|
So did everyone get bored with section 6 thoughts? Massive thread drift.
|
Originally Posted by cni187
(Post 2914764)
So did everyone get bored with section 6 thoughts? Massive thread drift.
|
Originally Posted by Gooner
(Post 2914754)
Social Media Influencer
Originally Posted by crewdawg
(Post 2914756)
Models for pictures relating to your side business. We all know every good airline pilot has some kind of side hustle. :D
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2914763)
Exactly.
Pics on ads. YouTube videos. A 6-year-old South Korean YouTuber just bought an $8M property. Coughing up $6,000 is nothing. Color me convinced! I mean, you have those W-2s, right? So we’re all good then. Definitely not tax fraud. Good to go. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
To reply to multiples, as much as I can selfishly support a fully funded 56k or whatever the max 401k is, thus giving myself a 10% raise or so, it still doesn't solve the guys who are 58 and screwed. But, to be honest, the ones I've talked to probably just shouldn't have gotten married the 3rd time. Interesting idea to work backwards from an ideal monthly amount, then throw that in an account based on market assumptions on years to go. Hadn't considered that.
I'm 33. I want no part of a pension. I'm not counting on social security or Medicare either, so HSA gets maxed every Valentine's day too. If for some reason I don't need it, then I'm shopping for a WW2 PT boat in 2051. Which may be a challenge, I think there's two left. On another note, can my dog work for an LLC based in Delaware than owns an aircraft? What if that LLC is a nonprofit that shows a loss and the dog gets named CEO? Are the business trips tax deductible? Asking for a friend. |
Originally Posted by GucciBoy
(Post 2914775)
Color me convinced! I mean, you have those W-2s, right? So we’re all good then. Definitely not tax fraud. Good to go.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk There is tax evasion which is illegal. Do not do that. Read “Secrecy World” by Jake Bernstein for further fascinating insights. Back on thread topic: we will get a contract someday and everyone will be fine. |
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2914763)
Exactly.
Pics on ads. YouTube videos. A 6-year-old South Korean YouTuber just bought an $8M property. Coughing up $6,000 is nothing. |
Originally Posted by GucciBoy
(Post 2914775)
Color me convinced! I mean, you have those W-2s, right? So we’re all good then. Definitely not tax fraud. Good to go.
|
Originally Posted by GliderCFI
(Post 2914783)
To reply to multiples, as much as I can selfishly support a fully funded 56k or whatever the max 401k is, thus giving myself a 10% raise or so, it still doesn't solve the guys who are 58 and screwed. But, to be honest, the ones I've talked to probably just shouldn't have gotten married the 3rd time. Interesting idea to work backwards from an ideal monthly amount, then throw that in an account based on market assumptions on years to go. Hadn't considered that.
I'm 33. I want no part of a pension. I'm not counting on social security or Medicare either, so HSA gets maxed every Valentine's day too. If for some reason I don't need it, then I'm shopping for a WW2 PT boat in 2051. Which may be a challenge, I think there's two left. On another note, can my dog work for an LLC based in Delaware than owns an aircraft? What if that LLC is a nonprofit that shows a loss and the dog gets named CEO? Are the business trips tax deductible? Asking for a friend. Are the 58 year olds screwed any more than other demographics? - I don't think so. BK was 14 years ago. They have 7 years until mandatory retirement. That is 21 years they had to get their financial house in order. Everyone who was on property during BK was screwed to some level. You would think the ones closest to retirement back then would have been screwed the most, but because of the different groupings I don't think it worked out that way. Some would say he guys who were probably screwed the most were the early 50 guys who took the lump sum. They thought they would be forced to retire at 60 and then the age was raised to 65 and they missed out on the DAL recovery - but they did get half their DB in a lump sum. Others would argue the guys who got hosed the worst were the guys who just missed being able to take the lump sum - but then again most of the guys got a huge seniority bump and the ability to stay to 65. Face it we all got hosed to some extent. Scoop |
Originally Posted by Funk
(Post 2914639)
I’m not going to say that the calculation wasn’t overly rosy, but I can see a close mathematical calculation to that number. 1050x158=166,00, as you said. Add 16% DC contribution (166,000x.16=26,560), then you have 166,000+26,500=192,560. That combined number is used to calculate profit sharing, so assume 14% for the sake of argument. 192,560x.14=26,958.4. Add those together and you get 192,560+26,958.4=219,518.4, which is close, but not quite the asserted $230K.
So, the math isn’t totally terrible, but it doesn’t add up to maxing out 401K purely on DC. My limited discussion with the NYC leadership indicated that ALPA has an ask and a target for a larger DC contribution number so that a bigger portion of the pilot group hits max 401K without any out of pocket. I won’t quote the number, both for sake of not getting it wrong and because it isn’t a done deal by any measure. No out of pocket for a bigger chunk of the pilot group is an admirable goal. The corollary goal was an additional tax advantaged retirement vehicle (in your name) for those that exceed the max 401K via company contributions. I think both goals were reasonable and reasonably attractive. Time will tell if one or both come to fruition. I agree with Scoop that I would like to see a balanced approach to negotiating with the company, and that when an agreement becomes available, that the pilot group will be able to weigh it, voice their opinions, and the collective wisdom of those that have an open mind will probably carry the day. |
Originally Posted by T773ER
(Post 2914910)
Since when is the DC portion used as a portion on income used to calculate PS. I think you might want to double check your math...
|
Originally Posted by GuardPolice
(Post 2914580)
Sorry but a 4th year 88B at 1050 hours is $174k before PS which maybe adds another $20k at most.
I’m soon to be a 6th year 73NB and I’ve not topped $210k including PS in any year. That’s with 1038 hours in 2018. I’ve also never topped out the company contribution. I think maxing our the company contribution will benefit far more pilots than you realize. JMHO. GP |
Look at the definition of annual compensation under section 2 and you will see it excludes the DC as well as the previous years PS, amongst other things.
Or you can work backwords from last year and see 14.2% of your gross income (including the DC contribution) is clearly not included in the PS payment. |
Originally Posted by Scoop
(Post 2914897)
Face it we all got hosed to some extent.
Scoop |
Originally Posted by Funk
(Post 2914912)
PWA 3.I. Look at the part of the table labeled “Basis of Individual Award,” and the phrase “as a percentage of total annual compensation. . . .”
Denny |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2914913)
I used the 12 year MD88B pay rate by mistake. Still using the MD88B rate after 4 years with the company is very conservative and should more than offset my error.
...and I for some crazy reason used 6th year rates. Bonehead move on my part so it actually makes my posted numbers higher than they should be by a few thousand bucks. |
Originally Posted by Funk
(Post 2914639)
I’m not going to say that the calculation wasn’t overly rosy, but I can see a close mathematical calculation to that number. 1050x158=166,00, as you said. Add 16% DC contribution (166,000x.16=26,560), then you have 166,000+26,500=192,560.
|
Originally Posted by FangsF15
(Post 2914973)
I get you were trying to figure out sailings math, but I would strongly disagree with including DC in any annual compensation calculation. For comparison or any other reason. Did anyone include the company DB (non) funding when it was in play?? Would you access it to pay your bills? Nope.
And to answer you question....yes, I think to a degree they did include DB "funding"....that is why pilots tried to bump up their top 3 years prior to retiring Personally, when I look at picking up any extra flying I use the top end number because that is how much my net worth increased How many times are we gonna rehash this "version" of PS/(DC) is not pay? There is no correct answer that fits all:confused: |
Originally Posted by Funk
(Post 2914639)
I’m not going to say that the calculation wasn’t overly rosy, but I can see a close mathematical calculation to that number. 1050x158=166,00, as you said. Add 16% DC contribution (166,000x.16=26,560), then you have 166,000+26,500=192,560. That combined number is used to calculate profit sharing, so assume 14% for the sake of argument. 192,560x.14=26,958.4. Add those together and you get 192,560+26,958.4=219,518.4, which is close, but not quite the asserted $230K.
It comes out to around $189,000 in your example above - but I've been here more than a decade and only hit more than 900 hours in a year a couple of times. I've been on reserve a fair amount of that, but even when I was senior and had a line on the 737, getting above 82 hours or so a month was pretty hard to do. The biggest advantage to a higher DC % is that people who aren't topping out the contributions do it earlier in their career, reap the tax benefits and TVM makes it good for them. For the people who are maxing out the 401(k) limits already, they can still invest the money, it's just taxed. Which is what they could do with a higher payrate away. |
But, actually, it is a hit to those already maxing out the DC contribution because they WILL NOT receive PS on the DC excess.
So good deal for the more junior pilots...bad deal for the more senior when compared to straight line pay increases |
Originally Posted by ERflyer
(Post 2914847)
There is tax avoidance which is legal. You may wish to use a lawyer and accountant.
There is tax evasion which is illegal. Do not do that. Exactly right. Tax avoidance is a 401(a) contribution rolled into a Mega Backdoor Roth IRA. Tax evasion is contributing to a child’s IRA under the guise of earned income when the child did not in fact have any legitimate earned income. So everybody that thinks cute to have their 2-year-old “mowing lawns” or their infant “influencing” on social media is obviously comfortable with committing ongoing felonies. I mean, if your kid is actually a child actor, then good on ya for securing their financial future. Everybody else, you’re gonna have to choose between waiting until your kids can legitimately have earned income to start the IRAs and smiling and winking while you break the law. I’m not judging anyone that does this, just asking them to be honest about their conduct. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2915022)
But, actually, it is a hit to those already maxing out the DC contribution because they WILL NOT receive PS on the DC excess.
So good deal for the more junior pilots...bad deal for the more senior when compared to straight line pay increases It’s only a hit if you are comparing a DC increase vs a pay rate increase. When you are comparing a DC increase to some yet to be determined “modern pension” with low returns and high fees, ill take the dc increase any day. And besides, the pay rates should be determined by rate comparisons to American/UAL, there’s no need to wrap them up with our retirement. |
Originally Posted by deltabound
(Post 2914659)
My thoughts:
No. (appreciate your attempt to split the difference, however) I don't much care what's in the next contract, but I'll vote "No" on any contract that stipulates retirement money that isn't directly and immediately put under my name, and my personal control. Hasn't FedEx been working on a hybrid plan? |
Originally Posted by Buck Rogers
(Post 2914987)
Hmmm....if my straight line pay rate is $200/hr...and I pick up a 2 day trip worth 10 hours....did I make $2000 more....or did I make $2000x1.16(DC) or $2320 more......or did I make $2000(1.16)(1.16)....which is the extra DC AND PS for a total of $2691 more?
And to answer you question....yes, I think to a degree they did include DB "funding"....that is why pilots tried to bump up their top 3 years prior to retiring Personally, when I look at picking up any extra flying I use the top end number because that is how much my net worth increased |
Originally Posted by Kjazz130
(Post 2914539)
The purpose of increasing the DC contribution is to max out at date of hire. The value of the money in the account earlier is important. And I think far fewer are maxing out at year 3 then you think. I’m at year 4 and I’m not. I have two kids getting ready to go to college so I have other expenses that keep me from maxing out. So I would appreciate an increase and I’m sure there are others that would as well. Also, if everyone’s 401k is increased maybe people would retire earlier. I think your suggestion of HSA maxing is awesome and retiree medical is a must. If you combine those with the DC increase I think you get pretty close to fixing retirement.
|
Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF
(Post 2913842)
Did you mean solve the retirement "problem"?
And by problem I assume you mean the that senior dudes/dudettes need to be made whole, but if big D threw $3-5M to each senior pilot, then the top couple of thousand pilots would retire ASAP, thereby leaving Delta with a manning/training problem? |
Originally Posted by Hillbilly
(Post 2915977)
I get what you're saying, but I think the mass exodus issue could readily be resolved by attaching a quid to the money. You have to stay till 65 to get it. Retire early, no soup (or less soup) for you.
|
Originally Posted by bugman61
(Post 2915114)
It’s only a hit if you are comparing a DC increase vs a pay rate increase. When you are comparing a DC increase to some yet to be determined “modern pension” with low returns and high fees, ill take the dc increase any day.
And besides, the pay rates should be determined by rate comparisons to American/UAL, there’s no need to wrap them up with our retirement. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2916109)
The mediator and company would disagree with you. Everything in the contract is costed out.
I never said it wasn’t. |
Sick time was mentioned in the AE thread, but thought I would throw this out here. Why doesn’t the company budget to pay all sick time? Even if they need to restructure the hours per years of service, at the end of the sick year they should cut each of us a check for any unused sick time. The ‘it incentivizes folks to fly sick’ argument is just BS in my opinion. Opinions being what they are....
|
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
(Post 2916886)
Sick time was mentioned in the AE thread, but thought I would throw this out here. Why doesn’t the company budget to pay all sick time? Even if they need to restructure the hours per years of service, at the end of the sick year they should cut each of us a check for any unused sick time. The ‘it incentivizes folks to fly sick’ argument is just BS in my opinion. Opinions being what they are....
|
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
(Post 2916886)
Why doesn’t the company budget to pay all sick time?
|
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
(Post 2916886)
Sick time was mentioned in the AE thread, but thought I would throw this out here. Why doesn’t the company budget to pay all sick time? Even if they need to restructure the hours per years of service, at the end of the sick year they should cut each of us a check for any unused sick time. The ‘it incentivizes folks to fly sick’ argument is just BS in my opinion. Opinions being what they are....
|
Originally Posted by DALMD88FO
(Post 2916935)
If you don’t think it incentivizes flying sick then you haven’t flown at an airline that does it.
|
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
(Post 2916987)
I started to respond but decided not to go down this road on a public forum. Suffice it to say I don’t think it would change sick leave use significantly.
|
Originally Posted by Abouttime2fish
(Post 2916886)
Sick time was mentioned in the AE thread, but thought I would throw this out here. Why doesn’t the company budget to pay all sick time? Even if they need to restructure the hours per years of service, at the end of the sick year they should cut each of us a check for any unused sick time. The ‘it incentivizes folks to fly sick’ argument is just BS in my opinion. Opinions being what they are....
If you want more money raise the rates. Don’t mess with a fantastic sick/disability program. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2917003)
The. Companies that pay out sick time award far fewer hours per year. Look at the Delta flight attendant program. Our sick leave program is vastly different and is more a insurance program to protect you and your family. The combination of up to 270 sick hours a year and a company fully funded disability program gives us one of the best protection packages in the industry.
If you want more money raise the rates. Don’t mess with a fantastic sick/disability program. |
Originally Posted by TED74
(Post 2917027)
What would make it fantasticer would be if more unused sick time went into the enhanced disability bank. Someone with an allocation of 270 hours who leaves 200 hours on the table gets only 5 hours into the enhanced disability bank... that's pretty stingy in my view. I think we should double the threshold to 160 hours instead of 80.
Great idea and it’s one that I think could become popular. |
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 2917003)
The. Companies that pay out sick time award far fewer hours per year. Look at the Delta flight attendant program. Our sick leave program is vastly different and is more a insurance program to protect you and your family. The combination of up to 270 sick hours a year and a company fully funded disability program gives us one of the best protection packages in the industry.
If you want more money raise the rates. Don’t mess with a fantastic sick/disability program. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 2917123)
I actually agree with sailing here. What we need is a separate PTO bank, or a portion of our current allocation available for PTO.
|
Originally Posted by fishforfun
(Post 2917139)
Yes! PTO is a huge need.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:04 PM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands