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