Originally Posted by
Adlerdriver
How is being forced out of your hypothetical "plan 3" by the majority any different than being forced out of the A-plan by a majority who want say a B-plan-centric model. Just because 51% of the 2021 crew force under the age of 40 have the same A-plan as the older minority doesn't mean they're going to want to keep it. We're not in the same boat. A WB captain retiring tomorrow is in a yacht, while a 30 year-old new hire is in a little dingy being towed behind the yacht. We would all like a shot at the yacht, but our current system isn't going to provide that option for our younger generation. So, we're just as vulnerable to your scenario above in 2021 under our current situation.
Give people options, put language in the CBA to protect those options and avoid pitting one faction against the other. IMO, that's far more likely to create a situation acceptable to the entire group.
The difference is that with one plan, a majority in that plan have to vote to get rid of it. If you have 3 plans, like in my hypothetical, everybody in plan 3 could want to keep it, yet the people who have no vested interest in that plan could vote it away.
As far as language in the contract that protected those options, how would you do that. In contract ratification, the majority wins. How could you prevent people in plan 1 & 2 from freezing plan 3 and forcing you into one of the other plans?
Why not try to raise the limits on the DB plan? Show me the numbers that prove it is to expensive.
There has to be a DC number with cash over cap and our current DB plan that would work for everyone.