busdriver12

Every year less than 25 years, deduct 2%. LTD counts towards longevity, so it does work out to be 2% per year. You guys are talking about the same thing, each year of longevity=2%, up to 25 years.

StarClipper

Well said, I’m happy we feel the same about the LTD protection.

busdriver12

And I'm glad that you care.

StarClipper

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I see you still got a sense of humor

Huh really

I went out on LTD for about 2.5 years, came back and requal-ed, life was good. Had a pretty run of it (16 years) but it caught back up with me. This time, LTD is looking pretty permanent. That 2% of longevity per year of LTD is worth over $4k per year to me. So here I am, almost 3 years on. That's over $12k per year, for those who can't do math, $1000 mo income. That is not insignificant. I got 2 more to go to 25 years. So, for this last little LTD experience (not counting the first), that 2% is worth well over $20k year in retirement. That's a lot of pancakes. Like I said at the beginning of this issue, the train had left the station and the only brakeman is 50% +1. I also said, who would back down from an idea that they had invested a year of their life (or fess up they had f upped), no matter how mis-guided it maybe. Many on this forum flamed me for both statements. How's it looking now?

Nightflyer

The union has famously said that "no one will be left behind".

Privately, when questioned, at least one block rep has admitted that "some would be left behind, but it's ok, because it is for the greater good of the rest of us". I really wish I had a recording of that statement, but I was told it was a direct quote from someone who heard it personally.

This from the union leadership who was told, in no uncertain terms, that we didn't want to create a separate retirement system for new hires, even though the company would have gladly bumped up the high five limit of the old system if we had only agreed to do that.

Now, that same leadership is willing to created a system where everyone gets an unequal outcome based on how many trips they can grab out of open time, and how fast they can upgrade. So instead of two different plans, we will have 5000+ different plans, and yes, some people will be left behind.

Kind of like when the "special" people got an extra $25K plus interest in their VEBA account, but that was ok, because the union would negotiate that benefit for the rest of us in the next contract. How did that work out for the rest of us? Never mind that those same "special" people got to stay until age 65 and reclaim their left seats, and still kept the 25K that was supposed to help with the cost of health insurance between 60 and 65.

The union hopes we are stupid and have short memories. I've seen enough of them taking care of the "I've got mine" crowd to the point where I don't trust anything they say.

"Huh really", thanks for sharing your situation. I was told once that many, many people go out on disability. I am sure the union and company have the exact numbers. I doubt if they will tell them to us, for that would be admitting how many people will be "left behind for the benefit of the rest of us".

It astounds me that the union leadership can't figure out why we don't trust them and why we have no unity and won't wear our lanyards.

busdriver12

Huh really, I hope you are doing okay. Going out on LTD is a big cut in pay, and the last thing you need to do is worry about retirement along with the rest of the medical concerns.

StillFlying

As I am not their accountant, I am not 100% sure why the company would do that, unless there is a win in it for them. I would think that win is long term cost that they want to chip away at now versus later.

Maybe it's just me, but having it retirement negotiation as a solo event seems to allow a true apples-to-apples comparison. This is versus having the company and their expert negotiators and accountants playing the three card monte/shell game with other parts of the contract.

If we don't like the proposal, we vote it down.

If we do like it, it doesn't get caught up with things like compensation, scheduling, lie flat seats, bank fares or the myriad of things that apparently some think are losses from the last contract. To me, it allows us to decide our fate with all other things being equal and not have 28 or so other sections of variables.

What if the company said, "Sure you can have your A plan cap increase...and a 18% B Plan, but you must agree to PBS and/or take adjust how our vacation works, and/or a compensation increase that doesn't measure up to our peers." How many Excel warriors will be flooding APC with their analysis?

There is a lot of discussion on here about how great the company's negotiating team is versus how well versed our union reps are. Why would we want to make it more cloudy versus having the apples to apples comparison versus trying to find out how good the apples are in a syrup covered fruit salad?

Again, maybe it's just me, but I would think those that don't think we have the world's greatest negotiators (or at least negotiators that are better than the company) would rather take each topic one-by-one versus having everything open and having to decide about all at once.
Essentially a line item veto. But that's how it has always been done, so it must be right. It just seems the all or nothing is the win for the company.

StillFlying

Out of curiosity, what would your solution be to improving our retirement, if the company does not budge on increasing any of the three factors that make up our A plan?

PeterGriffin

Have the A plan cap increase in yearly increments...tie it to pay rate increase, 3 or 4 percent each year...