Alaska TA is out. Pay Rates.

[ImbracableCrunk]

Chris,

If you are going to account for the self deposit then you have to adjust by the 30ish% that you would be giving to Obama if not into the 401k

Please. This thread is F'ed up enough. Don't throw that crap in, too.

 

[fam62c]

Does this TA come with a positive recommendation from your MEC and Negotiating Committee?

 

[ualdriver]

The Pension formula is 1.9% times your Final Average Earnings times your years of service.

So assuming you retire as a Captain at the top rate at the end of this contract with 25 years of service and that you had been a Captain for 5 years your calculation would look like this...

Top rate under TA is $180. So to find your FAE I'll assume you flew 80 hours for 5 years. So basically $180 times 80 times 12 = $172,800

.019 times $172,800 times 25 = 82,080

OK, cool. I just wanted some numbers to play with to try to figure out how away our current contract would be from your TA, assuming it passes.

So to add to post 91, which already put your TA about 9% ahead of ours, speaking strictly in dollar terms (not including the squishy stuff like work rules).....

So a 25 year pilot retiring from Alaska would get an $82,000 a year pension (pretax), which is fully funded by Alaska Airlines and adds some value to your paycheck.

I made the following assumptions:

50/50 stock/bond conservative investment strategy (8%/year return since 1926 according to Vanguard)
Age 60 retirement
Male Pilot born 1949
single life annuity (i.e. you get paid $82,000 pretax per year until you die, no inflation adjustment, no minimum payouts, no joint life payments, etc.)
25 years of tax deferred savings
Money from tax deferred vehicle rolled directly into annuity, taxes then taken out as you receive your annuity payments
25% marginal tax bracket
All the above are real dollars (i.e. inflation adjusted)
And all of the above are sort of wags and is assuming I didn't make a mistake along the way......

According to an annuity website I looked at, the example insurance company would pay you $82,000/year-ish pretax for the rest of your life if you gave them a lump sum of 1.14 million-ish dollars. That 82K/year seemed quite high, but I guess this company doesn't expect a guy born in 1949 to live very long Anyway....

A pilot would have to save $1300-ish per month (post tax) in order to accumulate 1.14M dollars over 25 years in a tax deferred account. Pre-tax, he'd have to save $1700/month-ish.

So basically, an Alaska pilot (or any pensioned pilot with a similar formula and pay structure) can add well over a thousand dollars per month to his monthly earnings in order to make an "apples to apples" comparison with a non-pensioned pilot, taking the A fund into account. Pre-tax, at $1700/month @ 80 hours per month work, it roughly works out to an additional 21/hr.-ish in hourly rates, pre-tax.

Nice.

 

[skid]

I have been reading all the retirement stuff and have to admit I have an IQ of 50 when it comes to this stuff!

Anyways, what protections are built into all of this to keep this style retirement for the duration of someones career? I mean look at some of the guys at other carriers that had planned on relying on their pension. What is gonna stop them from making this disappear halfway through a pilots career?

None...right?

 

[ualdriver]

I have been reading all the retirement stuff and have to admit I have an IQ of 50 when it comes to this stuff!

Anyways, what protections are built into all of this to keep this style retirement for the duration of someones career? I mean look at some of the guys at other carriers that had planned on relying on their pension. What is gonna stop them from making this disappear halfway through a pilots career?

None...right?

Basically, nothing, and I'm unfortunately one of those guys. I think there's another guy on this forum that knows all the ERISA/law stuff, but my understanding is that unless your pilots and your management agree to terminate/freeze/whatever your A fund, the only thing that keeps it going is the financial ability of your airline to keep it minimally funded per legal guidelines.

Worse case scenario is that your A fund (pension) isn't funded for whatever reason and it is taken over by the PBGC. In that case, the maximum benefit you will receive (with few exceptions) would be here for 2009. That table is adjusted upwards yearly.

Moral of the story is if you're young, pretend like you won't get an A fund (even if you currently have one), and if you actually get one when you start thinking about retiring, you'll be able to retire that much earlier. If you're an older guy and starting to seriously make plans as to how much money you can expect in retirement, keep an eye on those PBGC tables and plan on not receiving any more than they indicate. If you end up getting more from your A fund, it's a bonus and your car/boat/RV/vacation home/girlfriend's boobs will be that much bigger when you retire

 

[Fubijaakr]

Does this TA come with a positive recommendation from your MEC and Negotiating Committee?

Yes it does.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Here's one of my concerns:

If BS of the Negotiating Committee supposedly yelled at BT that the furlough grievance would not be nullified by the new contract, what happened between then and now?

The story I heard was that BT wanted to make that one of the requirements for the TA. And BS got pissed. Something between then and now has changed. Something made it seem like a good idea to kill the Section 23 grievance.

If we had been allowed through with it and we won, the 60 furloughees would have been made whole and we would get the signing bonus.

I guess we were bought. And for us to be bought, someone had to sell us.

I'm so glad that the loss of my job benefited someone.

 

[eskimopilot]

"the 60 furloughees would have been made whole"
How would they be made whole if the grievance was upheld?

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

"the 60 furloughees would have been made whole"
How would they be made whole if the grievance was upheld?

We would have been brought back to work and given back pay.

 

[five-alive]

Overall the summary looks good to me. Would have like more $$$, but wouldn´t we all. The MEC voted to approve this TA, not nuetral like the last. I´ll wait for the roadshow and the full language, but for now it looks like a "yes" from me.

Baja.

Wow a yes vote without thoroughly reading the workrules, scope, and fine print? Surely you are not that foolish??

 

[Ih8AFYesmen]

Beware of the Road Show Spin doctors

By now, I hope all of you have read the TA inside and out. Most of us have already made up our minds and there are others who are on the fence. If you are waiting for the road shows to sway you even though deep down inside you know what is right, well... I hope you are not called to make any life pending decisions any time soon(ie. flying airplanes).
Some of whom I spoke with who are voting for this TA sing the same tune - "the worst recession since the great depression", "NMB is going to park us for a very long time", "if the NC/MEC says so, it's gotta be a good deal", "this is the best we can do", "this is more than what I make now", just to name a few.
Besides the face slapping pay raise (especially 1.5, 1.5, 1.8) and the chump change signing bonus, we really need to focus our attention on the scheduling section. If you are a junior captain or FO, it would behoove you to fully understand the dire consequences of voting this TA in. If indeed the economy is going to tank even further or remain as is (as many of you "yes" voters fear), not only will there be stagnation in seniorty, but there will be further downgrades and furloughs to come. And we all know how our own brothers like to take real good care of our furloughed bros. Also, look at the reserve section carefully as we'll all be on reserve alot longer.
On the subject of the $13k signing bonus that MOST, not all, will pocket.... Just on this subject alone, we cannot accept this TA, IMO. This will set a bad precedence for future negotiations. Why? Becasue we just told the company that we'll bend over until they feel like kissing us. It gives them no incentive to negotiate in good faith and they know they will get away with it once again. I personally don't care what they call this pay, but it has to be exteremely close to the actual retro pay, and there has to be language to include the furloughed pilots if/when they return. On another note of pay, the union admitted to screwing up our pay rate proposal to the company; they admitted that we came in too low. The Union proposed pay rates in the December 2008 Comprehensive Proposal was a MISTAKE!!! For confirmation, please be sure to ask this question at the road shows. How in the h*ll we can make such a mistake is beyond me.
In closing, just ask yourselves this. Why is the union trying so hard to convince us that this TA is suuuuuch a good deal? Pressure from national, perhaps? The increased dues would be a nice to add to their account. By being the first one out the gate, we would be a stepping stone for others to improve on. Our NC might have gotten all they can this time, but there is more on the table. The FA just signed up for a 1.5% per year for the next 2 years. That leaves us with more money to take. If the company does not settle, they have more to lose. Just think why the company wants stability within the labor groups. There are many theories, but you can imagine that on your own. Sure, if the TA is turned down, there is the unknown. I'm willing to call their bluff. It's your call and it's your career. If you consider this a CAREER, think twice before you vote for this TURD. May God help us all.

 

[Wally]

Here's one of my concerns:

If BS of the Negotiating Committee supposedly yelled at BT that the furlough grievance would not be nullified by the new contract, what happened between then and now?

The story I heard was that BT wanted to make that one of the requirements for the TA. And BS got pissed. Something between then and now has changed. Something made it seem like a good idea to kill the Section 23 grievance.

If we had been allowed through with it and we won, the 60 furloughees would have been made whole and we would get the signing bonus.

I guess we were bought. And for us to be bought, someone had to sell us.

I'm so glad that the loss of my job benefited someone.

You are taking for fact a lot of things that you've "heard." I can't speak to Bill and Brad yelling at one another as I wasn't there, but furloughed pilots will get a signing bonus. It won't be the full $13,500; it'll be calculated on months of service since May 2007. I don't know the exact formula, but if you worked every month since May 2007, you get the full $13,500. If you worked half of that time (furloughs included), then you get half of the bonus. (If you're a retiree--yes, even those that took the $100k bonus--you get 50% credit for each month.)

With regard to the furlough grievance, you are also assuming it would not only be victorious, but that we'd get EVERY demand being asked for. Maybe, but it's about as certain as all the stories you've heard. If this TA passes, furloughs get one year travel and two (2) years paid health insurance and the grievance goes away.

I'm not endorsing anything here, but these are the facts as I understand them.

 

[becket]

We would have been brought back to work and given back pay.

Things are tough now. Believe me, I've been there. I sympathize 100%. However, what you're describing is pure fantasy. Furloughs happen, they are an irrefutable fact in the airline business. I will remind you that Alaska did end up furloughing a significantly less number of pilots than they originally said they were going to due to early outs and other programs. I know this does not help you any but being delusional about what "could have been" isn't going to help you either.

I do believe, that you are going to be back on the property a lot faster than anyone else...certainly the 800 or so United guys. It could be worse. Your Career isn't ended by this.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Things are tough now. Believe me, I've been there. I sympathize 100%. However, what you're describing is pure fantasy. Furloughs happen, they are an irrefutable fact in the airline business. I will remind you that Alaska did end up furloughing a significantly less number of pilots than they originally said they were going to due to early outs and other programs. I know this does not help you any but being delusional about what "could have been" isn't going to help you either.

I do believe, that you are going to be back on the property a lot faster than anyone else...certainly the 800 or so United guys. It could be worse. Your Career isn't ended by this.

Airlines furlough - that's a given and it's no surprise. However, when an airline furloughs, it has to be done through the contract. And that is the subject of the grievance.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

You are taking for fact a lot of things that you've "heard." I can't speak to Bill and Brad yelling at one another as I wasn't there, but furloughed pilots will get a signing bonus. It won't be the full $13,500; it'll be calculated on months of service since May 2007. I don't know the exact formula, but if you worked every month since May 2007, you get the full $13,500. If you worked half of that time (furloughs included), then you get half of the bonus. (If you're a retiree--yes, even those that took the $100k bonus--you get 50% credit for each month.)

With regard to the furlough grievance, you are also assuming it would not only be victorious, but that we'd get EVERY demand being asked for. Maybe, but it's about as certain as all the stories you've heard. If this TA passes, furloughs get one year travel and two (2) years paid health insurance and the grievance goes away.

I'm not endorsing anything here, but these are the facts as I understand them.

You highlight my IFs to point out what, exactly? I wasn't there, but the union's position was originally that the furloughs must be prevented - the position the contract provides for. No IFs there.

The furloughees want our contractual rights protected, obviously, and most, if not all, want to have the grievance heard.