Originally Posted by newKnow

ACL,

Why would they make guys work to 65? Is there anything in the new law that requires that? Or, could we negotiate out of that?

New K Now

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

I was asked by a lot of senior guys if I was willing to restore a DB plan. My response what hell no!

Originally Posted by Sink r8

Good response. If we want more money for retirement, then let's by all means get more DC money, in our own name. I can't fathom anything more disturbing than going back to a DB plan again.

There are two means for management to exert tremendous leverage upon us. One is seniority (and the lack of portability thereof), and the other is a DB pension. We paid a very heavy toll when they used up all the leverage of the DB plan. Consequently, they cannot play that card again unless we let them.

The only people that might be tempted by such a scheme (and I believe the company is likely to offer a poor DB plan in Section 6) would be the few, ultra-senior people that are close enough to retirement that they would be tempted to risk everyone else's retirement, for the hope of getting away with it.

It's typical greed vs. logic, instant gratification vs. long-term interest, self-interest of a few vs. everyone else.

Originally Posted by newKnow

But, there is nothing that says that DB plans have HAVE to be administered by the company though. Right? So, the company could be forced to contribute, but the union (ALPA) or some 3rd party COULD be the fiduciary.

I understand the tendancy to shy away from DB plans after the termination of the DAL plan and the freezing of the NWA plan. But, I hate the stand alone DC system we have now, because it pushes us to work as long as we can. Which as we know is 65 followed by an earlier "termination."

I'm for exploring ways to provide incentives to us to retire sooner rather than later. How that comes about, I don't care.

New K Now

Originally Posted by acl65pilot

The idea of having an association administer a DB is an idea that I would be willing to look at. Others unions do it, and it works well for them.

Originally Posted by tomgoodman

A third-party administrator such as a large bank or insurance company would avoid conflicts of interest that might arise if the union did it. Worst-case scenario would be a situation like the infamous Teamsters' Central States Pension Fund.

Originally Posted by sailingfun

I am not sure where the 1700 number came from. It is not however a correct number for Delta. The ALPA proposal which will not be the final rule more then likely would require a modest increase in pilot manning at Delta. Somewhere in the area of 200 to 300 pilots. If it is watered down which is likely under the intense pressure from the ATA then the increase will be less. The Delta contract already requires much of what the new rule requires. The driving factors for pilot jobs at Delta are simple. How many total pilot block hours does the company have to man and what percentage of that ends up being credit time. Required Block hours plus credit time equals jobs. Even with the thousands of jobs we gave up via work rules and elimination of the cap the new ruling wont cause a big job boost at Delta. It may cause domestic pilots to work more days to get the same number of hours but it wont increase the number of pilots. Contractual changes in the next contract such as restoring vacation to pay and credit could make a huge difference but that is several years away at best.