PassportPlump

Kind of like some pilots getting $231,000 with $0 contribution as a thank you for your sacrifice and the rest of us earning 5% on an annuity when the S&P 500 has a lifetime average return over 90 years of 9.8%.

Pot meet kettle.

CBreezy

No. The 9% needs to come with an optional alphabet soup plan. While I personally am in favor of a DC increase, there needs to be another tax deferred method to prevent DPSP cash tax hits. Of course, I think there needs to be much more transparency about what company is going to run it, expense ratios, and more.

The "plus-up" I am firmly against. All it does it try to capture long-term TVM in a very short period and is going to be incredibly expensive. Disproportionately.

Plus, let's not be ridiculous. We aren't getting 25%

AlphaBeta

Not really what I said, I am for it except for the plus up. Regarding the plus up, I know we do not have all information about it but with the lack of them talking about how it is going to be realistically calculated I do not like it.

I thought you had the best post in the other thread about the dB a 2.4 per year earned. Using that thought, I have no problem doing a realistic calculation based on how much a person accrued at the the ending of the db. Take into account the note and shares of stock, and value of the pbgc. If this is still not adequate then they get a plus up.

gloopy

The pensnioable percent is a revelant issue, however its one that's well costed out by both sides. IOW, there will never be a situation where we get to pick between 9% in DC vs 9% additional in pay rates (above and beyond any other increase) with no other changes to theoretical TA. If we get X% in DC, the only way to simply slide that percentage into rates, which would then move the costed out excess into PS territory, there would have to be a corresponding reduction somwehere else for the company to agree to it at that point.

Also against the MB. Its extremely divisive, which only benefits the company as we turn inward and rabidly negotiate against ourselves. Ironically things like MB and the 6th week of vaca will put pressure on the junior majority (to very soon become the junior supermajority) against those concepts, all the while delaying the process...which only gives more of a voice to the junior majority; you can't "true up" with MB to hundreds or thousands of pilots who drop off the list in the months/years a CBA is delayed because of it.

The only way I see this actually happening is if the TA is so unbelievably fat that no one cares cause everyone is mesmerized by section 3 using their phone calculators to buy things they never thought possible before and basking in rick solid work rules. Since that's not going to happen, MB seems to be more likely to divide and delay than to actually happen.

CBreezy

And we need to determine what is adequate. What FAE will a pilot hired today hit vs what is the FAE with all sources of company provided retirement vehicles of pilots retiring tomorrow?

gloopy

And what FAE? 2009? 2019 including millionaire 350 hustlers and staffing critical tripple dipping NB pilots? Not likely, nor should we ever even try for something like that. FAE may work if its based on ALV or some fair and constant number, but will never work if its treated like a bloated big city municipal pension to be scammed at will.

mispoken

This concept is new to me, so before I take a stance and bombard my rep with emails for or against I need to make sure I understand it.

Assume we vote in favor of this TA. A 64.5 year old contributes roughly 2.5% in his last 6 months prior to retirement but this does not afford him the “minimum balance”. The example the union sent was $231,000 (give or take) based on $2mil earnings over 10 years. Since this 6 month pilot would only have a small sum in this account not meeting the minimum balance and therefore, the company would essentially cut a check to this individuals account for $231k, less whatever the individual contributed.

Now, Take a 30 year old, assuming they opt into the plan, presumably between ages 55 and 65 they make the contributions from their own income and therefore retire with the minimum balance and thus are not afforded a plus up from the company.

In summary, 64.5 year old gets a 230k contribution from the company while the 30 year old put 230k of their own money in.

Is this an accurate summary from how you all are reading it?

fishforfun

Same. And instead of catching me at a bad time with the phone call and the last question is “what would you like to pass on to MEC/NC?” I couldn’t come up with anything for some reason. But when I filled out the online survey on my time I had time to put together a coherent response. Same with the RCC survey from not long ago.

bluesky24

And in the next 5 years nearly 4,000 pilots will be retiring? How many will require a plus up? Why would the company agree to this any time soon when they could just drag out negotiations for a few years and not have to plus up 2,000 pilots and save half a billion dollars?

Denny Crane

I assume you are referring to the “plus up.”

I disagree with yours (and others) characterization of $0 contribution/money grab etc. I would characterize it as a partial return of deferred compensation. Ya know.......that means compensation that was ALREADY earned.

You are conveniently forgetting the additional 9% DC the proposal includes.

Denny