My personal mins for the TA
06-30-2016 | 12:18 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,039
Likes: 0
From: 7ERB
While I appreciate your concerns and expectations I believe you need to learn from the recent past. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A ROCK SOLID PENSION.
If that's what you want then you will have to save enough to buy yourself an annuity at age 65 that will supply you with enough money for your monthly requirements(although neither a company pension or an annuity will guarantee inflation protection - in fact few (if any) pensions have inflation raises built in).
This misguided idea that we can get a pension back that we lost is NEVER going to happen. Private industries are doing everything in their power to get rid of their pensions and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) that has a responsibility for whatever leftover pensions we get is functionally bankrupt (can't meet their future obligations). It is another one of those Private quasi governmental agencies (like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) that was supposed to be funded by the premiums charged to pension trust funds has had way too many bankrupt company pensions dumped on it and won't have enough (going forward) to meet all of its future obligations.
The ONLY WAY to guarantee your retirement economic future is have control of it. If you can't invest well enough to meet those obligations then you're going to have to save enough with no risk investments (think money market funds) to fund your own retirement. Companies no longer want to take the risks on themselves and in this environment why would they?
Might want to start working on your other requirements for the TA because this one is not even on the table.
If that's what you want then you will have to save enough to buy yourself an annuity at age 65 that will supply you with enough money for your monthly requirements(although neither a company pension or an annuity will guarantee inflation protection - in fact few (if any) pensions have inflation raises built in).
This misguided idea that we can get a pension back that we lost is NEVER going to happen. Private industries are doing everything in their power to get rid of their pensions and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) that has a responsibility for whatever leftover pensions we get is functionally bankrupt (can't meet their future obligations). It is another one of those Private quasi governmental agencies (like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) that was supposed to be funded by the premiums charged to pension trust funds has had way too many bankrupt company pensions dumped on it and won't have enough (going forward) to meet all of its future obligations.
The ONLY WAY to guarantee your retirement economic future is have control of it. If you can't invest well enough to meet those obligations then you're going to have to save enough with no risk investments (think money market funds) to fund your own retirement. Companies no longer want to take the risks on themselves and in this environment why would they?
Might want to start working on your other requirements for the TA because this one is not even on the table.
Our union can buy us those annuities then.
60% FAE is a must.
TEN
06-30-2016 | 12:19 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,707
Likes: 0
From: Permanently scarred
While I appreciate your concerns and expectations I believe you need to learn from the recent past. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A ROCK SOLID PENSION.
If that's what you want then you will have to save enough to buy yourself an annuity at age 65 that will supply you with enough money for your monthly requirements(although neither a company pension or an annuity will guarantee inflation protection - in fact few (if any) pensions have inflation raises built in).
This misguided idea that we can get a pension back that we lost is NEVER going to happen. Private industries are doing everything in their power to get rid of their pensions and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) that has a responsibility for whatever leftover pensions we get is functionally bankrupt (can't meet their future obligations). It is another one of those Private quasi governmental agencies (like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) that was supposed to be funded by the premiums charged to pension trust funds has had way too many bankrupt company pensions dumped on it and won't have enough (going forward) to meet all of its future obligations.
The ONLY WAY to guarantee your retirement economic future is have control of it. If you can't invest well enough to meet those obligations then you're going to have to save enough with no risk investments (think money market funds) to fund your own retirement. Companies no longer want to take the risks on themselves and in this environment why would they?
Might want to start working on your other requirements for the TA because this one is not even on the table.
If that's what you want then you will have to save enough to buy yourself an annuity at age 65 that will supply you with enough money for your monthly requirements(although neither a company pension or an annuity will guarantee inflation protection - in fact few (if any) pensions have inflation raises built in).
This misguided idea that we can get a pension back that we lost is NEVER going to happen. Private industries are doing everything in their power to get rid of their pensions and the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) that has a responsibility for whatever leftover pensions we get is functionally bankrupt (can't meet their future obligations). It is another one of those Private quasi governmental agencies (like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) that was supposed to be funded by the premiums charged to pension trust funds has had way too many bankrupt company pensions dumped on it and won't have enough (going forward) to meet all of its future obligations.
The ONLY WAY to guarantee your retirement economic future is have control of it. If you can't invest well enough to meet those obligations then you're going to have to save enough with no risk investments (think money market funds) to fund your own retirement. Companies no longer want to take the risks on themselves and in this environment why would they?
Might want to start working on your other requirements for the TA because this one is not even on the table.
To those who say they won't vote yes unless it gets them a retirement plan:
I was a strong NO vote on the '12 and '15 TAs. But IMO there's a difference between what we deserve/how much the company can afford to pay and what the company could pay because it has the resources. If it wanted to, could the company provide a DB retirement plan for the pilots? I guess so. But they're not going to. If the company were owned by the pilots I would agree--bring back the DB and much more. But it's first obligation is to shareholders when it comes to what to do with profits. Yes, the company is wasting plenty of money on stock buy backs. But the insanity and greed of these schemes does not mean they're going to be just as insane and provide a retirement plan for us.
But if you don't agree what's your vision of how to get from where we are to a place where we have a DB plan? Vote down the next TA even if it has half the concessions the last TA had, no PS trades, and much better pay rates? OK, say you convince enough pilots that we deserve and can eventually get a TA that includes retirement. So a year later do you think you'll get it? How? Why? I don't think it's possible. I don't think you can go through the process that's in place and get from here to there. I don't think a union can get job action authorized to achieve this objective, and in the end I think you weaken what negotiating capital you have up to that point. Just my opinion. And I'm not holding out for what I don't think is possible. I am willing to hold out for what is, which I believe are payrates that beat UAL on the date of signing with retro to Jan 1, 2016. That and no PS trades, increases in DC, and better training pay, to mention a few.
06-30-2016 | 12:58 PM
#43
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,325
Likes: 9
From: 3fidy
Agreed.
To those who say they won't vote yes unless it gets them a retirement plan:
I was a strong NO vote on the '12 and '15 TAs. But IMO there's a difference between what we deserve/how much the company can afford to pay and what the company could pay because it has the resources. If it wanted to, could the company provide a DB retirement plan for the pilots? I guess so. But they're not going to. If the company were owned by the pilots I would agree--bring back the DB and much more. But it's first obligation is to shareholders when it comes to what to do with profits. Yes, the company is wasting plenty of money on stock buy backs. But the insanity and greed of these schemes does not mean they're going to be just as insane and provide a retirement plan for us.
But if you don't agree what's your vision of how to get from where we are to a place where we have a DB plan? Vote down the next TA even if it has half the concessions the last TA had, no PS trades, and much better pay rates? OK, say you convince enough pilots that we deserve and can eventually get a TA that includes retirement. So a year later do you think you'll get it? How? Why? I don't think it's possible. I don't think you can go through the process that's in place and get from here to there. I don't think a union can get job action authorized to achieve this objective, and in the end I think you weaken what negotiating capital you have up to that point. Just my opinion. And I'm not holding out for what I don't think is possible. I am willing to hold out for what is, which I believe are payrates that beat UAL on the date of signing with retro to Jan 1, 2016. That and no PS trades, increases in DC, and better training pay, to mention a few.
To those who say they won't vote yes unless it gets them a retirement plan:
I was a strong NO vote on the '12 and '15 TAs. But IMO there's a difference between what we deserve/how much the company can afford to pay and what the company could pay because it has the resources. If it wanted to, could the company provide a DB retirement plan for the pilots? I guess so. But they're not going to. If the company were owned by the pilots I would agree--bring back the DB and much more. But it's first obligation is to shareholders when it comes to what to do with profits. Yes, the company is wasting plenty of money on stock buy backs. But the insanity and greed of these schemes does not mean they're going to be just as insane and provide a retirement plan for us.
But if you don't agree what's your vision of how to get from where we are to a place where we have a DB plan? Vote down the next TA even if it has half the concessions the last TA had, no PS trades, and much better pay rates? OK, say you convince enough pilots that we deserve and can eventually get a TA that includes retirement. So a year later do you think you'll get it? How? Why? I don't think it's possible. I don't think you can go through the process that's in place and get from here to there. I don't think a union can get job action authorized to achieve this objective, and in the end I think you weaken what negotiating capital you have up to that point. Just my opinion. And I'm not holding out for what I don't think is possible. I am willing to hold out for what is, which I believe are payrates that beat UAL on the date of signing with retro to Jan 1, 2016. That and no PS trades, increases in DC, and better training pay, to mention a few.
- If I were relatively new or in the middle here I wouldn't want any part of a defined benefit plan. I can put 15% of my income and the company's contribution into an index fund and be far better off in the long run without the risk that we all saw when we lost our DB.
- If I'm a dead zoner or very near retirement I would be interested because I lost so much with so little time left to recover. But how would that be done? fNW and fDL have completely different deals. The only way I could see is to figure out a rough idea of what you would have got and come up with a plan to make you as whole as possible with everything we have gotten so far. Would the rest of the list be good with the most pie going to those who lost the most or would this be a completely different pie somehow? Sounds like a very long complicated road and possibly a road block thrown up by those that, for whatever reason, don't want a deal.
06-30-2016 | 01:21 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 7,292
Likes: 0
From: A350 Both
-Buy your own annuity if you want one then you don't have to pay for the union to administer it. Google is your friend.
-60% FAE is a goal. Some investors better, some do worse. What is magic about that number anyway?
Take charge of your own financial life. It's liberating
06-30-2016 | 01:52 PM
#45
Snake
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Comparisons with the failed TA are inevitable, but they shouldn't influence anyone's decision on the next TA. It has to pass or fail on its own merits.
I think that Malone can get a good deal; the big question is whether any deal can get through this MEC. I wonder how any TA doesn't fail 15 to 4. Bartels will leak and lie all over the place (AGAIN), and turn another essential function of our union into a political maneuver for power.
If it somehow gets past the MEC, I hope Malone has a plan for the mindless zombies and entitled clowns on Facebook. I love hearing about "restoration" from new hires who weren't even in high school on 9/11.
Comparisons with United and Allegiant are complicated. Read the whole thing.
I think that Malone can get a good deal; the big question is whether any deal can get through this MEC. I wonder how any TA doesn't fail 15 to 4. Bartels will leak and lie all over the place (AGAIN), and turn another essential function of our union into a political maneuver for power.
If it somehow gets past the MEC, I hope Malone has a plan for the mindless zombies and entitled clowns on Facebook. I love hearing about "restoration" from new hires who weren't even in high school on 9/11.
Comparisons with United and Allegiant are complicated. Read the whole thing.
06-30-2016 | 02:19 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 38
Comparisons with the failed TA are inevitable, but they shouldn't influence anyone's decision on the next TA. It has to pass or fail on its own merits.
I think that Malone can get a good deal; the big question is whether any deal can get through this MEC. I wonder how any TA doesn't fail 15 to 4. Bartels will leak and lie all over the place (AGAIN), and turn another essential function of our union into a political maneuver for power.
If it somehow gets past the MEC, I hope Malone has a plan for the mindless zombies and entitled clowns on Facebook. I love hearing about "restoration" from new hires who weren't even in high school on 9/11.
Comparisons with United and Allegiant are complicated. Read the whole thing.
I think that Malone can get a good deal; the big question is whether any deal can get through this MEC. I wonder how any TA doesn't fail 15 to 4. Bartels will leak and lie all over the place (AGAIN), and turn another essential function of our union into a political maneuver for power.
If it somehow gets past the MEC, I hope Malone has a plan for the mindless zombies and entitled clowns on Facebook. I love hearing about "restoration" from new hires who weren't even in high school on 9/11.
Comparisons with United and Allegiant are complicated. Read the whole thing.
06-30-2016 | 02:55 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,898
Likes: 0
From: Stay THIRSTY, my friends!
In light of the recent UPS home run, and the upcoming SWA contract, why would we settle for anything less than our opener, front loaded, max 3 years, full retro. This is reasonable and achievable. Retirement on the next one.
06-30-2016 | 03:05 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 38
I'm sure the Rubes of this world will pour through each contract to find 1 thing we have that's better and use that as an excuse to discredit them as a comparison.
06-30-2016 | 03:05 PM
#49
On Reserve
Joined: Jun 2016
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: UPS Pilot
UPS Contract highlights and pay
http://inside.ipapilot.org/ta2016/video1slides.pdf
Keep in mind the hourly is based on 75hrs (28 day pay period) (13pay periods). Starting 9/1/16 $300/hr all 15 yr Cpt's ($292,500 base)
http://inside.ipapilot.org/ta2016/video1slides.pdf
Keep in mind the hourly is based on 75hrs (28 day pay period) (13pay periods). Starting 9/1/16 $300/hr all 15 yr Cpt's ($292,500 base)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
careerpilot
Regional
36
12-12-2006 06:50 PM
