Shaman

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing. Don't know what Elizabeth Warren has to do with anything.

mempurpleflyer

This is exactly what I said. So...

Current A Plan = Company assumes majority (basically all) of the risk

Proposed VB Plan = Company equally SHARES risk of the plan with the
pilot.

So, the risk to us goes from basically zero to an "equal share" with the company. In exchange for this increased risk, there is the POTENTIAL (not guarantee) that the individual pilot can do better than $130k.

Personally, I will take the $130k "bird-in-the-hand" guarantee, supplemented with a B-Plan that has a "cash over the cap" provision.

Don't fall for the smooth talk and fancy videos

mempurpleflyer

I also find it interesting that one of the most profitable companies in the aviation business doesn't offer profit sharing. Again, something we negotiated away in the past from what I understand.

My buddies at Delta sure enjoy those nice big profit sharing checks, in addition to a 16% B plan with "cash over the cap". Yet we are settling for (1) no profit sharing, (2) an A Plan that hasn't been improved in 18 years, and (3) a B Plan that, although it was increased by 2% with the last contract, still does not contain a "cash over the cap" provision...penalizing our more senior pilots who hit the IRS limits.

Our A Plan has issues...I get that but that is not our fault. But it is still a great asset. And our (the union's) answer to our retirement woes is to propose a plan to the company that (1) freezes the one thing left that we have that the other guys don't and (2) shifts at least a portion of the market risk to us.

We are all college educated guys and gals right? Blows my mind.

BlueMoon

What exactly is the companies risk in the VB? Our risk is the benefit my decrease if returns are lower than planned. The company doesn't have to put more money in if returns are lower than planned or make up any other short falls correct? So what risk do they have? Seems like we are taking all the risk.

kronan

SO-

Having read\listened to the most recent NC message.

Accumulation of benefits while on LTD isn't an issue being ignored.

Contrary to the fearmongering of other posters, the proposed change is not an elimination of our DB in exchange for an additional DC plan. Variable plans are still a Defined Benefit plan and Management continues to assume the Longevity risk (ie--Pension pays out even if you live to 115)...unlike a DC plan (our B plan) where all you have is the pot of $$ you've accumulated, and if you spend too much or live too long...it runs out.

Yes, there is an assumption of Investment risk if we move forward. As there is in my DC plan, but I will happily tell each and everyone that my B plan is not solely in the Money Market Account or TIPs for "safety"

One of the occasional stated goals here is our A plan needs to have a COLA, and no COLA no change in CAP = a no vote for at least one individual posting here. IMO-there's a reason pretty much the only pensions with COLAs are Govt Pensions. And a COLA, added on to our Traditional A plan would've made it much more likely to be frozen or handed over to the PBGCC...just as many people feel the Lump sum provisions in Delta's plan resulted in their plan being handed over due to a large percentage of early retirees.

Well, changing to a different DB plan can lead to our Pension plan having a COLA.

Or, we can stick our fingers in our ears, refuse to listen...and threaten to sue our MEC for pursuing an improvement in our A plan---just as they said they would during the TA ratification process.

And NO-MEC can recommend. Can even think we, and the newhires would be better off, but they can't FORCE it on Us. That takes a Majority of the crewforce thinking about it, reading the various pros\cons both here and on JF...and voting for it, or not.

So, do you believe in Democracy or not? Majority rule or not? Or is Democracy only a good thing when a vote goes your way?

Shaman

They still assume longevity risk. You keep breathing they gotta keep paying

Shaman

Are you also aware that under the plan they are proposing the costs of administration of the plan is also shifted to the employees, which can range anywhere from 2%-4% per annum? Are you aware that the increased COLA provided by said VB plan is also subject to a downside risk where it can pay less (perhaps significantly during down turns) than the 130k we are assured we get now.

There's no free lunches.

It should also be noted that what happened at Delta was tied to a chapter 11 filing it was not arbitrary. It should also be noted that their contract costs more than ours does.

Why has it been conceded that there isn't a path to achieving the maximum 215k annual DB payout allowable?



something this significant should not be a side letter

HIFLYR

I agree except for the last statement. A LOA is vetted by vote just like the contract and this would be the only issue to look at and that provides limited distractions. I however do not believe there is any incentive for the company to do anything.

I voted no for the current contract since retirement was not enhanced and there were virtually no fixes to the scheduling part of the contract.

I am willing to listen to the MEC and see what FACTS they have and how it effect us, knowing in the end I have a vote.

Funny many on here voted for the current contract because healthcare cost really do not matter to them, they have tricare. Also, retirement was ok since they had earned one elsewhere. Believe me they earned both of the above and deserve it!!!!

They are now however railing about people who have 25 yrs and a high five and might be looking for enhancements. In the end this should have been fixed before a contract was ratified.

pinseeker

To address the second statement first, the company can't just hand the DB plan over to the PBGC. You know that, right? If the company goes into bankruptcy, they can ask a judge to get rid of any unsecured debt, i.e.. our DB plan. But, they can't just hand it over to the PBGC because they didn't fund it correctly.

As to the first statement quoted, why can't the company declare bankruptcy and ask a judge to get rid of the financial responsibility of the VB plan payments. What makes this any more likely to be around in the future.

I watched the latest slide show as well and couldn't find any reason to assume any risk in our A plan. Still a NO vote and hopefully a majority agree.

Shaman

Don't you think negotiation outside of the normal contract gives up a tremendous amount of leverage and makes our negotiating position extremely weak?

The bargain being struck here must be one where the company sees a benefit to agreeing solely in the merits of the proposal. Side letters are supposed to be to remedy unforeseen changes that fall out of the scope of the current contract.

As one brother to another you're accepting a poor precedent that I truly don't believe is in our interests.

This is the proverbial camels nose getting into the tent. Best believe the rest of the camel will follow behind shortly.