**********

No.

 

Best way to increase the benefit is let everyone draw retiremnet starting at 60 and it goes into a tax deferred account. My last job you could "retire" and keep your job for up to five years, you'd quick earning a benefit accrual but keep your pay scale.
The system was built for everyone to draw at 60 anyway plus if you die at 65 your wife has five years of payments plus interest.

 

I like this idea.

I wonder why the union won't support it?

 

That's how cops and firemen do it.

Anyone already over 60 will feel gypped.

 

Want to believe ya, but heard it from an MEC member... corporate wants to eliminate the extra/penalty contributions that they’re required to make in certain circumstances under the current A Plan. THIS IS THE ONLY REASON THE COMPANY IS EVEN ENTERTAINING THE IDEA. Please don’t tell me you actually believe the company wants to negotiate something else just because it would be better for the pilot group. (because that’s kinda what you’re implying)

 

If the company decides to negotiate, it will only because they see a benefit for them and not for us.

It's what they do.

Remember lie flat seats?

That's all you need to know.

Vote no.

 

Went to a recent Focus meeting on the retirement plan.

The Union is definitely looking for any angle to pitch this thing so that they can proceed. Pushing the question of researching the VB plan option as a positive response to proceed to negotiations. Respondents beware.

Social media deemed to be very small percentage, and a negligible input for consideration moving forward. Yep - they are blowing us off as a vocal minority.

At the meeting, commenters were vocal that they were happy with the current plan and there MUST be current floor guarantees before anyone would consider an upside plan. The briefer was clear that he personally was unhappy with losing 3% a year and wants some type of improvement (I guess this 3% loss is the A plan portion of our awesome retirement).

Shocking to me......there is nothing firm to discuss other than a "wish list" that will still need to be negotiated. I heard the comment: "the company may not agree to that" several times. This entire process blows whale ^@$*s.

I believe the company wants this bad.....real bad, and has the Union bending over backwards to get us into negotiations. Once there....we will get bent over and serviced for a 57% vote again.

Praying the crew force rises up and smashes this thing hard and pre-negoations. I've made my opinion loud and clear....but got the sense my input is unimportant.

 

I personally believe that the only thing that will stop this is a mass recall of block reps.

Current block reps need to be recalled, and "no" people put in their place.

That is the only way to get their attention.

When we gave them agency shop, we lost all control of "our" union.

They make bad decisions, and they suffer no repercussion at all.

In fact, we are the ones who suffer as the result of their stupidity and "I've got mine" greed.

 

Among some of the many errors, No...that's Not how Cops and Firemen do it.
What they Do is Retire and then get hired into a Brand new\different slot, often with similar duties while their former position is either filled by a newhire or left vacant.

What YOU could do is Retire at 55 and then get hired by another Airline, or hired as a Pro at FedEx.

 

I don't even know where to start here.

1st-the 3% loss is the, currently, rounded up inflationary loss to the value of our 130k pension each year. (Last published Inflation Value was 2.8%, so, IMO 3% is still a reasonable talking point...but for the Internet Pedantics, not accurate)

If the Company Wanted this BAD...then negotiations would be ongoing and expedited. If a COMPANY wants something to happen quickly, it happens quickly.

It is Shocking to Me, that the idea of Negotiations...well, as you put it, "Shocking to me......there is nothing firm to discuss other than a "wish list" that will still need to be negotiated."

Color me shocked, items to be negotiated, have to be
negotiated.

As PM has said, still to be negotiated, but model indicative of a fair outcome.
Guess we could've started with a guaranteed floor of 10% versus the model.

Oh wait, that Still would've been a badness thing because it wouldn't be Firm and still subject to Negotiation.