So you come on here with your anti-PS agenda day after day after day and forum members are willing to engage you with a fair discussion, but when you're asked a simple, fair question you refuse to address it. Please, either man up and answer the question or move on to a different subject. Not answering it, but continuing on with your bloviating shows a lack of intellectual integrity and is quite annoying to the entire group.

I don't know how else to put it to you. I have shown the contractual language that proves Profit Sharing is part of SWAPA's negotiated compensation package. It can not be removed without a replacement. They can call that replacement compensation "double secret extra special pay" for all I care, but the fact remains that Profit Sharing is a contractually mandated compensation that cannot be removed without a replacement. Which portion of that fact do you not understand?

You're serious? The man insists on PS equivalence to Pay which I reject. That's neither intellectual dishonesty or failing to man up. PS isn't compensation. And the last day I was on here was over a week ago. Sick relative.

No problem, just send the check back. I think my bonus is compensation, so I cash it. To each, his own.

GF

"In some respects its a lot better." I bite. I don't get it. OFG

I think he's referring to the fact that they can put money away toward retirement from the PS in addition to the 415 limit that the IRS applies to 401K's that we are limited to.

Was it McCain, who is not exactly left-of-center, who coined the term "Wacko Birds"? And can it be used singular?

You must remember, PS at SWA was their "retirement plan" when all the other majors were offering defined benefit pensions throughout the 80's, 90's, and until the majors all shed their pilot pensions in BK proceedings.
They had no retirement medical or defined pension plan, what they had was PS that went into a retirement vehicle if they chose plus some 401K matching.

Disclaimer -> I'm absolutely no expert. I just skimmed that massive document.
Maybe shoelu or full of luv can explain better.

BUT, it looks to me like some of their profit sharing can actually be "deferred" and placed in a trust so that more of it can come as "qualified" retirement money. ie= taxed like section 415 money rather than ordinary income.

Doing that comes with IRS strings attached of course. But it would be a nice option.

So you reject the notion of a PS equivalence to Pay, but you're adamant we should give up PS.

And you say PS isn't compensation. So you think we should just give up PS.

OK

Digesting......



Digesting...........


Uhhhhhhh, so if I'm following you, and maybe your mind is just on another level, like a Stephen Hawking level and I'm just a dumb pilot....but, ...... uhhhhh.....Ok...wait...let me....

Maybe I drank too much NyQuil, because I'm not quite following you.....

You think we should give up Profit Sharing, but for some evil genius reason that I'm incapable of figuring out, and you don't think there should be any increase in pay for it....(I think I'm catching on...light bulb is starting to flicker!)...Because, because...yeah, I got it...because PROFIT SHARING DOLLARS AREN'T COMPENSATION! Look at me! I'm in on the scheme....Yeah, Profit Sharing isn't compensation! No, no, we don't do something stupid like think we should give it up for something silly like pay rates...that would be foolhardy. We just get rid of it and refuse to put a number against what we think we should get in return. Holy S#!t you're a genius! Please tell me you're on the Negotiating Committee.

(Edit: Just woke up from my blissful numb minding, acid like euphoric, NyQuil induced state of clarity; you want to give it up for $5000 like you said a while back in your original manifesto about PS. The world is even clearer now....now I know what self-actualization is all about.)