Maxing out our DC plan is best for most of the DL pilots. A DB plan is a dead duck for many reasons as is a buyout plan for senior pilots,why waste the money.(It would be good for me but not a wise way to spend our negotiating $'s)Let's talk about stuff that is good for a majority of the DL pilots.Boring stuff like:pay,work rules,scope,sick leave,vacation etc.

Who in their right mind (maybe I just answered my own question) would want a DB plan back? Have they been asleep for the past few years? Were they in a coma during BK? I'd LOVE to hear from some of you that think this would be a good idea.

This has been looked at in the past up North.
It was shot down for 2 reasons:
1. The junior, i.e. younger, guys feel that you either fly a full schedule or retire. I happen to agree with this.
2. The companies fixed cost for each pilot remains the same if you fly 1 hr. or 80 hrs.
I am sure there are ways to resolve both issues but it just seemed the majority of pilots did not like the concept

I never looked at it that way, but that would work for me. I guess that would honor seniority a little more. The greater question would be whether we could get that into the contract without it costing us in another area.

Under the present system, I could (if I were senior enough) bid the better trips on weekdays, and drop a couple of them. Even if the the manning wouldn't allow PDs, the trips would get picked up as QPDs. It sounds a little like trickle-down economics...

Tsquare,I agree 100% and I'm 1 of those greedy senior evil empire guys.

No no no no no no no no no.... Sorry sir, but this is an epic FAIL. There are enough people out there with their hands in my wallet. I don't want anybody (the association above all) managing my money. Period. It is bad enough that I have to pay Fidelity for paperwork services when I didn't choose them. But just out of curiosity, how would it be handled for dues paying non-members. This is the type of thing that might just push some of us over that particular edge.

I'm pretty senior, too, and have ZERO interest in going back to a DB plan.

Thanks 1234! That's how I thought it worked. The bottom line in my bid is essentially the first line which is the one I want it to start going into denial with if it comes to it.

Here is another question: Is it better to start out less restrictive and work to more restrictive or vice versa? Example:

1. Prefer off Dec. 25,24,26
2. Prefer off Dec 25,24,26,27
3. Prefer off Dec. 25,24,26,27,23

I'm thinking having a bid like this that eventually encompasses all the days off that I want is the way for me to go.

Denny

Just to point out...

Don't forget about the BrokerageLink we have available for our 401k and DC Plan. You can do just about anything you want (in terms of market based investments) in the BrokerageLink.

Personally, I can't see losing the tax advantage on that money to invest it in real estate or some kind of business. Odds are you can do better over time in the market. And, unlike 99% of all the other defined contribution plans out there, we are very fortunate in that we aren't limited to a bunch of crappy mutual funds.

Careful... because the next step down this slope is a monthly minimum required schedule. What do you propose that be? 65 hours... 70 hours? I'm with 767 on this one. I can surmise the reason that it wasn't liked "up north" was that it assumed a stagnant number of pilots. If 767 is correct in his assumption, there will still be a number of pilots required to cover the schedule. If you have a few guys that only fly 20 hours/month, those trips get dropped into the pot and more junior guys can pick them up. If after a period of time, the company sees reserve useage going up, they would have to add more pilots in the category. More captains (assuming the obvious) is good for everybody, no?