|
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3532764)
I agree completely but optionality lives in fantasy land so we will have to face this decision as a group.
|
Originally Posted by MJP27
(Post 3532769)
No we won't. It won't make it into the eventual TA without optionality.
|
Originally Posted by Trip7
(Post 3532633)
LMAO….I got time today for you Boog.
First, please, tell me, with quotes included, HOW was my tune different? I have never supported any Min Balance silliness. 2nd, worried about losing my A seat? I did lose my ultra junior ATL 717A seat and went to senior 73NB FO were I made more than I did a reserve 717A 4-5 leg days over the weekend(and Holidays)specialist. As far as making more money as a B, of course. Everyone knows that is how it works. Why do you constantly have to blow your own horn about your earnings, business’, yearly returns, newspaper articles. Odd if you ask me but whatever. |
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3532751)
I want to increase DC. I don’t want to shelter those funds in the same way you do. Nowhere in PWA 26 is a low-performing fund prescribed, so I’m not sure where “as intended” comes from.
1. A pilot (or 13 B. 3. pilot) will be eligible to participate in the DPSP, including a cash or deferred arrangement, which is intended to qualify under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The cash or deferred arrangement will not have the effect of reducing other pay-related benefits provided by the Company. |
Originally Posted by notEnuf
(Post 3532775)
It's literally the first clause. You have not read it.
1. A pilot (or 13 B. 3. pilot) will be eligible to participate in the DPSP, including a cash or deferred arrangement, which is intended to qualify under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The cash or deferred arrangement will not have the effect of reducing other pay-related benefits provided by the Company. too bad you didn’t read that. |
Originally Posted by MJP27
(Post 3532769)
No we won't. It won't make it into the eventual TA without optionality.
|
Originally Posted by Crown
(Post 3532587)
this has been my argument against a Min Balance plan since the get-go. Why should I, me, not be able to take MY money and invest it where I want? What if I want to use that money to prop up a friend's small business? What if I want to use the excess to support my parents? What if I want to take it to Vegas and put it on black? That should be my choice and my choice alone. Not the choice of DZers who will apparently never have enough money.
|
Originally Posted by scrmhalf
(Post 3532784)
Because the excess money that is slated for retirement is not qualified. It is negotiated as retirement and there should be a vehicle to have that excess qualified. This is why pilots are dumb. Do you see Ed or any high income earner taking all their money as a paycheck? No, they try and get as much deffered income as possible.
|
Originally Posted by OOfff
(Post 3532782)
weirdly, a non-optional MBCBP isn’t listed there, but the intent of overages is clearly spelled out in 26.M.2.
too bad you didn’t read that. This is the section you are referring to and it exists only because otherwise it could be argued that overages could be forfeited. We are limited, that's the only reason you get overages. |
Originally Posted by Softheborder
(Post 3532625)
…
. 62% of Delta Pilots have been hired post Bankruptcy. The are few to no true Deadzoners left. Write your Reps…the Min balance can be dropped for some Sec 23 QOL improvements for the ENTIRE list. There is plenty of cash to go around not some false pie argument. ALL areas need improvement. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:46 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands