deus ex machina

I presented facts... asked questions...

ColCargill

I agree JB, but I don't believe that market risk is should be our number one concern. In my opinion, there are 2 more important risks that are rarely mentioned but could be far more detrimental to our collective retirement.

First, we have shown our inability to agree to adequate contractual language with the company AND successfully enforce said language. While I won't list lost grievances, there have been many. Even when we WIN, we settle for LOA's and payments that erode our rights and do not fully compensate those affected. Whether the cause is poor language or ineffective counsel or an unfair system is immaterial. We just lose in court. That being said, our best ammo in court is "past practice." The company has a long history of proper funding and payment to retirees. Any change would negate that history and put each of us at risk. There is no language strong enough or lawyer good enough or court fair enough to make this change without huge risk associated.

Second, and more insidious is risk associated with increased longevity.
We can assume that there will be additional improvements in health care in the next few years, let alone the next decade. As average age of our mortality improves our benefits will decrease under the proposed system and those benefits will need to last longer. What would happen if heart disease and cancer were cured tomorrow? Under a variable benefit plan there would be fewer pancakes for you because there are more people at the table. I believe that this a bigger risk than inflation to your total retirement package.

Our best option is to take a balanced approach to retirement funding. Some A plan and some B plan.

JB130

Could not agree more, Col.

Our contract is only as good as its enforceability. In Company language, enforceability = $$$. If noncompliance with the contract is cheaper than the contractual penalty, they'll choose the cheaper option....and then wait for the grievance. What's our record on winning grievances?
So, to your point, I have zero confidence in our ability to write ironclad contractual language to achieve our intended outcome.

I don't want to bet my retirement plan on our current ability to write an effective contract should we decide to implement it. What we have now simply works.....we have thousands of retirees out there who will attest their A Plan checks arrive accurately and on time.

I think a wise use of our dues money would be to find whichever law firm out there writes the best contracts and hire them to write ours....money well spent! I'd much rather pay for that than what we're paying these variable retirement advisors. By the way, how much have we paid them so far?

Better A Plan!
Better B Plan!
That's where we should focus our efforts and resources.

BLOB

So PAC contributions should determine who is in charge. Not a fair election? Not who has a better vision? Just buy the spot with PAC votes. Brilliant???? Did you think before writing this?

PAC contributions are one source of ALPA funds. Pretty sure we pay the exact same dues percentage of income as you. So the individuals who were fairly elected that spend ALPA money are spending all of our collective dues. Get over it. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose in an election. Maybe get a single better candidate next time. You might get your guy in. Until then you seem like the group of outspoken obstructionists who can’t get over 2016.

Nightflyer

Why should I give a penny to ALPA National when they don't care about cargo operations?

What has ALPA National done to fix the cargo cutout?

During our last negotiations, where was the ALPA National money to back our negotiations? You know, the money we were promised when we voted ALPA on the property?

Where were the ALPA lawyers who were supposed to fix our contract language, and either failed or are incompetent?

Why do the passenger guys only use our dues money to back their interests?

Why should I pay to improve your life, at the expense of my life?

Why should we be a test case for this hair brained retirement plan that can only benefit the pax carriers?

If we could have an all cargo pilot union, I would vote for it.

MEMFO4Ever

I wonder if the IPA would like 5,000 more dues paying members.

Independent Pilots Association

Rolf

And you promised to answer the questions posed to you, yet didn’t. Troll

Adlerdriver

Doubt it. My guess is they’d rather pass on the dues and stick with the unified group they have than water it down with a bunch of independent contractors and the 57% who couldn’t be bothered to stand up for a worthy contract.

HvypurplePylot

Pretty much.

FXLAX

What implications are you referring to? What exactly is that you don’t like about 117?