Thanks for bringing this up, I'm not real timely in reading my union email. (my bad, I know).

Based on your post, I proceeded to do so forthwith. I didn't see that they were going to:

--give control of retirement money to the company, or
--drop the 401K contribution.

It was more of an explanation of what options might be available.

It looked to me like the guys we elected are doing a "due-diligence" on what retirement options are available. I know our dues pay for a room full of MBA spreadsheet jockeys somewhere. We can also access legal/financial talent that understands all the options. They should be able to address concerns that I've seen mentioned (for example, I don't know of anyone who wants DAL or ALPA to have control of any retirement money. I also think most/all of us want to have any funds in our own name. The guys here during BK already learned that lesson.)

I am going to keep an open mind here and not pre-judge. I'll be interested to see what they come up with and expect they will "loop back" every so often with updates. That's what this piece seemed to be, nothing more.

My personal thoughts: I know a couple guys who get military pensions, and a couple of (older) North guys who will have both an annuity-style payout and their 401K. The diversity of that appeals to me in some ways. Kind of like having two hydraulic systems powering each flight control.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I trust my LEC guys and will give them room to work on this.

 

I contacted my rep and was told any retirement plan introduced would be IN ADDITION to the 16% DC plan. I'm fine with that as long as it isn't funded by a lower DC contribution(i.e. 9% DC).

Do not change the present day DC negatively at all. It needs to remain intact.

 

Yeah, Im still a no-go on a DB.
This thing reeks of a Ponzi scheme. The old guys who go through first get their $$$, fast forward 20-30 years and whoops the company is bankrupt, whoops the market is down: you get the lousy variable benefit, whoops there is fraud, whoops there are high fees, whoops they changed the tax laws and it is no longer an advantage; all the while paying a benefit that is less than market returns.

Money earmarked for a DB, even if its additional to DC, is money they could have paid us either straight cash or somewhere else more efficiently in the contract like health insurance premiums, work rules, training pay, etc.

DB is still a huge gamble that even on a good day, pays less than market returns.

 

Hell no, if they want additional crap, fine but it better come with a higher DC. PERIOD.

 

I doubt anyone is talking a retroactive DB plan where the company tosses a couple billion into a DB fund. I suspect it would simply be a accrual going forward. The old guys would get very little. Perhaps there might be a small plus up in years under the plan but anything more would be very expensive. The young guys would be the ones seeing the benefit.

 

I wrote my reps as well.

My rep said a DB plan would be in addition to a DC contribution. The problem with this is it would mean less DC raise and lower wage increases to be able to get that DB plan. The company won’t give us a DB plan for free. I’m still against a DB plan in any way shape or form even if it’s in addition to current DC plan.

Know what else my rep said? He said “our main concern is security of that pension during a bankruptcy.” You think!? Mmmm yes that’s a small concern....

 

Amen

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. George Santayana (16 December 1863 in Madrid, Spain – 26 September 1952 in Rome, Italy)"

 

I'm 8 years out and I want nothing to do with a DB plan.

 

I understand the "due diligence" argument, and people (here) would get upset if they didn't at least explore all options. However, is there any talk about beefing up the DC plan instead of trying to implement a DB plan? Is a new DB being pitched as the only avenue to improve retirement outlook? Yes, there are ways a DB plan could be shielded from uncertainty in the future, but there's no way it can be completely protected when it's not owned by the individual.

Wouldn't the bargaining capital be better spent on an increased percentage point (or two) for the DC plan or higher base pay in general (which would ultimately increase the amount being contributed).

These are all honest questions. I'm the FNG here so I'm still learning.

 

50% of our pilots max out their 401k (Company and personal contributions.)

The excess 415c is taxed as ordinary income. It would be a nice feature if this were somehow tax-sheltered.

As long as the DC remains untouched or is bumped up to 20%, I'm fine with thinking outside the box.