Except in certain situations they get A plan minus something (if they don't have high five), or A plan plus zero (if they don't make enough). And even the plus something isn't very much. It's the people with many years to go that make out on this.

Correct.. I misunderstood you’re point about not having high 5. Reread it and I agree. But I would think unless they are 25 year FOs, I can’t imagine many 25 year folks don’t have a high 5.

And the ones with many years to go “MIGHT” make out. Too many variables to be negotiated and pilot’s assumption of all the risk.

Personally, I trust this Union 0% until I see the results of the survey!

The assumption is the VB Plan will provide a big enough pile to at least provide another 2% of the IRS max per year is it not? Of course it is going to benefit those over 25 years, the vast majority of whom have maxed out their high five.

A guy hired today with 25 years to work has a floor benefit of 27% of his pre-retirement income. The optimistic side of the modeler puts him at only 41% replacement of pre-retirement income. Not sure that is “making out.” We are aiming low enough that it’s not good for anybody...except the company negotiator who will get a great bonus if this goes through.

Does it matter if it is "unreasonable"? The cost is a function of laws passed to ensure pensions are funded better than they were. It is what it is. The cost of that burden is the company's argument against raising the cap, increasing the annual multiplier, or any of the other efforts to increase the benefit.

So far as verification of the 4:1 number, since knowledge of it is a result of information seen by MEC members who had to sign an NDA, I don't see any reason to expect the company will ever reveal the details of those numbers, how they were computed, or why. I understand the suspicion of information coming from members of the MEC based on past behavior, but this is information the company is never going to reveal to the pilot group. Insistence on chasing down the accuracy of the number is wasted effort.

It is a piece of data the pilot group didn't have during the last round of negotiations. Rather than wasting effort trying to disprove its validity (which is something none of us will be able to do), why not use it instead to figure out how to get the improvements in the A plan we want, rather than trying to stab the VB plan to death with it?

In the first place, the "4 to 1" ratio is NOT "a piece of data [we] didn't have during the last round of negotiations." We were told The Company made that claim to argue they couldn't afford to raise the FAE cap, and we had to take their word for it. As far as I can tell, we have zero additional information to confirm or deny the claim.

Secondly, is the figure regulatory ("a function of laws passed") or proprietary (" ... information seen by MEC members who had to sign an NDA ...", " ... don't see any reason to expect the company will ever reveal the details of those numbers, how they were computed, or why", " ... information the company is never going to reveal to the pilot group")?

If the cost is a result of regulatory change, we should be able to consult experts in pension fund management to derive an educated estimate of the cost. Federal laws are hardly secret, and I can't imagine why MEC members would be asked to not disclose Federal laws.

If the cost is proprietary, a secret, then stop blaming it on the law. And just because The Company won't tell us, or doesn't want to the MEC to tell us, that doesn't mean we can't consult with the same experts to study the fund and come up with some pretty good estimates.

I defy you to find evidence the MEC has paid such experts to study our A fund and estimate the cost of raising our FAE cap by any increment.

What you WILL find is clear evidence they've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars studying and promoting one single alternative to our A Plan without learning one whit more about the plan we already have. The MEC has a fiduciary responsibility to the membership, and that includes being experts on our retirement plans. If they don't want to do that, they need to step aside and make room for those who will.






.

The only pilots over 25 years without their high five would be those that stayed as narrow body CA and never flew extra or sold back vacation.

The big winners will be those over 25. Since the company was not going to put any more money into their accounts or collocate any additional money than was required under the current plan. Those over 25 will now get a piece of the new pie and since they are for the majority widebody Capts, then they will get a much bigger piece of the pie than anyone else gets. That piece will come at the expense of the junior crew members.

The junior crew members will have longer under the proposed plan and IF it works as Cheiron and Blitzstein hope then the younger pilots should even out in the long run. Not as guaranteed as the 320K cap we will get in the next contract if we don't pass this debacle. Then the every 4-5 year bump the A plan could get going forward in each new contract. But who knows. If the inventors of this nonsense and the MEC ostriches might be right and every other retirement expert in the country is wrong.

Perhaps my numbers are skewed because I put in retiring at 60. The numbers look far better if you stick it out to 65. But I don't want to do that, and I hate that people might feel they need to keep working because of the potential for a better retirement. I think that overall this plan is going to benefit very few people, and who can trust a calculator that the union puts out?

This seems insane that we are wasting our resources towards negotiating an uncertain, complicated plan that will probably not be anything like we expect.

Some may call that an unintended consequence, but only an idiot would call it unexpected.

(I'm not calling you an idiot as I know you were just trying to be generous.)

The Company wouldn't call it either; they'd call it a goal!






.

If I understand you correctly, I don't think that's correct. Only 2 factors determine the number of pancakes a pilot is awarded at the of the year.

1) The pilot's annual earnings

2) The performance of the fund.

Annual Earnings Cap, Floor, and Hurdle Rate also come in to play in the calculation, but in no way does any pilot's earnings reduce any other pilot's retirement benefit.


I apologize in advance if I've misunderstood what you're saying.






.