay rates and work rules all in the name of protecting the A-plan. Everyone gets sold down the river to protect the pension.
Another point is the Chapter 11 threat. The basic premise of the Chapter 11 hasn't really changed. If you look at our own non-qual plans, they're the at-risk plans if we were to go into Chapter 11, much like our A-plan would be. The reason why you may be thinking it may not be as beneficial to go into Chapter 11 nowadays is because A-plans have been primary targets in Chapter 11 and with the exception of UPS and FedEx, all pilot groups have transitioned to defined contribution plans. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to obtain concessions from employee groups via negotiations than going through Chapter 11, but it's still a viable tool for the management - if you recall, Republic filed for bankruptcy to get itself out of 50-seat deal while still being a healthy company.
I'd really need to dig into it deeper, but as human race, we are prone to not learning from the past mistakes.
Another point is the Chapter 11 threat. The basic premise of the Chapter 11 hasn't really changed. If you look at our own non-qual plans, they're the at-risk plans if we were to go into Chapter 11, much like our A-plan would be. The reason why you may be thinking it may not be as beneficial to go into Chapter 11 nowadays is because A-plans have been primary targets in Chapter 11 and with the exception of UPS and FedEx, all pilot groups have transitioned to defined contribution plans. Furthermore, it's a lot easier to obtain concessions from employee groups via negotiations than going through Chapter 11, but it's still a viable tool for the management - if you recall, Republic filed for bankruptcy to get itself out of 50-seat deal while still being a healthy company.
I'd really need to dig into it deeper, but as human race, we are prone to not learning from the past mistakes.
07-17-2022, 03:37 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,174
Over on the United forum, a couple of their guys are pointing out changes since the big airline bankruptcies of the mid-2000’s that they’re saying make the situation you’re describing much less likely, maybe even near-impossible, to occur again.
First, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 changed the requirements for the way companies fund their pensions. I’m not claiming to have a firm grasp on this subject, but apparently it’s much more conservative now, making the possibility of underfunded pensions that end up in the hands of the PBGC much less likely. And then, the law changed some things about the PBGC to make it less likely that pensions that end up being taken over by them less likely to take a hit.
Second, the 2007 changes to chapter 11 bankruptcy law significantly reduce the incentive for airlines to enter into bankruptcy compared to before. My understanding is that all of the big airlines entered bankruptcy prior to the new changes became effective and that they wouldn’t have fared nearly as well after the changes. But regardless, the Pension Protection Act still would have likely resulted in pensions remaining preserved.
I definitely don’t have my mind wrapped very firmly around how these two changes impact the situation other than a little bit of my own research that I’ve done and what is being said by the guys over on the United forum.
I’d appreciate it if you could offer your two cents on how these two changes do or don’t change the situation for pensions.
First, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 changed the requirements for the way companies fund their pensions. I’m not claiming to have a firm grasp on this subject, but apparently it’s much more conservative now, making the possibility of underfunded pensions that end up in the hands of the PBGC much less likely. And then, the law changed some things about the PBGC to make it less likely that pensions that end up being taken over by them less likely to take a hit.
Second, the 2007 changes to chapter 11 bankruptcy law significantly reduce the incentive for airlines to enter into bankruptcy compared to before. My understanding is that all of the big airlines entered bankruptcy prior to the new changes became effective and that they wouldn’t have fared nearly as well after the changes. But regardless, the Pension Protection Act still would have likely resulted in pensions remaining preserved.
I definitely don’t have my mind wrapped very firmly around how these two changes impact the situation other than a little bit of my own research that I’ve done and what is being said by the guys over on the United forum.
I’d appreciate it if you could offer your two cents on how these two changes do or don’t change the situation for pensions.
HELL NO TO PENSION.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
EngineOut
Regional
153
05-10-2017 10:12 AM
