Delta TA Passes

[FDJ2]

Come on, FDJ2. You're raining on their Delta bashfest by introducing facts. Much easier for them to blame their problems on us by repeating lies over and over.

Yep. Lies, half truths and ignorance are a poor substitute for facts.

 

[SWA Bubba]

I'm sure he's doing much better, red, seeing as how he actually has a retirement plan, and we don't. All we have is a 401k. Unlike us, the General doesn't have to contribute a dime of his own money to his retirement if he doesn't want to. He gets 15% contributed to his B-Fund without him doing anything. It's all company money. If he wants to contribute anything, it all goes on top of the company's 15%. In other words, it's better than that 401k that you're bragging about. No pilot should ever brag about a 401k plan. It's embarrassing. Crappy regional contracts have 401k plans. Major airline pilots should have B-Fund pension plans. We're the only major airline that doesn't have one. AirTran had one before SWA gutted it. Maybe you should start thinking about adding that to the list for Section 6 negotiations.

That's a good point. (It's also a good point that Dan had about SWA's plan being only as good as the funds picked.) However, since PCL rightly pointed out, "it's all company money." That makes it as good as your company's future, which is not something I'd want to bet MY future on. Ask USAir guys about that, or other airlines that have liquidated or gone through BK and screwed over their retirees. That "company money" you're depending on has a bad habit of going away when you need it. I kinda' like having power over my future, you know?

Sorry to hear you're embarrassed to be associated with SWA, PCL. You realize that you DO have the power to change that, don't you?

Bubba

 

[waveflyer]

The maximum number of 76 seat aircraft was reduced from 255 to 223.
FALSE
The maximum number of 70 seat aircraft was reduced from unlimited to 102. (pesky large turboprop exemption eliminated)
FALSE
The maximum number of 50 seat aircraft was reduced from unlimited to 125
True
The total number of fee for departure aircraft was reduced from approx. 600 to a hard cap of 450.
true
Mainline block hour ratios ensure a greater share of block hours within the Delta brand are flown by Delta pilots.
true
Furlough protection was improved, as was code-sharing and joint venture protections.
True

the first two points are not facts as I understand them- please post the language, but "chairman..." thread refuted these

 

[waveflyer]

Yep. 255-76 seat jets was the max. New contract, not so much.
Old contract, unlimited number of 70 seat aircraft, unlimited number of 50 seat aircraft and no mainline to DCI block hour ratios.

Oh yeah, old contract, not global joint venture protection, new contract global joint venture protections.

Worried about that 76 -seat hull, how does an unlimited number of 777/747/380s flown by other than Delta pilots feel.

You're wrong. Previous contract was a max of 255 70+76 seaters. Delta absolutely could not outsource unlimited 70 seaters.

You vote yes based on that??

Bc there were too many posts on that very subject to end up ignorant.

 

[Buzo]

It was 255 51+ -76 seat jets, of which 153 could be 71+ seat jets. There was not limit on 70 or 76 seat turbo props.

 

[PCL_128]

However, since PCL rightly pointed out, "it's all company money." That makes it as good as your company's future, which is not something I'd want to bet MY future on. Ask USAir guys about that, or other airlines that have liquidated or gone through BK and screwed over their retirees. That "company money" you're depending on has a bad habit of going away when you need it. I kinda' like having power over my future, you know?

Wrong! This is what's so frustrating with you guys. You are adamantly opposed to something that you don't understand. With a B-Fund pension, the money is all yours. Doesn't matter if the company goes into bankruptcy. The money is in your own personal account that can't be touched, just like a 401k. The only difference from a 401k is that you didn't have to put any money into it. The company had to put the money in whether you contributed a dime or not. In Delta's case, it's 15% of gross earnings. The company makes the entire contribution, and then it's your money in your own account, untouchable by bankruptcy or anything else.

Let's get a real retirement plan!

 

[vixin]

I hate to say it but PCL is correct on the B plan. It amazes how little SWA pilots understand the difference between a B plan and A plan.

On another note. I don't expect PCL to fly one day at SWA. It is such a horrible place to work.

 

[FDJ2]

You're wrong. Previous contract was a max of 255 70+76 seaters. Delta absolutely could not outsource unlimited 70 seaters.

You vote yes based on that??

Bc there were too many posts on that very subject to end up ignorant.

Your confusion is based on the fact that you don't understand the old contract or the new contract.

The old contract allowed up to 255 70+76 seat jets. Which begs the question, what happens when the 70 seaters are allowed to be converted to 76 seaters.

Yep, a total of 255 76-seat jets. New contract, that potential no longer exists.

Old contract allowed an unlimited number of 70 seat large turbo props. New contract, not so much.

Overall DCI footprint on the Delta brand, departures, block hours, seats are significantly reduced in a short time period. Overall mainline footprint increased.

Added bonus, since no more than 85% of DCI flying can be above 900sm and DCI will be flying significantly less, fewer long DCI flight segments, replaced by, drum roll please, mainline flights.

 

[SplitBar]

That's a good point. (It's also a good point that Dan had about SWA's plan being only as good as the funds picked.) However, since PCL rightly pointed out, "it's all company money." That makes it as good as your company's future, which is not something I'd want to bet MY future on. Ask USAir guys about that, or other airlines that have liquidated or gone through BK and screwed over their retirees. That "company money" you're depending on has a bad habit of going away when you need it. I kinda' like having power over my future, you know?

Sorry to hear you're embarrassed to be associated with SWA, PCL. You realize that you DO have the power to change that, don't you?

Bubba

Bubba, just like a 401K, we own our B fund. No matter what happens to the company down the road our B fund can't be touch. It's not in some pension fund that can disappear. It's no different than a 401K except that Delta puts 15% into it without putting a dime into it. That saves me $1500 a month by not having to fund a 401K. Oh, we also get 2% put into a 401K without us having to put in a dime so we really get 17%.

 

[SLUF4]

so your argument is that there would have been a ton of 70 seat turboprops flying around if we had kept our old TA? yeah right. you see how well the Q400 is doing. That's like when a friend of mine asked his rep why we couldn't just live with the way it's written now. His response: "maybe they'll develop a more efficient 50 seat jet". Amazing. How many 70 seat turboprops are flying for us now? How many 70+76 seat jets are flying now?

 

[Full of LUV]

That's a good point. (It's also a good point that Dan had about SWA's plan being only as good as the funds picked.) However, since PCL rightly pointed out, "it's all company money." That makes it as good as your company's future, which is not something I'd want to bet MY future on. Ask USAir guys about that, or other airlines that have liquidated or gone through BK and screwed over their retirees. That "company money" you're depending on has a bad habit of going away when you need it. I kinda' like having power over my future, you know?

Sorry to hear you're embarrassed to be associated with SWA, PCL. You realize that you DO have the power to change that, don't you?

Bubba

As posted above, you couldn't be more wrong...

Defined Benefit= Pension fund (depends on company's future ability to invest and pay the benefit) A fund

Defined Contribution= Company forced to pay as you go, you make the investment decisions, money is yours and not dependent on company future. B fund

Only the government and a few more companies in sheltered industries are using pensions going forward for the simple fact that demographics in that system are unworkable without spectacular investment returns. Some smaller government pensions are switching to B funds vs the A funds going forward, without a BK though, it's hard to switch without just dropping new hires.

 

[FDJ2]

so your argument is that there would have been a ton of 70 seat turboprops flying around if we had kept our old TA? yeah right. you see how well the Q400 is doing. That's like when a friend of mine asked his rep why we couldn't just live with the way it's written now. His response: "maybe they'll develop a more efficient 50 seat jet". Amazing. How many 70 seat turboprops are flying for us now? How many 70+76 seat jets are flying now?

255 70+76 seat jets, under old contract it could have gone to 255 76-seat jets, under new contract 223. Whether or not, and how many large turboprops the company would have decided to contract for was an open question. Horizon is operating 48 Q400s, First Q400 next gen (Alaska livery) delivered in February. Horizon and Alaska seem to be doing well with the Q400.

Bottomline, there is no disputing the fact the the company could have potentially operated 255 76-seat jets, now it's limited to 223, the large turboprop loophole is closed, there are hard caps on DCI as opposed to unlimited capacity, there is a block hour ratio that moves more flying to the mainline and there will be fewer DCI flights over 900sm.

 

[waveflyer]

You're an idiot with an agenda if you think delta would have exchanged all their 70 seaters for 76 seaters-
And if they did, who cares?

 

[PCL_128]

FDJ, you're wasting your time arguing with wave. He has no experience in bargaining or union governance. He's just an angry malcontent who screams from the sidelines, hates Delta, and hates ALPA. He's not worth your time.

 

[poppi]

FDJ, you're wasting your time arguing with wave. He has no experience in bargaining or union governance. He's just an angry malcontent who screams from the sidelines, hates Delta, and hates ALPA. He's not worth your time.

Well said

 

[waveflyer]

Started that exercise program yet, PCL? -we got to get you ready for when delta hires.

Typical PCL- cant refute the statement, so tries to get personal- you know fdj is throwing out false statements, but you have to clamor and defend anything ALPA. ...
Keep prepping man, we'll get you a job you really want.

And you know I'm no more angry than you.

 

[PCL_128]

Started that exercise program yet, PCL? -we got to get you ready for when delta hires.

Started one a long time ago, wave. Lost 34 pounds so far. Has nothing to do with Delta, though. Just tired of being a frickin' fatass.

Typical PCL- cant refute the statement, so tries to get personal- you know fdj is throwing out false statements

Believe me, FDJ knows that new PWA inside and out. What he's saying is pure fact. You just don't understand it, so it doesn't sound right to you. Listen to the man. You may learn something.

And you know I'm no more angry than you.

The difference is that I get angry at our actual adversaries, wave: management and anti-labor lawmakers. I don't get angry at our fellow pilots and our unions. That's where you take a wrong turn. Your anger is directed at Delta pilots and at ALPA. Your anger is misplaced. It should be directed at management teams who insist on outsourcing. It should be directed at lawmakers who refuse to amend laws that place us in a weak position in bargaining. Your anger is nothing but a distraction from progress.

 

[SWA Bubba]

Wrong! This is what's so frustrating with you guys. You are adamantly opposed to something that you don't understand. With a B-Fund pension, the money is all yours. Doesn't matter if the company goes into bankruptcy. The money is in your own personal account that can't be touched, just like a 401k. The only difference from a 401k is that you didn't have to put any money into it. The company had to put the money in whether you contributed a dime or not. In Delta's case, it's 15% of gross earnings. The company makes the entire contribution, and then it's your money in your own account, untouchable by bankruptcy or anything else.

Let's get a real retirement plan!

I'm not "adamantly opposed" to something I don't understand. Having never been a part of a company that used those terms, I didn't get which was the DB and which was the DC plan; probably since you used the phrase that SWA had "gutted Airtran's B-fund." I had assumed that you meant they took the money away to use differently. I'll well aware of the difference between "defined benefit" and "defined contribution" plans. In fact, I'm a big fan of defined contribution plans.

By the way, thanks to everyone who pointed that out for me. :blush:

However, as far as being opposed to things you don't understand, you might want to include yourself in that group to some degree. The way SWA retirement plans work is different than what you're used to. So what. It's different. You want your retirement money to accumulate without you doing anything. You want a "real retirement plan." SWA wants you to have an interest in growing your own retirement. Take some responsibility, so to speak. With what the company contributes in 401-K and profit sharing added to my contribution, it far exceeds 15 or even 17%. Yes, I contribute some of my own money, but in the long run, it's more much money than just counting on the company-supplied B-fund. Plus, it keeps me honest, and as importantly, keeps me with an interest in the company doing well and remaining profitable. Hey, I even put away more of my own money in other investments every month, but maybe that's just me and my sense of personal responsibility.

If you want SWA to contribute more to your retirement, are you willing to give something else up? After all, you're asking for what would essentially be an additional 8-10% "payraise" to fund this. Obviously, a union negotiator can ask for anything he wants, but what he can get may be something different. Thus far, SWAPA has been more interested in the higher wages and job stability that we get, and then the pilots contribute some of that to their own retirements.

In all honestly, PCL, would you rather have your Airtran wages with whatever B-fund they provided for free, or Southwest wages where you have to contribute a little? And don't give me the crap about what's happening now, and your 717 story. I mean after this flux is settled, and you have the rest of your career as a Southwest guy. If you'd really prefer the reduced wages with the "free" retirement, then I suppose there's your answer about finding another job.

I realize that one of these days, you'll be in charge of SWAPA and can impart your wisdom and take care of all the Southwest pilots the way we apparently need. In fact, I can hardly wait. Until then, however, how about actually waiting until you're actually at Southwest, and see exactly how our lives, jobs, and retirements actually work, before you tell us how it's all crap and how we need to fix it, okay? Thanks.

Bubba

 

[PCL_128]

With what the company contributes in 401-K and profit sharing added to my contribution, it far exceeds 15 or even 17%.

It only exceeds it because you're paying it. These numbers are really simple as far as what each company contributes to the pilot's retirement:

Delta: 15%
SWA: 9.3%

In other words, take the new Delta rates and add an additional 5.7% to them. That's what they get that you don't get. And after you add that, you'll find that your pay rates on the 737 are exceeded by Delta's new rates. No matter what you want to believe, SWA pilots no longer have an "industry leading" 737 contract.

If you want SWA to contribute more to your retirement, are you willing to give something else up?

We don't need to. Delta pilots make more than SWA pilots now. Time to make that argument and insist upon a real retirement plan. The company should be funding a major airline pilot's retirement. The company's contribution should be enough to provide a pilot with 60% of his final annual earnings in retirement after a 25 year career. At 9.3%, it's not even close. The number needs to be something closer to 13.5% to get there. We shouldn't need to subsidize our own retirement as major airline pilots. All of this talk of "personal responsibility" is just the company convincing you that they don't need to pay the appropriate amount. Don't fall for it.

In all honestly, PCL, would you rather have your Airtran wages with whatever B-fund they provided for free, or Southwest wages where you have to contribute a little?

I'd rather have the Delta pay rates along with their retirement. That should be your benchmark, since it's now the industry leading contract for passenger carriers.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

How much do you think their scope Is worth? I bet GK would give up an industry leading retirement for the ability to outsource/code share. Or did you forget about that part of their contract?