Originally Posted by RonRicco (Post 2943537)

I wasn’t including the whole amount of the note and the claim. Only the 3 years or so of forced deposits which was about 125k, although ALPA was able to get legislation enacted to allow us to recover tax dollars on that money if deposited after the fact.

The assumptions assumed that the note/claim/mppp was added to a previous 401k balance to get to the 300k starting number. From 2006, I also excluded individual contributions which would drive the total number higher.

The assumptions were made using actual market performance (S&P 500), a pretty good number (30-36k average) for annual DC contributions, but an “inexact” starting number, which could inflate or deflate the ending balance.

I am open to different models and projections. That is the reason for the post.. to figure out what the “shortfall” is, or at least about what it should be on consistent metrics.

That is what makes this so complicated. A pilot who just put the money in a savings account is going to be nowhere close to 60%. A guy who invested in an S&P index fund, may be very close to 60 or even 100%. A guy who invested in WebVan may be living off of social security.

A lot of uneven outcomes. So how do we fairly fix this and based on what?

Originally Posted by scrmhalf (Post 2943563)

How about instead of focusing on what DZers May get in the next contract, we focus on what the total projected dollar amount new hires are going to receive.
Then let’s compare the two final amounts
The DZer vs any post BK new hire.
I’ll go out on a limb and say the results will be quite sobering for the DZers.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943572)

Well here are some numbers for you.



With a starting balance of $50,000 and $50,000 invested in a 401k for 30 years at an average 7% return yields a total of $5,488,244.04. Same numbers at 25 years yields a total of $3,661,029.58. This is using the Fidelity Compound App on my iPhone.



Considering I low-balled the investment to $50k a year instead of the actual amount that can be invested in a 401k every year right now........yes I would say these are pretty sobering numbers for the deadzoners who cannot even dream of touching these numbers......



Denny

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 2943575)

Have you factored in inflation and converted those numbers to present day dollars for a true Apples to Apples comparison?

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943584)

I figured since I didn't use the CURRENT max contribution amount of $56,000/year and also did not add in the CURRENT catchup contributions of $6,000/year at age 50 this would MORE than make up for any inflation.

If you want to factor in inflation then at least use the current numbers allowed but you would also need to factor in any future increases in the investment allowed by the gubmint. Knock yourself out. Considering what I just said, I think my numbers are close enough in todays dollars if not low.

Denny

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2943605)

You can't count personal contributions in the calculation, only the 16% DC. And why are we considering a $50k starting balance?

Originally Posted by Trip7 (Post 2943575)

Have you factored in inflation and converted those numbers to present day dollars for a true Apples to Apples comparison?

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943621)

Are you kidding me!?! Can't stand the truth can you?

I would have thought you could figure out that we are talking about the NN. Under the NN proposal there won't be a need for personal contributions. But then if you want to remove personal contributions from the mix you need to subtract ALL the contributions made by all the DZr's and that will about halve their 401k's. As far as the 50k initial starting balance.......do you have less than 50k or more than 50k? Any one who has been here a couple of years should have more than that.

All the assumptions I used are waaaaay less than they should be. Guess what.......I just changed the assumed starting balance to $1,000 and the 30 year number is $5,090,515.67. Still well over 5 million dollars.........

You just don't get it. A 25% DC would be HUGE for you young guys and you're beyotching about the senior guys getting a "windfall." I think the windfall is purely in your (the young guys) court.

Denny

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943621)

Are you kidding me!?! Can't stand the truth can you?

I would have thought you could figure out that we are talking about the NN. Under the NN proposal there won't be a need for personal contributions. But then if you want to remove personal contributions from the mix you need to subtract ALL the contributions made by all the DZr's and that will about halve their 401k's. As far as the 50k initial starting balance.......do you have less than 50k or more than 50k? Any one who has been here a couple of years should have more than that.

All the assumptions I used are waaaaay less than they should be. Guess what.......I just changed the assumed starting balance to $1,000 and the 30 year number is $5,090,515.67. Still well over 5 million dollars.........

You just don't get it. A 25% DC would be HUGE for you young guys and you're beyotching about the senior guys getting a "windfall." I think the windfall is purely in your (the young guys) court.

Denny

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 2943632)

Only reason why you're saying it's a windfall is because the young guys have a few decades left of flying.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2943635)

If you add personal contributions, you have to include all money you plan on using in retirement including IRAs, investment property, etc. These aren't my rules. I've been told many times we aren't allowed to use personal contributions to retirement.

Also, $5M in 30 years will have the same spending power as $2M. That's called inflation.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943642)

So you agree.

Denny

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 2943691)

Agree to what? That guys working here are going to earn more money than guys retired from here? Last time I checked, retired guys don't make the company any money and thus don't earn a paycheck.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 2943691)

Agree to what? That guys working here are going to earn more money than guys retired from here? Last time I checked, retired guys don't make the company any money and thus don't earn a paycheck.

Originally Posted by hockeypilot44 (Post 2943632)

Only reason why you're saying it's a windfall is because the young guys have a few decades left of flying.

Originally Posted by msprj2 (Post 2943717)

Funny, the pilots on Mil leave don’t earn the company any money either.

Originally Posted by tunes (Post 2943746)

those pesky laws getting in the way huh? Those guys on mil leave aren't getting a paycheck either technically. You are free to sign up and do the same

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943654)

What are you not getting? I did NOT assume any personal contributions. This has nothing to do with all the other investments you have. I assumed $0 starting balance because you had a hissy fit over it. So, with a $0 starting balance, 30 year investment horizon, annual COMPANY contribution of $50,000 divided over 12 months (because of the proposed increase to DC 25%) and a 7% return comes to $5,082,399.17. If you want to figure out the inflation level go for it...but you need to add 768k to the figure above to account for my low-balling the total investment available for the company to put in now.


As far as your last sentence goes, we both know that is a BS figure. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Prove it. At least I used real figures and was very conservative. All you investment guru's should well out perform 7%.

Denny

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2943635)

Also, $5M in 30 years will have the same spending power as $2M. That's called inflation.

Originally Posted by Fredturbo (Post 2943757)

Bingo. Don’t forget to also factor in the fact that housing prices have risen exponentially in many of our western base cities making many of those DZers who have owned a home, a fortune. Also add the exponential rise in college tuition, the massive gains in the equity markets the past 30 years (expected to be much less going forward), and increased tax rates in the future and inflation turns that $5M into a number much less.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2943635)

Also, $5M in 30 years will have the same spending power as $2M. That's called inflation.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943654)

As far as your last sentence goes, we both know that is a BS figure. Just saying something doesn't make it true. Prove it. At least I used real figures and was very conservative. All you investment guru's should well out perform 7%.

Denny

Originally Posted by Jaww (Post 2943749)

Profit sharing still shows up after not working.



I’m a mil guy.

Originally Posted by tunes (Post 2943782)

The company wouldn’t do it if they didn’t have to....federal law mandates it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by tunes (Post 2943746)

those pesky laws getting in the way huh? Those guys on mil leave aren't getting a paycheck either technically. You are free to sign up and do the same

Originally Posted by ApachePhil (Post 2943791)

Any windfall to retirees will incentivize retirement and increase attrition. The larger the windfall (earlier they retire and less they contribute themselves) will further incentivize earlier retirement. There is NO WAY the company will agree to anything that encourages people to retire early given this market.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2943755)

That isn't a low-ball, that's actually a gross over-estimate. The max the company can contribute to your 401k right now is $44,800 per year. In order to max out to the IRS limit, we would need a 20% DC. And we all would also need to be making $280,000 per year. You can't use 50k a year at all as an estimate because it's going to take AT LEAST 10-15 years (assuming you can upgrade to CA in a large NB) to hit that salary that'll get you just $44,800. And since you're a big TVM guy, you know that for every year you don't max out your company contributions there is a snowballing effect on your retirement.

And we aren't talking about 25% because we don't have 25%. I'm not even counting on anything remotely close to that.

Originally Posted by DWC CAP10 USAF (Post 2943779)

Actually he's not far off.

Using an inflaction calculator and using the last 30 years, $4M right now has same buying power as $2M 30 years ago. So depending on how your brain looks at things, you either need to double your money to have the same buying power, or your current money is only worth 1/2 in future dollar power.

So if we project forward 30 years, $5M right now in retirement only has $2.5M of buying power in 2049 dollars.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943820)

That’s exactly what we are talking about. This whole discussion is about the NN.....both sides of it. Again, my figures are based on getting what is in the NN and starting from a zero balance. I don’t know how else to say that.

If the NN made it thru as is a $200,000 year will yield $50k going into going into ones DC. I’m betting there are many, many FO’s that have been making this and much more.

Denny

Originally Posted by ApachePhil (Post 2943791)

Any windfall to retirees will incentivize retirement and increase attrition. The larger the windfall (earlier they retire and less they contribute themselves) will further incentivize earlier retirement. There is NO WAY the company will agree to anything that encourages people to retire early given this market.

Originally Posted by CBreezy (Post 2943824)

Yes, using TVM. Not in total dollars from the company. I acknowledge that any dollar of DC will benefit any new hire more than someone close to retirement. But the reason behind the annuity is to allow people to delay PBGC, SS and more until 70. So, between that massive cash infusion and the gains you get by delaying, how much more retirement are you going to get over a newhire? And again, don't think for one second we are going to get 9%. That's a very expensive proposal.

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943822)

And you don’t think there will be further increases in both wages and the amount that is allowed to be set aside by the IRS?

That being said, even using your 50% over 30 years would give you closer to $3 million. Like I said before, ya gotta add in maximizing the contribution and making catchup contributions as well.

Denny

Originally Posted by boog123 (Post 2943817)

Do you feel they should get a paycheck when they volunteered, at one point, to be gone for extended periods?

Originally Posted by tunes (Post 2943935)

They do, from their military job.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Denny Crane (Post 2943249)

Well then I guess you will never vote yes on a contract. You DO realize that any percentage pay raise is NOT an equal pay raise for all pilots? The percentage might be the same but the dollar amount is not.

Denny

Originally Posted by beis77 (Post 2943998)

Yes, I understand the concept of a percentage raise and hope we all get a big one next contract. My issue with the MB as presented is that it feels like a bandaid (restoration-lite) fix for the deadzoners with little to no benefit to those hired post BK. Granted there are a lot of details that need to be fleshed out.

My question (rhetorical) is: what will we be giving up in negotiating equity to make MB happen, and is the offset worth it to all pilots? Are we giving up on higher DC %? Higher pay%? Better training pay? Etc. Rest assured, MB will cost us something. And is it worth whatever it will cost us? My gut instinct says “no”, hence my previous response to the OP’s poll.