Backpacks off
01-02-2016, 07:34 PM
#21
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob
I think DB and DC pension plans are a bad idea. I want my money in MY name. I'll take care of it. Personally, any negotiating capital on trying to restore a pension plan is a no vote for me. I like what nohat posted above.
01-03-2016, 10:11 AM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 320/A
Posts: 879
Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob
I think DB and DC pension plans are a bad idea. I want my money in MY name. I'll take care of it. Personally, any negotiating capital on trying to restore a pension plan is a no vote for me. I like what nohat posted above.
Agreed, that money in your name is the way to go. But depending on where you are in your career and your existing account balances, $53,000 per year of combined company/pilot contributions could be inadequate. Regardless, the company needs to contribute more to approach the concept of "restoration."
And we need better tax strategies on the front or back end. But that's a national issue, not just Delta Airlines. The other pending travesty will likely be a Social Security means test. We will be painted as "rich one-percenters" with seven digit retirement portfolios. Despite the responsible personal savings discipline, losses and sacrifices along the way, we will have our government benefits curtailed or eliminated. Your neighbor who may have had a similar income but chose to spend it all will cash in fully on SS. The probability of SS offset needs to be factored into our retirement benefit goals.
01-03-2016, 10:28 AM
#24
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Originally Posted by zippinbye
I'd hesitate to say what somebody else means. But I'm pretty sure Delta's Flight Plan reference to funding for pension and 401K benefits is nothing to get excited about. And I'd guess that any posters who pointed out certain aspects of our collective pension history mean "it's complicated."
In other forums and threads some have espoused the notion of a new or reinvigorated pension as part of our contract restoration goals. Today we have at least four general categories of pilots on the property; 1) those we never participated in a pension plan, 2) those with a PBGC benefit that falls considerably short of earned benefits and original expectations (most in that category received some level of cash payout as well), 3) those with a full frozen benefit (25years of service credit at time of freeze) and 4) those with an incomplete frozen benefit, ranging from "decent" to a number below what the PBGC benefit for similar service would have been. How this mixed bag of retirement benefits could be rolled into a new pension plan in a fair and equatable fashion escapes me. As previously mentioned, it's complicated. Seriously complicated. Even if pension re-engagement were possible, likely or desired, I think it would be a serious quagmire to figure out who gets what.
But putting all that aside, I do not want any part of retirement benefits that are not portable and fully owned by me. I like the idea of an annuity that was tossed around a bit and mentioned in the contract survey, but not included in the December 22 opener. Barring that or some other innovative benefit evolving, I strongly suspect an increased defined contribution is all we have to look forward to. But 415C limits are a real problem. I'm all ears for better ideas. But revisiting the traditional pension would be difficult best.
In other forums and threads some have espoused the notion of a new or reinvigorated pension as part of our contract restoration goals. Today we have at least four general categories of pilots on the property; 1) those we never participated in a pension plan, 2) those with a PBGC benefit that falls considerably short of earned benefits and original expectations (most in that category received some level of cash payout as well), 3) those with a full frozen benefit (25years of service credit at time of freeze) and 4) those with an incomplete frozen benefit, ranging from "decent" to a number below what the PBGC benefit for similar service would have been. How this mixed bag of retirement benefits could be rolled into a new pension plan in a fair and equatable fashion escapes me. As previously mentioned, it's complicated. Seriously complicated. Even if pension re-engagement were possible, likely or desired, I think it would be a serious quagmire to figure out who gets what.
But putting all that aside, I do not want any part of retirement benefits that are not portable and fully owned by me. I like the idea of an annuity that was tossed around a bit and mentioned in the contract survey, but not included in the December 22 opener. Barring that or some other innovative benefit evolving, I strongly suspect an increased defined contribution is all we have to look forward to. But 415C limits are a real problem. I'm all ears for better ideas. But revisiting the traditional pension would be difficult best.
But I am with you, I will take my pension money in my own plan, under my name and control.
Annuities are putting your money with someone else, and trusting them to pay you. No thanks. Same same as a DB pension plan to me.
01-03-2016, 02:08 PM
#25
Da Hudge
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Poodle Whisperer
Posts: 17,473
Originally Posted by Hank Kingsley
I don't think a Defined Contribution is really a pension. So it's still ok with me.
Nope nope nope for anything like the pension.
01-03-2016, 03:16 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Originally Posted by Probe
Part of ERISA is that if a corporation dumps its pension on the PBGC, and then later becomes healthy again, the PBGC can "put back" the pension obligations back to that company. It has been done in the past. Now would be the perfect time.
01-03-2016, 03:44 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
As part of the pension-dump negotiations, Delta reportedly got the PBGC to agree in writing that the pension obligations would never be restored to the company.
Says who? How could anyone know that? That statement sounds like something a company man would say to keep this from even being looked into further.
I'm not questioning you, just suspicious of the information. It's been 8-9 years since the pension got terminated, and I have a hard time believing the PBGC would promise, in writing, during a time of a national recession and a spike in pension defaults/failures, not to send the pension back to a company like Delta or Usairways or United if they ever got healthy again.
Just not believing it, but then again, I don't believe much out of my Union reps mouths these days either. Hopefully that all changes on March 1.
01-03-2016, 04:08 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Originally Posted by Big E 757
Says who? How could anyone know that? That statement sounds like something a company man would say to keep this from even being looked into further.
I'm not questioning you, just suspicious of the information. It's been 8-9 years since the pension got terminated, and I have a hard time believing the PBGC would promise, in writing, during a time of a national recession and a spike in pension defaults/failures, not to send the pension back to a company like Delta or Usairways or United if they ever got healthy again.
Just not believing it, but then again, I don't believe much out of my Union reps mouths these days either. Hopefully that all changes on March 1.
I'm not questioning you, just suspicious of the information. It's been 8-9 years since the pension got terminated, and I have a hard time believing the PBGC would promise, in writing, during a time of a national recession and a spike in pension defaults/failures, not to send the pension back to a company like Delta or Usairways or United if they ever got healthy again.
Just not believing it, but then again, I don't believe much out of my Union reps mouths these days either. Hopefully that all changes on March 1.
"PBGC is scheduled for Dec. 20 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York.
Other terms of the agreement:
_ When Delta emerges from Chapter 11, the PBGC will be deemed to have waived its rights to restore the pilot plan in full or in part."
Delta, Pension Agency Reach Settlement
01-03-2016, 04:13 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Position: A320 Left seat
Posts: 2,580
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
Here's a news excerpt and the link.
"PBGC is scheduled for Dec. 20 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York.
Other terms of the agreement:
_ When Delta emerges from Chapter 11, the PBGC will be deemed to have waived its rights to restore the pilot plan in full or in part."
Delta, Pension Agency Reach Settlement
"PBGC is scheduled for Dec. 20 in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York.
Other terms of the agreement:
_ When Delta emerges from Chapter 11, the PBGC will be deemed to have waived its rights to restore the pilot plan in full or in part."
Delta, Pension Agency Reach Settlement
Thanks, but that sucks. Not that I thought we'd ever get the pension reinstated.
01-03-2016, 06:11 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Position: stake holder ir.delta.com
Posts: 10,057
Beat me to it. It's sad but true.
From 2006 10-K:
Some of the other significant terms of the PBGC Settlement Agreement include:
·as of the date we emerge from Chapter 11, the PBGC has agreed to irrevocably waive its rights to restore the Pilot Plan in full or in part;
·we have agreed not to establish any new qualified defined benefit plans for pilots for a period of five years after we emerge from Chapter 11;
·the parties agree to take steps to protect our net operating loss carryforward tax benefits;
·absent extraordinary unanticipated circumstances we will (a) elect the alternative funding schedule under section 402(a)(1) of the pension reform legislation (“Pension Protection Act”) with respect to the qualified defined benefit pension plan for non-pilot employees (“Non-pilot Plan”); (b) not seek a distress termination of the Non-pilot Plan; and (c) provide in our reorganization plan that we shall continue the Non-pilot Plan; and
·we confirmed our previously stated intention reached independently of the PBGC Settlement Agreement that we would make a contribution to the Non-Pilot Plan of not less than $50 million minus any amounts contributed to such plan subsequent to our election of Airline Relief under the Pension Protection Act and prior to our emergence from Chapter 11.
From 2006 10-K:
Some of the other significant terms of the PBGC Settlement Agreement include:
·as of the date we emerge from Chapter 11, the PBGC has agreed to irrevocably waive its rights to restore the Pilot Plan in full or in part;
·we have agreed not to establish any new qualified defined benefit plans for pilots for a period of five years after we emerge from Chapter 11;
·the parties agree to take steps to protect our net operating loss carryforward tax benefits;
·absent extraordinary unanticipated circumstances we will (a) elect the alternative funding schedule under section 402(a)(1) of the pension reform legislation (“Pension Protection Act”) with respect to the qualified defined benefit pension plan for non-pilot employees (“Non-pilot Plan”); (b) not seek a distress termination of the Non-pilot Plan; and (c) provide in our reorganization plan that we shall continue the Non-pilot Plan; and
·we confirmed our previously stated intention reached independently of the PBGC Settlement Agreement that we would make a contribution to the Non-Pilot Plan of not less than $50 million minus any amounts contributed to such plan subsequent to our election of Airline Relief under the Pension Protection Act and prior to our emergence from Chapter 11.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
