No Voters: Why are you voting no?
10-23-2016, 11:55 AM
#21
Sick of whiners
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: 767 VEOP
Posts: 507
Originally Posted by thezoltar
This is the essence of the yes voter. It doesn't affect me so I'll vote yes, screw the other guys that do deadhead quite often. Thanks for your support, hopefully we can do the same for you sometime.
Now you might be starting to get a feel for why SO FEW of the line pilots view this TA as a NO. You are just not looking at the big picture. Single issue no voters are just that-- narrow minded, single issue, rabid emotionalists with no thought whatsoever of the big picture.
The DH question I asked is a perfect example. When I saw his post, I thought I might be missing something so I asked a perfectly legit question about why he thought the TA DH policy was a no. (I understood his other "no" issues. Instead of a simple answer, I get a snarky 'look it up yourself' answer. Really? And no, I do not have a copy of UAL's PWA to look it up in. I am having enough trouble slogging through the legalese in our TA to go and google and digest UAL's PWA.
.
Are there items in this TA that I think could be improved? Of course.
Are there items in this TA that I am willing to wait another 2,3,4,5 (?) years for the possibility of an improvement? No, I am prepared to take the bird in the hand at this juncture. Otherwise, it wouldn't be prudent.
. (I did vote no last year)..
And as for the 'thanks for your support' comment? "I" am casting "my" vote based on "my" judgement of the overall suitability of the TA. All of it. In total. Your support, opinion or vote has no sway over me.
.
Based on the pilots I fly with, this TA passes 2:1.
(Are you NO champions getting so shouted down here now that you have to change your screen name every couple of days?
thezoltar, is that really you testiculus? BtoA?
Your buddy,
KSF
.
10-23-2016, 11:57 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,460
There are so many variables in the example that you can tweek the numbers to make whatever point you desire about the value of DC vs DB.
Take this this scenario
45yrs old
250K balance in DC plan
Contributing 50K per year into DC/401K
Market average return of 8.5%
3% inflation, 3% annual pay raises, 3% increase in dollars value of retirement contributions
Retire at 65, draw 60% FAE
At 90 years of age, you still have $2 million in retirement funds.
If you started at bankruptcy in 2005 at the age of 39 (50 now) and invested 50K from the claim note and continued the above assumptions you would have about $5M at age 65 when you retire.
If you were 50 at the time of bankruptcy, had 100K invested and only earned 4% return, you are screwed. The value of your plan would grow to barely $1M by age 65.
There are so many variables, but the bottom line is that money in your name (DC) is infinitely more valuable than a promise to pay (DB).
Take this this scenario
45yrs old
250K balance in DC plan
Contributing 50K per year into DC/401K
Market average return of 8.5%
3% inflation, 3% annual pay raises, 3% increase in dollars value of retirement contributions
Retire at 65, draw 60% FAE
At 90 years of age, you still have $2 million in retirement funds.
If you started at bankruptcy in 2005 at the age of 39 (50 now) and invested 50K from the claim note and continued the above assumptions you would have about $5M at age 65 when you retire.
If you were 50 at the time of bankruptcy, had 100K invested and only earned 4% return, you are screwed. The value of your plan would grow to barely $1M by age 65.
There are so many variables, but the bottom line is that money in your name (DC) is infinitely more valuable than a promise to pay (DB).
10-23-2016, 12:08 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,460
Back to the topic at hand.
I am a NO voter because of SCOPE. It is Section 1 for a reason. We are conceding on the JV ratio for a block hour floor 5% below what we currently fly. I fully expect the company to violate the new 46.5% JV floor in the new contract as they have demonstrated this willingness in the past. If the ratio returned to 50% with a 49% floor, significant predetermined penalties for violation and a block hour limit at current amounts it would be passable.
I am a NO voter because of SCOPE. It is Section 1 for a reason. We are conceding on the JV ratio for a block hour floor 5% below what we currently fly. I fully expect the company to violate the new 46.5% JV floor in the new contract as they have demonstrated this willingness in the past. If the ratio returned to 50% with a 49% floor, significant predetermined penalties for violation and a block hour limit at current amounts it would be passable.
10-23-2016, 12:18 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2014
Posts: 228
My Vote of NO
I will be voting NO and here are my top 3 reasons:
1) JV Scope. Reading carefully we gave the company all the loopholes they need to reduce our flying directly to the block hour floor (5.5% cut from today's flying)
2) Gutting of 3.B.4. This kills our future leverage when it comes time for the next section 6. I have more than a few more Section 6s ahead of me...Granted the company has ways around it, but it causes them problems in the long run. The more problems it causes them, the better for us.
3) Sick leave. I view this as Pandora's box being opened. The company will continue to not be happy with this and seek more cuts in the next Section 6 as a "gate keeper" item. Lets put the brakes on this now...see No. 2 above about gutting our leverage for "Next-time"
1) JV Scope. Reading carefully we gave the company all the loopholes they need to reduce our flying directly to the block hour floor (5.5% cut from today's flying)
2) Gutting of 3.B.4. This kills our future leverage when it comes time for the next section 6. I have more than a few more Section 6s ahead of me...Granted the company has ways around it, but it causes them problems in the long run. The more problems it causes them, the better for us.
3) Sick leave. I view this as Pandora's box being opened. The company will continue to not be happy with this and seek more cuts in the next Section 6 as a "gate keeper" item. Lets put the brakes on this now...see No. 2 above about gutting our leverage for "Next-time"
10-23-2016, 12:52 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by thezoltar
This is the essence of the yes voter. It doesn't affect me so I'll vote yes, screw the other guys that do deadhead quite often. Thanks for your support, hopefully we can do the same for you sometime.
10-23-2016, 01:16 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2009
Posts: 5,113
Originally Posted by JamesBond
Yeah. That is unique to yes voters.
10-23-2016, 01:23 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
[QUOTE=pilotc90a;2229646]
Since no one has responded yet, let me try to illustrate. I am using simple math, in public, so caveat emptor.
lets say you're a Captain making $250,000 a year. 16% is about 40K in your 401/415 account. Lets say this Captain is 50, meaning 15 more years to live, ahem, work. that will give you about $600,000 in pure savings (add in interest and compounding if you would like). With the 4% rule, it gives you about $24,000 a year in retirement income.
If you had a DB with 60% FAE, you could retire when ever you wanted after your 25 years, and earn about $150,000 a year, regardless of what the stock market does.
Now the disclaimers. Those who are 50 now most likely had an idea what was coming in 2007, so they likely have some retirement already, and my simple math above ignored the effects of earned interest and compounding. But which would you rather have approaching mandatory retirement, $24,000 a year, or $150,000 a year?
FWIW, I am nether a deadzoner, nor a new kid on the block, so I have that going for me....
The problem is we (I am of similar age and seniority) were never going to be made whole on the issue of retirement savings. Remember, the PBGC still pays some (upwards of 40-50K a year) for those who had significant pensions cancelled.
Originally Posted by NavyFlyer
Since no one has responded yet, let me try to illustrate. I am using simple math, in public, so caveat emptor.
lets say you're a Captain making $250,000 a year. 16% is about 40K in your 401/415 account. Lets say this Captain is 50, meaning 15 more years to live, ahem, work. that will give you about $600,000 in pure savings (add in interest and compounding if you would like). With the 4% rule, it gives you about $24,000 a year in retirement income.
If you had a DB with 60% FAE, you could retire when ever you wanted after your 25 years, and earn about $150,000 a year, regardless of what the stock market does.
Now the disclaimers. Those who are 50 now most likely had an idea what was coming in 2007, so they likely have some retirement already, and my simple math above ignored the effects of earned interest and compounding. But which would you rather have approaching mandatory retirement, $24,000 a year, or $150,000 a year?
FWIW, I am nether a deadzoner, nor a new kid on the block, so I have that going for me....
10-23-2016, 01:28 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by Gunfighter
There are so many variables in the example that you can tweek the numbers to make whatever point you desire about the value of DC vs DB.
Take this this scenario
45yrs old
250K balance in DC plan
Contributing 50K per year into DC/401K
Market average return of 8.5%
3% inflation, 3% annual pay raises, 3% increase in dollars value of retirement contributions
Retire at 65, draw 60% FAE
At 90 years of age, you still have $2 million in retirement funds.
If you started at bankruptcy in 2005 at the age of 39 (50 now) and invested 50K from the claim note and continued the above assumptions you would have about $5M at age 65 when you retire.
If you were 50 at the time of bankruptcy, had 100K invested and only earned 4% return, you are screwed. The value of your plan would grow to barely $1M by age 65.
There are so many variables, but the bottom line is that money in your name (DC) is infinitely more valuable than a promise to pay (DB).
Take this this scenario
45yrs old
250K balance in DC plan
Contributing 50K per year into DC/401K
Market average return of 8.5%
3% inflation, 3% annual pay raises, 3% increase in dollars value of retirement contributions
Retire at 65, draw 60% FAE
At 90 years of age, you still have $2 million in retirement funds.
If you started at bankruptcy in 2005 at the age of 39 (50 now) and invested 50K from the claim note and continued the above assumptions you would have about $5M at age 65 when you retire.
If you were 50 at the time of bankruptcy, had 100K invested and only earned 4% return, you are screwed. The value of your plan would grow to barely $1M by age 65.
There are so many variables, but the bottom line is that money in your name (DC) is infinitely more valuable than a promise to pay (DB).
10-23-2016, 01:31 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 737n/FO
Posts: 667
Originally Posted by GivemeVSP
I will be voting NO and here are my top 3 reasons:
1) JV Scope. Reading carefully we gave the company all the loopholes they need to reduce our flying directly to the block hour floor (5.5% cut from today's flying)
2) Gutting of 3.B.4. This kills our future leverage when it comes time for the next section 6. I have more than a few more Section 6s ahead of me...Granted the company has ways around it, but it causes them problems in the long run. The more problems it causes them, the better for us.
3) Sick leave. I view this as Pandora's box being opened. The company will continue to not be happy with this and seek more cuts in the next Section 6 as a "gate keeper" item. Lets put the brakes on this now...see No. 2 above about gutting our leverage for "Next-time"
1) JV Scope. Reading carefully we gave the company all the loopholes they need to reduce our flying directly to the block hour floor (5.5% cut from today's flying)
2) Gutting of 3.B.4. This kills our future leverage when it comes time for the next section 6. I have more than a few more Section 6s ahead of me...Granted the company has ways around it, but it causes them problems in the long run. The more problems it causes them, the better for us.
3) Sick leave. I view this as Pandora's box being opened. The company will continue to not be happy with this and seek more cuts in the next Section 6 as a "gate keeper" item. Lets put the brakes on this now...see No. 2 above about gutting our leverage for "Next-time"
10-23-2016, 02:20 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2015
Position: A350 Both
Posts: 7,292
Originally Posted by DAL73n
And, BTW, if you want some retirement certainty find a good financial professional and invest in a single pay life annuity with a high quality insurance company and you take the investment risk out of some of your retirement savings. From CNN money web site you could get $5660/month guaranteed for life - that is $67,920/year for the rest of your life. Add that to Social Security and you're over $100,000/year for life. While it's not the $150,000 pension you thought you had it's still a pretty good living in retirement. Also, knowing what you will have means if you want more than that then you need to save more money.
So what will you do with a 21% pay raise? Will you spend all of it? Every month?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
