When I talked with my Capt rep, he stressed that "it would be optional because some people have other uses for the money, real estate, kids going to college, etc". So I think they get that it has to be optional.

 

Whole life or annuities are very, very expensive. Why do you think insurance guys love selling them? That nice house or big boat your insurance guy came from selling these products.

It seems that Delta gets tax breaks from this MBCBP. They do not for an increase to DC. Right? I think Alpa is working inside of tight parameters to find something that we can get the max benefit for with Delta’s agreement inside our contract that can increase our bottom line in other places not so obvious. More like a hidden raise.

Thats how how I see it. We are not going to get the equivalent in pay raises and the more tax sheltered income we get at this level, the better.

 

I think what would be the result of "retiree healthcare" isn't an actual health plan but more like a fund (HSA style) to be used for medical expenses. That seems to be a unifyng issue across all demgraphics and would still be viable regardless of what happens in the legislature. Even "medicare for all" (which won't happen because it = almost instant BK, especially with open borders) everyone will still have some health care expenses now or in the future. Same for Tricare. Even in countries with socialized medicine, private plans are rampant and highly desireable if one can afford them (largely because socialized medicine sucks).

So irrespective of age, Tricare status and government based variables, giving all of us health care funds to use as we need in the future seems to be a walk off home run win for all. Throw in long term care funds and it becomes a walk off grand slam. Yet instead we're out there chasing waterfalls with something no one even knows what it is yet (and may not until its TA'd) that's being sold as voluntary yet can't be unless massive variables beyond our control change, that's also being sold as guaranteed for life no matter what when it can't be, all for the privlidge of guaranteed sub par returns and high fees in the meantime.

 

The MBCBP will also be expensive and inefficient. Why do you think PWC and Fidelity love selling them to pilot unions?

The payroll tax savings to the company at that level is minimal, should just be 1.45% for Medicare. Most everything else should have been paid to the cap. So it’s not like they have this huge savings to split with us.

It seems you love this plan and really want it. So maybe spend your time pressuring ALPA to actually be honest about the “optional” nature of the plan and commit to abandoning it if it’s mandatory. If they actually did that then most of us arguing against the MBCBP would back off.

 

I wasn’t the one that made the claim. It’s up to him to prove it not me.

Denny

 

You don't get that people want to be in control of their own finances? That people are concerned with their monies being under PBGC protection (because the plan is NOT in your own name.) ? That many have alternative strategies for retirement. I'd take a 9% pay raise and invest it as I see fit post tax. But, yes, I know you don't understand these push-backs.

 

Again, the math doesn't lie. Assuming I used the correct calculations. Feel free to check my numbers. I've shared them for the internet to bash.

Also, I would never take financial claims from the internet as advice. Instead, I would take the advice of my father, a "real financial advisor" (CFP), whom I have been learning from for the last 3 decades. I am in no way up to his level of knowledge, but I am generally good at math, I know how to read IRS documents, and I believe I have a better understanding of this stuff than the general population.

I did that because most people generally consider the default for retirement investments to be the 4% withdrawal rule. And the union has stated that the default (but not the only option) for the MBCBP upon retirement is to buy an annuity with it. As best I can find, immediate payment fixed lifetime annuities generally pay about 5-7% of the purchase price per year, hence 6%. If you have better knowledge, by all means, show me some data that allows us all to make a better estimate.

I sure have. Here you go: MBCBP comparison tool

Sure it is....assuming you have the time for it to grow (or get really lucky with individual companies) and don't get caught being forced into retiring during a down cycle.

Again, I am not arguing for or against the MBCBP. I just don't buy the "it's my money or else" crock that you're trying to sell. I want to see the actual numbers. And, as it turns out, if you take the DPSP Cash money and invest it after tax and get 8% from it, it takes about 18 years to break even compared to the MBCBP and the tax savings you get right away.

 

Many retirement plans allow the company full deductibility for funding into employee plans. The tax savings can be huge. You can bet the company will know exactly what the tax implications are during negotiations. If they are favorable it allows us to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie.

 

if your dependent kid were over the age of 25 they would not get it and it would go back into the pool....that’s why it was an atrocious plan

 

How many pilots have dependent kids over 25? 1%?

Even then, who cares if this goes to your kids or not? You’re going to spend it well before they would have a crack at it if this restriction were gone. Talk to some people on Medicare.