Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > Delta
MBCBP implementation announced… >

MBCBP implementation announced…

Search
Notices

MBCBP implementation announced…

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 06-02-2023, 10:04 AM
  #191  
Gets Weekends Off
 
crazyjaydawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Middle Seat
Posts: 1,205
Default

Don’t get me wrong, I think the “reinterpretation” of the ALPA bylaws is BS, but I’m amazed at the number of pilots that rationalize their participation in the MBCBP to avoid paying 1.85% in ALPA dues just to get a fund that underperforms the market by 5%+. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
crazyjaydawg is offline  
Old 06-02-2023, 10:27 AM
  #192  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2020
Posts: 735
Default

Originally Posted by Hillbilly View Post
Exactly. We were the only group getting spill cash and the amounts for being over the income cap (330,000 this year) had gone unnoticed by National as being subject to dues. When they realized we weren't paying dues on monies that would normally require dues, they informed the MEC. I believe the MEC took it to the Executive Board and subsequently to the BOD proposing a change to make those monies exempt from dues. Since we were literally the only group that was in this situation, the other carriers were not inclined to give a special dues exemption that would only apply to Delta pilots. Now if United, FedEx or some other carriers had spill cash, we might have had some success. That wasn't the case.
Revisited Chairman's Letter 20190629, and you are essentially correct -- paying dues on retirement money mainly affects DAL pilots:

"The issue of cash over the cap (DPSP Cash) is not isolated to only Delta pilots. Pilots at Alaska, Frontier, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Spirit, United and FedEx all face this same situation. With the exception of United and FedEx, pilots at these other carriers pay dues on cash over the cap. United pilots do not pay dues on cash over the cap because they structured alternative avenues for the excess cash in their PWA. FedEx pilots do not get cash over the cap because their company’s contributions stop at the 401(a)(17) limit."

A5S

Edit: The proposed "solution" to paying dues on retirement money was to negotiate an MBCBP.
All 5 Stages is online now  
Old 06-02-2023, 10:30 AM
  #193  
Super Moderator
 
crewdawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,564
Default

Originally Posted by Puddytatt View Post
My understanding is some/most of the other carriers aren't getting spill cash, so this seems like it harms Delta the most.

Which only further points to the hypocrisy in the other carriers supporting the change.
crewdawg is offline  
Old 06-02-2023, 11:43 AM
  #194  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,917
Default

Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg View Post
Don’t get me wrong, I think the “reinterpretation” of the ALPA bylaws is BS, but I’m amazed at the number of pilots that rationalize their participation in the MBCBP to avoid paying 1.85% in ALPA dues just to get a fund that underperforms the market by 5%+. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Care to quote someone who wants to participate solely to save 1.85%? I don’t believe anyone has stated that, much less a number you find amazing.
TED74 is offline  
Old 06-02-2023, 12:50 PM
  #195  
Gets Weekends Off
 
crazyjaydawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Middle Seat
Posts: 1,205
Default

Originally Posted by TED74 View Post
Care to quote someone who wants to participate solely to save 1.85%? I don’t believe anyone has stated that, much less a number you find amazing.
In the MBCBP poll thread, there are at least 8 that mentioned not paying dues was a huge benefit. While not their sole rationale, I have a hard time believing that the sub-par returns are the driving rationale.
crazyjaydawg is offline  
Old 06-02-2023, 01:23 PM
  #196  
seeing the large hubs...
 
iaflyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: 73N A
Posts: 3,707
Default

Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg View Post
In the MBCBP poll thread, there are at least 8 that mentioned not paying dues was a huge benefit. While not their sole rationale, I have a hard time believing that the sub-par returns are the driving rationale.
I am not worried about the 1.85%, but it does add to the calculation. The tax benefits far outweigh it though. The "sub-par" returns are because it's defined benefit - there has to be enough money in the plan to pay whatever people put in - the company is ponying up for any loss, so they are going to want a more conservative investment.

For me, the level of returns from a brokerage account for spill cash would have to be medium high for me to break even. I'm not buying real estate or other stuff with my spill cash, so the MCBP seems like a good choice if I don't want the spill cash for fun or other needs.
iaflyer is offline  
Old 06-02-2023, 01:30 PM
  #197  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunfighter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,466
Default

Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg View Post
In the MBCBP poll thread, there are at least 8 that mentioned not paying dues was a huge benefit. While not their sole rationale, I have a hard time believing that the sub-par returns are the driving rationale.
If you are 55+, the MBCBP is a way to have a small cash allocation heading into retirement. The amount accumulated before 59.5 represents what should be a small portion of an overall retirement accumulation. At 59.5 there is the added option of in service withdrawal which facilitates rebalancing. Based on forecast age 65 retirements, this represents about 1/3 of the list. For them the guaranteed additional 1.85% return on a cash balance is a worthy consideration.
Gunfighter is offline  
Old 06-04-2023, 11:21 AM
  #198  
Gets Weekends Off
 
notEnuf's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,051
Default

Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg View Post
In the MBCBP poll thread, there are at least 8 that mentioned not paying dues was a huge benefit. While not their sole rationale, I have a hard time believing that the sub-par returns are the driving rationale.
The 10 year annualized return was 4.35% for LIRIX. (institutional shares) You can add 1.85% directly to that number so your return would be 6.2%, which isn't S&P level returns but pretty good given the low level of risk and the capital preservation guarantee. Like I said I'm in and will reap the returns on 100% tax advantaged money as this plan become the conservative element in my total portfolio.

https://www.blackrock.com/us/individ...rtinst-cl-fund
notEnuf is offline  
Old 06-04-2023, 12:28 PM
  #199  
Gets Weekends Off
 
crazyjaydawg's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2009
Position: Middle Seat
Posts: 1,205
Default

Originally Posted by notEnuf View Post
The 10 year annualized return was 4.35% for LIRIX. (institutional shares) You can add 1.85% directly to that number so your return would be 6.2%, which isn't S&P level returns but pretty good given the low level of risk and the capital preservation guarantee. Like I said I'm in and will reap the returns on 100% tax advantaged money as this plan become the conservative element in my total portfolio.

https://www.blackrock.com/us/individ...rtinst-cl-fund
I know you’re smarter than this, but the 1.85% is a one-time savings, not an annualized return. The simple math that you posited is not connected to reality. For someone with 30 years, to even make a rough estimate, I would need to divide 1.85% by 30 which gives an annualized .061% savings; using you’re example would give something close to a 4.41% return on the MBCBP. Essentially negligible.

However, if you’re close to the 59.5 in-service withdrawal eligibility then maybe the 1.85% is a bigger share of what returns you have left. For those of us with more than 5 years to that age, there’s no way we can add that 1.85% as an annualized return.
crazyjaydawg is offline  
Old 06-05-2023, 02:50 AM
  #200  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,917
Default

Originally Posted by crazyjaydawg View Post
I know you’re smarter than this, but the 1.85% is a one-time savings, not an annualized return. The simple math that you posited is not connected to reality. For someone with 30 years, to even make a rough estimate, I would need to divide 1.85% by 30 which gives an annualized .061% savings; using you’re example would give something close to a 4.41% return on the MBCBP. Essentially negligible.

However, if you’re close to the 59.5 in-service withdrawal eligibility then maybe the 1.85% is a bigger share of what returns you have left. For those of us with more than 5 years to that age, there’s no way we can add that 1.85% as an annualized return.
Only because I’m curious…do you contribute any of your own income to 401k?
TED74 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bucking Bar
Delta
395
11-18-2022 05:36 AM
PilotWombat
Delta
18
01-27-2020 10:30 AM
Adlerdriver
FedEx
4
06-16-2017 07:13 AM
Snarge
United
56
02-12-2013 06:33 AM
embflieger
United
19
12-23-2012 02:42 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices