Originally Posted by
FXLAX
Doesn’t that increase cost for the company as well, but just targeted to benefit a different demographic than what I was referring to?
Let’s back up, first the entire debate is on how to improve the retirement given the company’s refusal during the last negotiations to increase the A fund cap above $260k
In fact, the company wanted to eliminate the A fund for new hires and only provide a larger B fund, like the pax carriers
Given that, I’ve always been a proponent of keeping our current A fund in a DB format, and adding an increased B fund 12-13%, with cash over cap. This is one reason I voted “no” on the last contract.
The B fund Bump from 7% to 8% to 9% still wasn’t big enough for me. We should have negotiated for more while in formal Section Six negotiations.
I believe we wasted an opportunity to use leverage given the clear undermanning, and pending mass retirements the company was worried about
But many want to sweeten the A fund - and the union is only focusing on a switch to a VB plan to do it.
My contention is there are other options, which will aid the “soon to retire” demographic that feels they don’t have time to benefit from an increased B fund
The current company will want something in return. An additional 1% multiplier for years of service over 25 years strikes a comprise between recognizing pilots are staying longer without overly incentivizing it. It could be extended out to 30 or 35 years.
Earning the current 50% max benefit more quickly (in only 20 years) won’t benefit the company at all. They just incur the same cost more quickly, and perhaps, with greater pilot turnover and replacement/training costs.
I don’t see why they would entertain it
But yes, this whole discussion puts different pilot demographics in different positions
That’s clearly expressed and explained in other threads. It’s very disconcerting.