The true question is what does this plan REALLY provide for ?
The previous 2003 plan wasn't filled with ambiguities or conflicts such as this one (gee........I wonder why HORTON changed it to this in a Chapter 11 ?
). Healthy skepticism is the most accurate position to take when looking at this plan IMO. First of all, it doesn't start for 90 days, so any vacation or sick time most have would likely be zeroed out prior to implementation of this plans benefits, so you're already likely starting this plans benefits from a deficit. In addition, you cannot take any retirement benefit while receiving benefits from this plan even if it makes more financial sense to do that. It's one or the other.
Technically, yes, this plan theoretically has no limitation in the number of payments (except for drug dependency or a "mental or nervous disorder"), but there appear to be multiple potential exists for the company along the way. For example, does "nervous disorder" encompass only psychological issues or would say, Multiple Sclerosis or similar long-term medically disqualifying conditions also fall into the "24 month maximum" payment limit for "nervous disorders" ? Is this but one of the many cracks to fall into ? There sure seem to be a lot of company-friendly cracks in it, that's for sure.
Article V. is very confusing indeed. It says the plans purpose is to replace a "portion" of a pilots Pre-Disability Compensation (PDC). It says it ceases to exist when "verification of such disability can no longer be established". Considering the other language in the plan, that seems to be a subjective statement controlled at the whim of the company as defined by a "third party administrator". You should hear some of the stories about those who have had to deal with third party administrators. At any rate, should your appeal to a claim denial be shot down, I suppose you're free to sue (and absorb a likely staggering multi-year legal cost in trying). Of course, most, if not all of them are indemnified. This thing is so lawyered-up, it's clear who it really is intended to benefit.
What defines the "period of disability" in relation to the benefits of this plan as opposed to a true medical definition ? Is there REALLY a difference ?
VI.D. says you get 24 months of payments and only after that if you're "unable to earn more then 80% of your PDC" will those payments continue (with offsets). What is THEIR specific definition of "unable to earn" ?...and speaking of "offsets", what does "other income" include ? That seems an open-ended subjective definition that means whatever they feel is in their best interest. Some more examples of ambiguous situations include, say, you lose your medical for whatever disqualifying reason, but are ambulatory. Does that mean in THEIR definition you are "able" to earn X, so if you choose to be a stay at home dad or mom, you're still "able" to earn and thus they can claim your disability (for plan purposes) can "no longer be verified" ? How about if they offer you a permanent AA ground job at your base ?
According to that, your benefits will be "suspended" in that situation. What if you decline ? Are you then again "able" to earn X, but choosing not to and would that be a loophole to deny a claim ?
Remember, this is an insurance company and if history is any teacher, what MIGHT look good in this plan may be a lot of smoke and mirrors. I think that during a 2-4 year duration, it might be more solid, but long-term, it is VERY questionable and IMO, anyone who assumes this is really a safety net until age 65 is fooling themselves.