JustInFacts

What????

So, if I collect 10 years of retirement, the company will spend $5.2 million on my $1.3 million. If it is 20 years, I get $2.6 million and the company spends $10.4 million to get me that amount? You know that isn't true, don't you?

JustInFacts

DC money has limits. A reputable financial advisor will not guarantee you a return on your money. My retirement is for me and my spouse, no one else. They can have what is left over in other savings if there is anything left.

I never mentioned the retirement benefit being dependent on the financial health of the company. You may want to talk to that reputable financial advisor about how pensions are funded and how those benefits are paid.

Moneybags

Annnnd there it is, the mindset that created TA1.

If you don't think the pension depends on the financial health of the company, then perhaps YOU might want to talk to someone who knows what they're talking about.

The pension is funded well today. This just means if the plan ended, all accrued benefits could be paid. It means nothing for the future. If the market loses money for a few years, and the company hits hard times financially, then the plan can become underfunded. So yes, it absolutely depends on the financial health of the company. To say it doesn't is completely misguided. Who do you think funds it?

I suspect you have many years of accrued benefits and perhaps don't care about the type of risks to those who don't.

It's not your money until it's in an account that you can control. Until then it is just an IOU, that is only protected by the PBGC for less than half its value.

Even then, I'm not saying get rid of the pension, just please stop wasting time and negotiating capital trying to increase it. There are other ways that get us more money now than spending 3.5 years trying to increase a pension in the face of 20% inflation since 2020.

Westerner

The union repeated ad nauseum that it cost the company 3 dollars for every 1 dollar of pension increase.
It was the reason the contract was valued/costed so highly by ALPA.

If it wasn't that costly to increase the pension what would have been the reason for ALPA to value the the TA as the highest ever? LOL

Maddog64

Using ALPA's math our $39,000 in the pension for 5700 pilots,would net $222,300,000 in pilot benefit, but the insurance for that costs $666,900,000. for a total cost of $889,200,000. ALPA national computed that cost. Our MEC didn't believe it, so they hired an independant actuarial firm to figure out what the cost is to the company and it was 880,000,000. If you don't believe me, ask the block 2 rep.

As I said earlier, I want my hands on the full 900 million not 230.

JustInFacts

Yes, it has been stated that it costs 3 dollars for every dollar of pension increase. That doesn't mean that it costs 3 dollars for every dollar that the pension pays out over time. So that $39,000 increase would cost the company $117,000 per pilot. That doesn't seem so bad.

Wow, just wow!

It is easy to find out how much the PBGC charges for insurance. It is no where near the number that you posted.

Your math only accounts for 1 year of paying $39,000 to 5700 pilots. I guess you only plan on living for one year after retirement. My condolences.

I think you got what the block 2 rep was saying mixed up. By the way, that same rep says he wants the pension raised to the IRS limit. How did he explain to you the cost of increasing the pension by $115,000+ if it was so expensive to raise it by only $39,000.

Maddog64

Except that to remain fully funded they have to put that 117,000 away right now. The initial hit to the company balance sheet would be almost 900 million. As for where TC comes up with the idea to go to the IRS limit, i think he believes there is an endless pot of money. I also think he is an idiot.

Anthrax

there’s only enough money for stock buy backs and executive bonuses. the rest of us can eat cake.

kwri10s

Remember the companies "cost" is them calculating the pilot retiring at age 60 and then they have to pay them for the remainder of their estimated life span. There is no adjustment to the requirements when pilots go past age 60. Those cost numbers are never factored in. Even though only the % that retire at 60 are in the low teens. In fact the union does not even know what the average age of retired pilots passing away. Knowing the "actual" age that 100% payout is required would be step one in being able to in anyway acuately predict future costs. I'm sure the company knows how long the pilots live, but we don't. The only way ALPA can cost a retirement is to use the company's numbers. Who knows what they give to National.

Anthrax

wrong!
the union knows exactly the average age of death, but its a rather grim statistic and thusly well guarded.