Originally Posted by
NotMrNiceGuy
Agree with this sentiment. The A-Plan is a capital hog. It’s just not efficient to make this the primary retirement vehicle. The problem is how to make everyone happy. I don’t know how to do that without making two options. But you can have options that don’t split the crew force. Here’s a split that I’d like to get some feedback on.
For the senior folks:
1) Full DSA payout of 686 hours at highest negotiated pay rate (~$450ish) if announced in the next 12 months from DOS. Roughly $300K.
2) Lump sum MBCBP of $400K.
3) Must be over 55.
4) Choosing this option means they would forgo the following option for the junior guys. My estimate for this cost is $300M. 500 pilots at $600,000.
For the junior folks:
1) Tie A-Plan to 401k compensation limit ($345K in 2024) at a rate of 38%. That would make the max pension $131.1K this year. If the limit goes to $360K in 2025, the max pension goes to $136.8K. This would have the trajectory to have the pension worth $230K in 20 years without renegotiating each CBA.
2) DC Ballpark 15% COC. This becomes the primary vehicle for retirement. We take most of the $1.8 billion invested in the traditional in TA1 and move it to pay rates and DC. Not having to meet regulated premiums required by the PBGC should make this option more efficient on a dollar for dollar basis.
The senior benefit from a tax advantaged lump sum. The junior folks don’t have a split retirement scheme and they get a sustainable retirement that is diversified.
I’m curious if this offering is viewed as respectful to the senior folks.
Originally Posted by
Maddog64
As a 23 year fed ex no vote that would be ok with me. I have been planning on 130k for my retirement since day 1. What I would like to see is a simple buy out of the A plan, 100K to 125K per year into a tax deferred plan and get rid of the albatros around our neck.
No, no, no!
There are many reasons that this is a bad idea, but first, let's stop telling the company what we are willing to take. It only serves to undermine the negotiating committee. If you want to present new ideas, there are avenues to do this. One sure fire way to get it in front of the MEC is to present a motion at your LEC meeting and convince a majority that are present to vote to make your LEC present and support your ideas to the whole MEC.
Now, as far as this plan goes, well, first it robs Peter to pay Paul. Someone who is 54 and has 14 years of vested service has a lot more to gain than the pilot who is 60 with 20 years of vested service. That 54 year old, by your math, would have a pension of $175K per year and an extra $300K or more in DC contributions at retriement than the 60 year old.
Second, it does nothing to releive the "albatros around our neck" because the A plan still exists.
Third, this plan would actually be more costly to the company in dollars required than in TA1 and would make the pension plan accounting even more difficult because the maximum value would only be known for the next year.
As far as a straight contribution of $100K-$125K per year into a tax deferd plan goes, that too would be more expensive. That would require the company to contribute a minimum of $2.5m per pilot into a plan. Now, tell me what plan is IRS approved where the company can make that kind of contribution.
The only way to get rid of the PBGC payments is to get rid of any kind of defined benefit plan. Without doing that, the company will continue to pay the required premium, which will be the same they would pay unless the plan become underfunded.