this is pretty much what mine said.

A lot of consternation about an increase to retirement hinges on the value of tax sheltering. A senior widebody A, nearing retirement, finds less value in additions to the DC pot due to the taxes levied on each additional dollar as DPSP Cash. 35%?

On the other hand, a DB or hybrid DB might have the appearance of more value because those dollars won't be taxed... Oh wait! They will! Instead of those dollars being taxed at 35% today, they will be taxed at 35% starting with withdrawls at age 65. Maybe your income dips in retirement where you will stay out of the higher brackets (tax rates are at a historical low, will they stay there?), but what you have saved in taxes is only given up with lesser returns and the risk of those funds vaporizing with the next bankruptcy.

In the eyes of a 64 year-old, the next 10 years pose little risk as he receives the income stream from DB.

In the eyes of a 45 or 35 year-old, who wouldn't receive his first DB payment until 20 or 30 years down the road (and then has to rely on them years 20-50) , the risk of the funds disappearing is very unsettling.

Even though a DB plan could be offered to both and have the face value of parity, the distribution of those funds occurs decades apart from the different seniorities. The saddled risk is not equivallent and why you see so many steadfastly against this DB plan.

so a few months ago you were on the slumlord train, now you're on the 'accredited investor' train...which are you actually doing.

I put that a DB is not important at all, and in the comments said I didn’t want one second of negotiating wasted on creating one.

Medical was my big focus on this survey. I want both lower premiums on DPMP and a contractual HSA plan. I also want to see us not have to jump through hoops to get the company contribution to the HSA. My wife has had Type 1 diabetes since age 9. What the hell is she going to get from phone counseling that she hasn’t gotten from 25 years of visiting endocrinologists?

I don’t disageee with you Denny that there are a percentage of pilots who want a DB. Prior to the push polling that is taking place, the percentage was not very high.

I think the reason you are seeing such a push is two fold. Some of the reps didn’t believe the polling because they were hearing from the pilots demanding a DB and felt like the low percentage was incorrect. They believed that the pollster wasn’t asking the correct questions so they are basically writing the questions now.

You also have several Reps who consider themselves deadzoners who are pushing for it. They have managed to get some of the newer guys to buy into their plight.

By the way, I am a deadzoner if you look at it strictly from a timeline perspective, so I am not knocking your desire for a DB although personally I don’t think that is the path I want to take.

Real Estate is just one of many different different types investments an accredited investor can make. Main point is many Delta Pilots have the income and/or networth to participate in these investments that most folks in the USA don't qualify for.

As far as what I'm doing I'm going the Syndication/Limited Partner route in order to spend time and energy where I'm most efficient, flying airplanes.

Just for the record, I would like to see what ALPA has in mind for enhanced retirement. Might be worth a look before you shoot down something without seeing. Just saying!!

We have seen all seen it - read the C2019 information they have sent out. It's basically laid out there. Here's the summary:

The Delta Pilots Savings Plan is the only active retirement plan currently available to Delta pilots. While this is an industry-leading qualified defined contribution savings plan, roughly 50% of Delta pilots currently meet or exceed the contribution limitations set by the IRS. Upcoming negotiations, as directed by the pilot group, present an opportunity to advance retirement benefits along a variety of paths. As outlined in this, and future R&I communications, options include adding a defined benefit plan that increases tax-advantaged retirement savings, adding non-qualified plans that bypass IRS limits or enhanced retirement medical benefits for unforeseen medical needs later in life.

My issue is that any retirement that is in the company's name, and not solely in our name is stupid and idiotic. You all got burned once by that, why would anyone want a DB where any portion is in the company's hands? :rolleyes:

All it takes is a serious downturn in the economy, and the company will be coming to us saying, "take these big pay cuts or the DB gets it!" then we agree to the paycuts "to save the DB" and the company takes the DB anyway. Sounds familiar?

[/QUOTE] You all got burned once by that, why would anyone want a DB where any portion is in the company's hands? :rolleyes:

All it takes is a serious downturn in the economy, and the company will be coming to us saying, "take these big pay cuts or the DB gets it!" then we agree to the paycuts "to save the DB" and the company takes the DB anyway. Sounds familiar?[/QUOTE]

These statements should be framed, mandatory viewing and required signed disclaimer for all entering the MEC offices. Sadly these are words are being ignored because the MEC is listening to a loud and vocal (and getting older by the day) minority.

OMG..........I don't know where to start..........

You are left "holding the bag!?!" What bag would you be holding?

Gee, how about I say anything that enhances scope over retirement is a firm no vote for me? Hey, here is a novel idea, how 'bout we get gains in ALL those sections? Are you still gonna vote "No" if that happens?

No matter what anyone says, our contract made up of 28 sections not one. When you consider a TA you need to consider the WHOLE TA not just one section.

Yes, I expect you to pay your ALPA dues. You are not getting out of that. What other dues are you talking about? I see the attitude of "screw the more senior guys" in your post. Millennial or not, you've got that attitude.

Denny

Anyone pushing for a DB now is essentially saying screw the younger guys because when the next recession hits, it'll be the first to go. But as long as you get yours, right? An increase in retirement benefits helps all pilots. A DB only helps senior pilots.

Ron,

Thank you for a cogent and well thought out post.

I need to correct one point though and that's the idea that I want a new DB. The answer to that is "it depends." Yes, I want to see some sort of retirement enhancement. What form that takes is debatable. I AM against those that will not open their minds to anything other than an increase in DC percentage.

Plus........I like being the devils advocate!:)

Denny

It's sold to use as a percentage, but it's costed by the company in Dollars. The percentage increase achievable in either case will be based on the same dollar amount, so the value of either will end up being the same. I'm telling you that it's not a choice between a 5% pay increase and 5% DC increase.

You have the extra 5% pay in the next contract cycle, but you are now CLOSER to the other company that leapfrogged you in pay. This is why the advantage is lost. We always compare our hourly pay to that at other airlines. If you add pay in other venues, our hourly pay is lower for the compensation we receive. Thus, when we "correct" to the hourly pay that the other airlines have (or better) we are given a larger increase. Soft money is always an advantage to the pilot group in negotiations for this reason. Hourly pay is the worst place for us to put money because that's how airlines are compared to each other. The more places we put money that is not pay, the more we are helped when other airlines raise their rates.

Understood. But this is such a potentially emotional/false hope infused can of worms that it could easily go off into the weeds and have us divided and negotiating with ourselves.

IMO its possible to maybe create a new program with the equivalent of a couple percent of what would have been additional DC or something like that. But the extent of what's being discussed leaves so much room for false possibilities, such as anything based off a peak period of time (best year etc) and that gets so emotionally intoxicating yet so unsustainable so quickly that IMO it will best case delay contractual improvements for years and worst case lead to scope sales and more "productivity" gains like wheel spin up for block time, longer training freezes, work rule/reroute relief/etc and nonsense like that to fund it.

I just don't see going down this long and winding road as benefitting the pilot group. Its not really even a Senior vs Junior issue, as there's zero chance of a retroactive restoration best year pump and dump system of ever being implemented anyway. Any additional program will clearly have to be based off of go forward costs and actuarials, so even if it looks like an traditional A fund/DB, it won't be anywhere near "restorative" in the sense that some may be thinking, and we'll probably have to chase our tails for quite a while to get it.

Wrong on so many accounts. Do you know how ERISA law works? A DB can only be terminated if it meets the criteria for termination. THAT is a pretty big hurdle. You do know that American tried (while in bankruptcy) and was denied.

An increase in DC helps all pilots but helps younger pilots more...as long as you get yours right?

A DB helps all pilots too. If a DB is terminated, you do realize it gets turned over to the PBGC. It doesn't just disappear. You just have to wait longer to get yours and with a millennial attitude like yours it's "screw the old guys." See I can name call and pigeon hole too. Why don't you try and a make a cogent argument without the drama.

Denny

You've never heard "pay your dues" in this type of reference before?

It's a reference to either saying that more junior pilots haven't been through enough to have a valid opinion, or whatever hardship they are going through shouldn't be fixed because it's "expected" or otherwise normal. At the regional level it was usually levied by senior pilots who either didn't want to change work rules that no longer affected them or wanted to give them up for pay with an explanation that you needed to "pay your dues" like they did (although with questioning you would usually find out for them it was for a month or two instead of years due to movement). It still happens occasionally at the mainline level, although not nearly as badly.

This is only a reference to "pay your dues" and not the rest of the post.

I’m quite confident that NONE of you ever thought your pension was going to be overturned in court either. And guess what? It was. Believe it or not Denny, I have sympathy for you all. To have the rug yanked out from your feet absolutely sucks, and I recognize that it had dire consequences for some.

So, with that knowledge, that our courts are wildly unpredictable, and the little guy doesn’t always win the fight, why, in my right mind, would I want to go down the same road? When my retirement picture is pretty solid in its current state, why would I want to waste negotiating capital on retirement? Our retirement as it stands today is quite terrific. Why would I not want to negotiate for better QOL, pay, and tightening up our porous scope language?

When you are talking about trading PS for a higher raise, I agree with you but in the instance we are talking about, we do not lose the advantage. We would be getting a 5% raise that will always be there regardless of what other companies do. And we would build on top of that.

Denny

Delta, however, wasn't. I don't think it's really relevant that another pilot group was able to hold onto it while we weren't. The point is that it has already happened in the past so there is definitely a level of uncertainty with it.

I already know where the "doesn't just disappear" phrase is going to go. You're going to get a response of "then why are we trying to get something back that didn't go away?"

Before you get caught up in me bringing that up, I don't have that attitude... but I don't really consider it as simple and friendly as "you just have to wait longer."

I've said this elsewhere, if we are going to make changes to the retirement plan with the idea of being "fair" to the deadzoners, then there needs to be something for those who already retired as well. There should not just be a cutoff where a pilot who retired one day gets nothing and another who retires the very next day gets restoration. Anything else is the same thing, except it's current deadzoners saying "I got mine, so screw the older guys."

I don't like the idea of a traditional DB plan for the very reason that it's been taken away before. I don't really care that American kept theirs or that it's difficult. The point is that it's possible and has already happened once, that's not something to plan retirement with when there will always be a cloud hanging over your head that it will go away.

First of all, thank you for a great response. Its appreciated.

You're retirement is looking pretty solid. That's great and I'm truly happy for you. One point. I assume this is based on the current 16%DC you are receiving now and will have over the next 25+ years? I'm not arguing about taking that away. I'm arguing to supplement that with a different avenue.

Of course you (and I) want to negotiate for better QOL, pay, and Scope. How about we do the retirement thing in addition to those items? After all, how many billions of dollars is the company making now!?!

Denny

The logic is the same though on getting raises. The only difference is that the amount is smaller. The raise will always be there if we move PS to pay rates too, but it won't be a negotiating advantage the next round of negotiations just like this wouldn't be.

To put another way, when we go before the NMB or even general perception, they look at our pay rates compared to our peers. If our base pay is lower it is easier to go for an increase than if it has parity. If we set it up so a lower base pay gives us the same take home, it is easier for us to use other carriers pay based negotiations to get more money in our pockets. If we put it in hourly rates we are not getting as much advantage when United later increases their rates above ours.

EDIT: I missed the colored part...

That will be the company's goal, yes. The cost out the contract and that costs them money if it's a DHD pay provision. But it's even easier when we talk about direct pay increases. In either case, when it is being negotiated, the company will cost the amount out. So even ignoring other contract provisions, they don't see DC and base pay amounts as a percentage, they see them as dollars over the whole pilot group. I do not agree that the choice is between 5% to DC or 5% base pay so base pay makes the pot larger.

Ok everyone, I've gotten my fix for today!:)

I gotta go. Today is my wife's birthday.

Denny

Without a civil discussion we won’t get anywhere. :-)

I’m all for retirement enhancements. I’m quite confused by the different options and our Union could do a much better job explaining what we’re looking at. However, my priority for the next contract isn’t retirement number one. Maybe it’s because I’m younger, but it’s just not my number one priority. I can’t tell you where it is on my list because I haven’t thought about it. From my perspective it DOES feel like DALPA is making it their number one priority. I’m not cool with that.

You slummed it at the regional for 11 years because the retirement age was raised to age 65. Your 11 years should have been 6 years.

American management was quite surprised when the PBGC actually said no. During the years when USAir, UAL and DAL lost their retirements the head of the PBGC was quite receptive to accepting almost any plan presented. In 2008 we had a new administration come in and with that new Admin came a new head of the PBGC, as the PBGC is hybrid government/corporate agency. When AMR filed with a lot of cash the new head of PBGC said, “prove you can’t reorganize with with your pension obligations.” Here we are today. Politics matter.

You are correct that if we had a new qualified plan that was someday terminated it would go to the PBGC. BUT, and this is a big *******ing BUT, once an individual has reached the PBGC max from one (or more) plan(s), that individual get ZERO more dollars from the PBGC regardless of how many more plans are turned over to them and what that individual would be owed. This is one of the reasons this “older”pilot does not want a new DB plan.

Huge overlooked point!!!! Thanks DT

If you’re one of the guys approaching 65 years old, you have had the opportunity to add an additional 5 years at the top of our pay scales to your bank accounts. You’ve made an additional $250,000+ in 401k contributions alone over that additional 5 years. In today’s environment you’ve also made an additional $150,000 over the same time period in profit sharing alone. That’s $400,000 NOT INCLUDING YOUR SALARY!

The pension is gone. A thing of the past. Our 16% DC may not be there as Denny said for the next 25+ years either if the economy takes a turn. What Delta pilot is hurting retirement wise at this time? Even with the math above + what you have saved in the past should be plenty. Sell your boat.

Uh, we took a 50% whack on the W2. Forgot to mention that. The extra 5 wasn't my idea. One wife, no boats, never invested with a concert promoter. You got the wrong idea. But if you want to make this a old v young, let's go.

We need to understand that getting a good contract is not splitting the group, but by every pilot understanding that everyone needs to pull for the group. The oldest, most senior need to want scope and job security for the entire pilot group as much as the newest pilot has to want great retirement benefits (in whatever form they come) for the entire pilot group.

Otherwise the process breaks down and we don’t improve anything.

No, during that time he/she was taking flying that should have been mainline, keeping many at the company FOs instead of the Captains they should have been. Makes about as much sense as what you said.

I get where you are coming from and generally agree with you. I find many Senior Pilot claims of future pauperism hard to take, but comments like "sell your boat" just diminish your credibility.


I also agree with much of what is bolded above but you left out some background information. Lets revisit profit sharing. When DAL Pilots took onerous pay and work rule cuts we were given our current PS system - in case DAL was to become profitable again it would automatically kick in with a little $$$. Well guess what? DAL become profitable beyond managements wildest dreams and we now have the most lucrative PS in the industry. A PS payout that all DAL Pilots enjoy, not just those Pilots who made the sacrifices.



So for all the guys who were not on the property during the times of these sacrifices, be sure to thank the Pilots, including the "deadzoners," who made the sacrifices that enabled our current PS program.



In other words the whole topic is much more complicated and nuanced then many acknowledge. Foolish comments like "sell your boat" are just as bad as the senior guys saying they are willing to sell Scope for a DB. Neither comments help the Pilots at all.



We can either come together as a group - to the benefit of all Pilots or we can be divisive to the benefit of management.


Scoop

I've had an epiphany!!! I've solved all our problems! We do this and I won't care about the retirement...

Since profit sharing was acquired in our contract for all the pay and work rules sacrificed in bankruptcy, we should redirect the pilot profit sharing pool to those who sacrificed 46% pay and numerous work rules. Isn't it only fair? Those coming after didn't sacrifice a thing. They were hired knowing what the pay and work rules were. Kinda like when I was hired under a 5 year B-Scale.

Problem solved.

All TIC of course.......but is it?;):)

Denny

These two comments are what a lot of you young guys fail to consider when you make some of the comments you do.

One's perspective is based on one's experiences. I certainly hope your experiences are all good ones. For us older guys, they haven't always been rosy...

Denny

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%.

Ha! The old Jack Utsik Promotions pyramid scheme. Glad I never fell down that rabbit hole.

There's no way I'm only in a 10% minority who put almost nothing on that survey as "extremely important". And I'm a big fan of the questions that had us divvy up our priorities by percentages. These guys understand you can't have everyone firewall everything and call it effective polling.

I'm sorry to say I don't get all the angst about this survey or the MEC. There are clearly a lot of pilots who want to recover some of their lost retirement. I would too if the company snatched over a million and then turned around to reward shareholders during our windfall.

If I were a rep, this kind of polling is exactly what I'd do to investigate if it's a vocal minority and to what degree... and I'd also release the results so everyone knows they're actually doing the pilots' bidding. IMHO we should all chill out a bit until we have a sense of the openers.

The problem with releasing the results is it would show the company exactly how much they'd have to give to get a vote to pass and not one inch more...

I guess some of us have an issue with it, not because they are trying to find out what the priorities are, but how it seems like they are trying to drive the priorities. (I have no problem with the percentage portion)

How it is supposed to work is that the MEC and negotiators tell the professional pollster what information they are looking to get from the pilot group and then the pollster creates the questions and then interprets/provides the data. In this case (this is not hearsay as I have seen it up close and personal) the reps are not getting the result they want so they start writing the questions. “You want the pony and the new car right?”

This is not to say that the reps should not have input etc, but it shouldn’t be a Fox/CNN news poll either. Some want professional negotiators instead of having “pilots do it”, but in this case we have a professional and yet we have reps pushing us towards a more unscientific result as they are non professionals in this area.

A lot of NYC guys did!

We also have and have always used professional negotiators.