Agreed. Clearly, everyone wants improvements to the current state of affairs, including in retirement. I can't think of many things that help quite as much as more money, except benefits that make retirement more affordable and palatable. The answer to New's point about options is equally simple: money. A DC plan with strong benefits, and no artificial penalties strikes me as offering all the options you could possibly need.

As for the trap of having third parties administer the funds, a) federal laws probably already required some sort of independent management, and look where that got us, b) I doubt there is anyone out there I find trustworthy, but I'm sure there is a glut of ex-AIG, and ex-Lehman people available to help us, and maybe sell us a few securitized debt obligations in the process, and c) some of us found sinsiter conspiracies just in the way the notes were handled, so I don't doubt the group would be wracked by allegations, rumors, and suspicions about any such advisor if ALPA had control, so that noone would sleep well at night.

So I suggest we focus on eliminating any restrictions against, and offering maximum benefits to, anyone contemplating retirement. When the individual compares their funds to their expenses, and looks at their own expectations, he/she retire.

I'd rather we decide what our expected longevity is, and we decide when enough is enough, without having to jump through whatever hoops would be required under a DB plan.

I am aware. We have a plethora of options afforded to us. I move my money out of the primary account all of the time, and invest. The point I was making is that some guys want to have their money as cash. I say fine, let them do that. It would not be my choice as it would prohibit a few of my investments but if someone wants that, so be it!

I agree and to add to it. A DC plan allows that. I want to retire when I am sick and tired of being sick and tired, not when I have to for my retirement money.

I had about five e-mails on it over the last two months.

Are you a dues paying non-member? If so that explains it! :D

DALPA's job is to protect DALPA's pilots no more no less.

As for what retirement works best. IMHO a DC with 20% or a contribution to IRS limits every year works for me.

I've gotta go with Tsquare on this one. Assuming that a bunch of senior guys don't want to retire, wouldn't it be better if they could pass some of their schedule down to more junior guys?

I'm raising my hand. I would like to explore a way to get a DB plan back that provides incentives for pilots to retire early. Read back a couple of pages to see my reasons why.

I think Check Ess, has pretty much said two things though,

1. ERISA and the PBGC will restrict what DAL can do for it's pilots in the form of a DB plan.
2. ERISA and the PBGC will restrict what DAL can do for it's pilots in the form of a DC plan.

Either way, right now you have EVERY incentive to work until you are 65 or can't work anymore for medical reasons. I think the life expectancy for pilots who work that long is a little north of 68 or 69. We can do better than that.

Instead or being afraid of losing a DB plan again, maybe we should be looking into finding out how to protect one. That's all I'm sayin'. :rolleyes:

New K Now (Been awake for decades)

New, you should also add that you are not an old fart either! :D

Not yet. I'd better start to see improvements in our contract when DAL starts printing money, or I just might be.

I agree with your statement wholeheartedly. And protecting DAL pilots does not mean, by any stretch of the imagination, investing our retirement monies. No sir. That is not acceptable. Make it an option maybe, but to make it part of ALPA's mandatory "services"? Not interested.

I'm not an old fart. :)