hopeSales

Didn't you see the post from CRMxxx - it's in your best interest not to question the doings of the R&I committee. We got general information in the Contract road show 2 years ago and a rough idea of how it would be done in the contract and they even used the "best practices" or similar for the sake of transparency - really!

We're talking about lots of money and it's our money. You don't need to a rocket scientist to know that the merged airlines would merge the retirement plan some how, but you do need the R&I people giving details before implementation. They didn't even put the plan out for bid - you have to question that if nothing else.

Watch your funds performance and fees going forward.

hopeSales

Ok, come down off your high-horse and re-read my post. And there is no need for insults, especially from someone who has their name on the back of their belt. Having the ability to cut&past and recite is nothing more than a dumb computer - it's got to be told what to do before it can spree it out without reason - get the drift, reasoning comes at a different level.

I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume you know something about the soon to be implemented PRAP - what additional information do you have besides the general contract information about the process that brought us this new PRAP.

- how many people were involved in the process? Who?

- did all LUAL and LCAL R&I reps have access or was it just Green and the merry band of new UAL R&I reps.

- was it put out for competitive bid or did Green make the decision unilaterally?

You can probably get the answer from your local LEC R&I rep or why not call Green himself. His email and phone number are on the ALPA BB - he even has his own assigned attorney to screen his calls. You've got to love life when do the pilots business - it gets hard to let it go and return to the line.

It would be nice if you posted your findings on those 3 simple question above but we'll understand if you don't - Happy Mothers Day!

CRM114

You offer some great advise, I'd suggest that you actually follow it. A call to your LEC would reaffirm the answers you're getting here. I've seen nothing but transparency through the entire process, from negotiation through to implementation. Just because you don't like the answer (or are too lazy or stupid to find it) doesn't mean it's wrong.

Reading your drivel makes me wonder if you're even an ALPA member, that would explain a lot about your inability to access readily available information. Keep storming the castle there Einstein.

hopeSales

You are one angry little man - they really are just simple questions. Like I said it's ok not to have the answers but don't act like you do. It's guys like you that allow people like Bathhurst, Wallach and Pierce come to power through ignorance.
Again, you speak of what they were going to do but not what they did. Only the little packet of how it would be implemented from the the R&I committee. I hope your butt buddy is not influencing you antagonist attitude because the rest of the combined UAL pilots want the answers.

flap

The new plan is a joint collaboration of the sUAL and sCAL R&I Committees, along with UAL as plan sponsor.

The R&I communication will be out very quickly but was held back not to trump legal/compliance/plan notifications.

The Plan was put out to bid.


Overall the plan is cheaper, with substantially lower fees and increased offerings.

Schwab was retained as record keeper and brokerage. Every other vendor/consultant is new. Some managers the same, but quite a few new ones.

Not sure what you are talking about with Schwab gone then brought back by unilateral decision. Nothing true in that statement.

If you had bothered to read the information being sent out and the UPA, you would have known what was happening

hopeSales

Thanks, you at least talked to somebody on the R&I committee. It'll be interesting to see this little tidbit in the apology for not getting information to the pilots sooner.

The R&I communication will be out very quickly but was held back not to trump legal/compliance/plan notifications.

I'm sure Green will get his dedicated lawyers working on the excuses for not getting the pilots involved before implementation notification. I hope everybody understands that this is the one area where the pilots need oversight and transparency. Not unilateral actions by and individual or or small group of people expecting their decisions to be rubber stamped.

Thanks again, the highlighted above wasn't told to me by my local R&I rep. There should be no need for the ferreting of information when it come to pilot pension funds or the safety aspect of the administration and definitely no need for the cloak and dagger stuff.

tmac3333

The fees are not lower. The target date fund fees went up by almost 100%.

Shrek

I don't plan on my airline retirement. I am doing a seperate retirement account and will use any UAL leftovers after I retire.

jsled

Idk what you are talking about. The PRAP fees are 12 - 16 basis points less than the PDAP's for target date funds. Here is a cut and paste. Everyone can go to the website and read for yourselves.

www.schwabplan.com/prap/


Date of Birth
AutoPDAP Funds
Total Annual Expense Ratio (as of 12/31/13)
1983 and after
AutoPDAP 2050 Fund
0.585%
1978 through 1982
AutoPDAP 2045 Fund
0.585%
1973 through 1977
AutoPDAP 2040 Fund
0.585%
1968 through 1972
AutoPDAP 2035 Fund
0.585%
1963 through 1967
AutoPDAP 2030 Fund
0.570%
1958 through 1962
AutoPDAP 2025 Fund
0.550%
1953 through 1957
AutoPDAP 2020 Fund
0.525%
1948 through 1952
AutoPDAP 2015 Fund
0.505%
1947 and prior
AutoPDAP Retirement Fund
0.485%
Undetermined*
AutoPDAP Retirement Fund
0.485%
* Undetermined is used if date of birth is not known when contributions are made.


Date of Birth
PRAP Target Date Fund
Estimated Total Annual Expense Ratio**
1988 or after
Target Date 2055 Fund
0.41%
1983-1987
Target Date 2050 Fund
0.41%
1978-1982
Target Date 2045 Fund
0.41%
1973-1977
Target Date 2040 Fund
0.41%
1968-1972
Target Date 2035 Fund
0.42%
1963-1967
Target Date 2030 Fund
0.43%
1958-1962
Target Date 2025 Fund
0.43%

flap

You are both correct. The target date funds went up or down, depending on what you compare them against.

The sCAL funds were more aggressive than the new funds and the sUAL funds were more conservative. Normally, this would make the sCAL funds more expensive and the sUAL funds cheaper. This was not the case as the sCAL funds were passive funds with cheaper exposure to asset classes and the new funds, and the sUAL have a higher exposure to active management.

The result is, sUAL going down and sCAL going up slightly. Not an apples to apples comparison.

The new funds are very competitively priced given their asset allocation and make up.