Kind of makes me wonder that if the IRS considers this a DB plan, if they would enforce limitations on the total of both this plan and our A plan, not separate limitations for each plan. That would be a major screwup.

Just because the modeler does something does not make is correct. That's why there is a big legal disclaimer. The modeler is designed to give guys an idea of what they are proposing. It looks like the numbers have been slanted to make the model look better to anyone using it. For example, since your portion (or pancake) is based on what percentage of the total you earn, there is actually no way to model your estimated return unless you make some assumptions. It looks like they have assumed that everyone earns BLG for their seat. That way they can give you an "idea" of what your pancake might be worth. Since very few actually only earn BLG, if you do then you will get many less pancakes then the modeler is projecting.

I have no idea. I really wish we had actual big retirement planning companies involved in this. Fidelity, Vanguard, JP Morgan, etc. Anyone whos claim to fame is NOT that they invented this plan, like Chieron and Blitzstein claim to have.

It is a statement of what is currently reportedly true (4:1), so I don't understand your question.

A big YES on that one. A company that doesn't have a reason to promote it.

The union says they are using the IRS 401 earnings cap in the videos. The guy from Cheiron says that they are using the IRS 401 earnings cap in the videos. The modeler is using the current IRS 401 earnings cap and then forecasting a yearly increase.

You are saying there is no earnings cap because there isn't one given by the IRS regarding defined benefit plans. The IRS doesn't say that the plan can't have one, only that the IRS doesn't have one.

So, because you say there isn't one, we should ignore what the MEC, Cheiron, and the modeler that the union put out says?:rolleyes:

By the way, I am against this plan. I can't tell if you are for it or not.

Reportedly true, without any proof!

What if it currently costs the company $4 for every $1 of our current retirement? Would it seem expensive, or unreasonable that an increase to that retirement would cot $4 to every $1 of lifetime benefit.

Of course this benefits the over 25 crowd. If I recall, and someone correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it CD who said we have a ‘Moral Obligation’ to get those folks over 25 years something for their additional years on property?

I for one feel no moral obligation to give them more, while I’ll now have to work harder and longer to keep growing my stack of pancakes if this scheme ends up becoming a reality.

It’s so frustrating to be paying dues to an organization that is supposed to represent me and my interests. This retirement scheme is something I want no part of - when I run the modeler I get very little benefit for the added risk. I just don’t get how I’ve yet to talk to anyone who favors this solution to fix our retirement, yet our MEC is running with it because they seem to know what’s best for me and my fellow pilots despite our wishes that they look at some other options.

I don't know how much this benefits the over 25 year crowd. I made the assumption that it could only help them, but then I ran some numbers and I don't know that it benefits them that much.

If you don't have your high five, even with 25 years, it might not be a benefit, it could be a loss. And if you're at 25 years, you probably don't have much time left to work.....and since this appears very income limited, it gets you nothing from the VB until you make a certain number (the number I came up with was 206K), and gets you no extra for anything you make over 254K. I ran those numbers for three years left to work, though certainly other people's situation would be different.

It looks to me like it is going to add very little to your retirement, unless you have plenty of years left to go. The big winners on this appear to be the younger people, with decades left to accrue benefits. That is, if they live that long and stay employed.

Because they get A plan plus something. Instead of A plan plus zero.