ALPA Promoting The Proposed VB Plan?
06-21-2018, 11:09 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
ALPA Promoting The Proposed VB Plan?
ALPA latest communication talk about “Could this groundbreaking plan be the future for pilot retirement?” Referencing the VB Plan and I guess the Union is now ready to show case it too. I’m guessing they’re looking to gain support for that POS. It may be good enough for the other airlines who don’t have a retirement plan, but FedEx already have a Plan. It only need to be improved.
06-21-2018, 12:43 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 774
It looks like a lot of charts and bar graphs, and all they really did was reshuffle the cards so some could get a better hand, and it's basically corporate social security.
They'd really have to show how pension funds are invested now, and how these funds would be invested differently. If it's cost neutral to the company and to the pilot group, then it's just a transfer from one pilot to another.
It looks like all it does is remove funding risk by the company and then let "current pilots/soon to retire pilots" suck it down harder, without a backfill responsibility to the company because the "stock market" will keep it solvent.
They'd really have to show how pension funds are invested now, and how these funds would be invested differently. If it's cost neutral to the company and to the pilot group, then it's just a transfer from one pilot to another.
It looks like all it does is remove funding risk by the company and then let "current pilots/soon to retire pilots" suck it down harder, without a backfill responsibility to the company because the "stock market" will keep it solvent.
Last edited by Happyflyer; 06-21-2018 at 12:53 PM.
06-21-2018, 01:00 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Position: MEM HSBY
Posts: 166
It’s definitely not cost neutral to the company. It will be beneficial to the company because they won’t be obligated to add additional funds to the program as required by the PBGC. That difference may mean that you have the *potential* for a bigger retirement. But you will be assuming more risk compared to the traditional A plan.
06-21-2018, 01:04 PM
#4
Fill'er Up Again
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Scarebus Captain
Posts: 1,089
So glad he read about it in a book and then according to the article contacted Mitchell (Co-author) and in Dec 2016 hired Blitzstein as a Retirement Consultant... But the MEC exhausted all other possible changes and options first... Ya Right!
Even ALPA put a disclaimer at the end of the article. Lol
Even ALPA put a disclaimer at the end of the article. Lol
Last edited by FrankTheTank; 06-21-2018 at 01:07 PM. Reason: Disclaimer comment
06-21-2018, 01:12 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by LunkerHunter
It will be beneficial to the company because they won’t be obligated to add additional funds to the program as required by the PBGC.
Basically your pension is so secure that the cost of a benefit increase is too high so the solution is too trade government imposed security for a benefit increase. Let's swing back around and determine why the government passed a law forcing your company to further fund your plan into the future.
I do understand it's merits but honestly think it's disingenuous to talk about coming off a record breaking year in the market, the support for this would highly diminish with a March 2009 6,400 DOW.
06-21-2018, 01:17 PM
#6
Bourgeoisie
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 787 SO
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by Happyflyer
So the government passes a law that requires FedEx to make your pension funds even more secure then it has even been, and the first push by the MEC is to trade that additional, free to the pilot security, for larger pension payments.
06-21-2018, 01:19 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2018
Position: MEM HSBY
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by Happyflyer
So the government passes a law that requires FedEx to make your pension funds even more secure then it has even been, and the first push by the MEC is to trade that additional, free to the pilot security, for larger pension payments.
06-21-2018, 01:21 PM
#8
Bourgeoisie
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 787 SO
Posts: 616
Originally Posted by LunkerHunter
Exactly. The accountants over at Hacks Cross Rd have identified the substantial cost savings by transitioning to ANY type of retirement plan that isn’t governed by the PBGC.
06-21-2018, 01:22 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 774
Originally Posted by MEMFO4Ever
Assume you are referring to the "Pension" Protection Act? Well it was really designed to keep companies solvent on paper with respect to their pension liabilities as the market collapsed in order to prevent a run on the PBGC. It never really had anything to do with protecting workers, despite what the Dubya spin purported.
06-21-2018, 01:29 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 774
Basically record breaking market combined with record breaking industry, and the brain trust decides its time to sell some security for benefits. So the plan is to "educate" everyone until they're tired and worn down, and all they'll remember is the're suppose to get more than what they have now.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
