Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1739616)

I think any position that advocates our profession should be compensated at levels dramatically below what was established in the 1980's, 1990's, and early 2000's is a position that works against the best interests of the pilot group. That seems pretty self evident.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1739616)

But now that the crisis is over and things are arguably better for our company and industry than they've ever been before, let's just make our compensation right going forward. What's stopping you from supporting that? :eek:

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1739624)

Clearly, it seems so to you. The problem is that you have characterized other pilots' assertions of what they deem as being readily achievable as being what they believe we deserve and should be paid. You then decry that position, which you yourself have attributed to them, as evidence that they are working against our (and presumably their) own best interest.

It seems pretty self evident to me that this is quite a stretch.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1739624)

Who says I don't? Frankly, that has my full support. You just don't want to believe that because I also make realistic comparisons between today and the late 90's, in terms of the negotiating environment, and I don't agree with labelling those who would dare to disagree as being some sort of undercover agent sent here to work against us.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1739645)

In this quote, you disagree with my position.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1739645)

And maybe we're talking past each other to some degree.

Originally Posted by DAL 88 Driver (Post 1739645)

Some people are just misguided and do dumb things. That's life. (That's Moak! :p)

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1739350)

No, the 'funding' for our DB plan varied year to year, based on what it had earned in the market. In up years, when the fund increased by more than 6% (?) the company didn't have to make ANY contributions at all! NOTHING! There was as period in the mid 90's I think when the company made ZERO contributions for about 5 years straight, due to the market runup. But when it tanked after 9-11, the bill came due.

In down years, the company had to make contributions to bring the fund up to that 6% line, which could cost them a bundle depending on how little the fund had earned (or how much it lost) in the market.

I'm no R+I expert, perhaps there's one here who can give all the gory details, but the company absolutely saved Billions by flushing our DB plan and putting us on a DC plan.

Today, one of Delta's biggest outstanding debts (in the Billions) is the funding of the frozen NW DB plans.

Originally Posted by Alan Shore (Post 1739662)

I guess that's what I'm talking about. IMO, no one has a monopoly on the "correct" perspective of our past, current, and future labor issues. Neither you nor I nor anyone else has the right to proclaim his own views to be correct and to characterize those who disagree with those views as "misguided" and prone to doing "dumb things."

That's life.

Originally Posted by OldFlyGuy (Post 1739665)

OK, now we are "discussing" something. No food fights. I think when the plan was terminated it was 40 something percent funded and would have required an infusion of over a billion$ plus the ongoing $$ to save it.

I asked a lot of questions of a lot of people at the time. Of course DAL saved $$ with the termination--how much? I dunno. We got reamed, roger that. For a newbie starting out 15% DC with a reasonable return could add up to pretty big money. Obviously, there are a ton of problems with 401k vs DB plans.

Companies give employees less $ in DC plans than they would have spent on DB plans (how many times have you read articles about "conversions" and "savings" to the corporation?-100% of the time). Throw in market risk, longevity risk, no company $ to back you up in a decline, probably higher fees vs what "the plan" would pay, and how many of us are professional money managers in the first place? Knowing I was making a ton of assumptions I tried to ballpark what it would take to replace a 60% DB plan--reasonable rate of return--no black swans in the intake.

30yr career--age 60--IMO 15% won't do it. 35yr career--age 65--16%--maybe: but the individual is still shouldering all the aforementioned risks, ie you'ld still need some pad. Again, these are my rough calculations and I don't play an accountant on TV. I'm guessing 16% DC is low hanging fruit. More is better IMO.

But, not everyone agrees with me. A bunch of us would prefer more $ in their own names as they would rather own rental houses or their own side business. How many want to go back to a DB plan even if we could negotiate it? I'm guessing not many. To each their own. OFG

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1739733)

As far as how much money the DC plan saves the company vs. the DB plan, there's a number out there somewhere, I'm sure the company bean counters know exactly how much money they saved by going to a DC plan vs. DB funding. I only wish DALPA knew that number and held the company accountable for it.

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1739734)

The plan had about 5 billion in obligations and was down to about 1 billion in funding when it was terminated.

Originally Posted by Timbo (Post 1739735)

OK, so how do we "restore" that? What's the value of that lost $4 Billion ten years ago, today, vs. the 15% DC funding?

You know the DC plan must be saving them a bundle, heck, it's based on 15% of our 16 year old pay rates! :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by sailingfun (Post 1739743)

Much of what was required to restore the funding was provided via the various pots of money and the PBGC. You would have to run a spreadsheet for each pilot and add the MPP plan, note cash and PBGC money to determine what each pilot actually lost from the frozen plan. In my case It looks like at age 60 I will have lost about 25% give or take a bit. If I add in the claim money it gets better however officially that cash was to help offset the pay cuts so I don't include it. Many pilots are saying they have been made whole. I did not make the best investment choices so am down.