[QUOTE=sailingfun;2666245]Americans plans were reasonably funded and in no danger of termination. Delta’s plan had 5 billion in assets and 1 billion in funds. This was driven by the massive increases in FAE. Prior to 99 most FAE’s were around 180 to 200K. With the huge spike in GS’s and the 01 contract FAE’s soared to 360 to 400k. Add in a crashing market, lump sum payouts from early outs boosted by falling interest rates and a well funded plan dropped to 20%.

American plans in no danger? See:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/b...-airlines.html

As to our plan, it is bit much to blame C2K rates as the primary factor. The early retirements (yes I get the impact of the rates on the associated lump sums) with the market brought it to a crisis. In hind sight, lump sums should have only been available when the plan was high funding rate (would have been easy to do when the lump sum was first negotiated: the 1990 contract).

While we will probably not completely agree on the above, the discussion is an example of the perils in some forms of deferred compensation.

In 2006 I was very unpleasantly surprised when many of the same conversations where occurring: senior pilots wanting their pension protected and junior pilots wanting scope/job protections and the inevitable clash when emotions got charged. When I heard guys arguing I would try to steer the discussion back to “we have to be in this together”.

I voted no on Letter 51 for both the pension and scope. I was in the minority. Today RJ scope is much better and my pension is what it is. I’m not going to ask for a pension restoration that gives my seniority group a disproportionate share of future contractual gains.

However, I will fly as long the government says I can and my health holds. I like the cash, my PBGC benefit goes up every year I delay taking it, and I like the job. But mostly, since my PBGC benefit is what it is, I like the cash.

I am all for any contractual improvements that benefit all seniority groups.