yup, let’s not be the first to try something new. Mortgage backed securities were awesome until they nearly wrecked the entire world market. A defined benefit pension is tried and true.

financial firms are always looking to invent new ways to “manage” plans to generate fees. Let’s have derivatives! Let’s trade future option contracts and create a stabilization fund!

The reason good questions are not answered is because there is no good answer. It’s a scheme that, to my knowledge, no large labor group has ever adopted. Should we bet our retirement on being the trial group. Not in my opinion.

For me, this issue is where I take my stand. I can stomach changes in other areas but messing with my pension is going to result in a no vote from me, regardless of any carrots dangling anywhere else.

 

Your comments ad no value to any of these discussions. All you do is challenge or argue with every point made, and you do so with childish retorts. If someone said the sky was blue, you would insult them and argue differently, even if you just said the same dang thing.

You are a APC troll, nothing more, nothing less. Go back to Delta.

 

The change is being driven by the erosion of the value in the plan caused by inflation. There is no cost of living adjustment so $130k in 1999 doesn’t have the same value today and will have less value in 25 years.

Personally, I wouldn’t want to 4300-4400 a year if it takes 30 years. If it takes 25 years, then that would be something I can consider. I’d also like to see cash over cap spillover into our VEBA HRA.

 

4400 is times YOS (no minimum) to a max of 30. so at 25 you would get 25 X 4400

 

I didn’t answer robxjt in the way I meant to. So I’ll try again. Right now we can get $130k after 25 YOS. That works out to $5200 per year. If they negotiated more than $5200 per year up to a maximum of at least 25 years for both captains and FOs, then it might be something I can consider. Anything less than those three elements, then it would be a concession.

 

One result of this infantile fight and lack of real answers to important questions about risk and security is the postponement of other important discussions, such as the merits of changing the A plan to a purely productivity-based pension (VB/PSPP) versus one that is predominately based on longevity (current A plan).

For example, if a pilot takes the first upgrade and busts his behind or is awarded the 777 during indoc, it is possible to make high-5 type numbers (260k+) very quickly. Let's say in year 6, the pilot's spouse gets sick and the pilot spends 2 years taking care of her until she passes away and 3 years getting their kids back on their feet. During those 5 years the pilot drops or gives away most of his flying and does the minimum to stay current because that is what is best for him and his family. Now at year 11, the pilot has worked full schedules for 6 years and almost no schedule for 5 years. The results of this example are important and demonstrate one consequence of the new proposed pseudo-A plan.

In our current A plan, the pilot could go back to work when his family is ready and there will be absolutely no repercussions on the payout of his A plan at retirement and for the rest of his life. It is longevity-based for the most part, requiring only 5 years of heavy lifting. His B plan, which is purely productivity-based on flying credit hours, will suffer from those 5 years of very little paid at 9% by the company. The beauty of this diversified retirement system is that he will not suffer financially for his decision to take care of his family for the rest of his life and have to slave to make up for those 5 years.

In the proposed VB/PSPP plan where "every hour counts", the pilot will experience 5 years of almost buying 0 notional shares. Out of his 25 year career, this will result in only 20/25 years purchasing notional shares. Now, if I understand the VB/PSPP plan correctly, he will have ROUGHLY 80% of his pension due to those lost years, if the market has suffered and we are saved by a floor that somehow holds up to the court challenges, with give him .8 x 130 = 104k for his productivity-based A fund plus 80% of the B fund he could have earned if he had decided not to leave for those personal reasons.

This example demonstrates the pitfalls of 2 purely productivity-based systems. Having a traditional pension and a 401k style fund both supplied by one's employer is a golden setup, even more so after the current events taking place in our country and industry specifically. I know that if I work high 5 style for 5 years and then drop every other trip for the rest of my career (for the sake of argument), I can retire with a pension valued at several million dollars. There is no way I am giving that up for the promise of only breaking even while having lifetime consequences for dropping trips for any reason.

We haven't even scratched the surface of deferring our CURRENT pension for a few years to let it grow as though we were still working. That could yield payouts way more than 130k per year but is not talked about as a benefit of our current plan. I don't remember reading anything about deferment options with the VB/PSPP plan, are they available? My guess is not because "every hour counts" means not flying doesn't count. I could be wrong...

Couple all of these facts with the risk and regulatory issues that have yet to been addressed and the fake news about the prevalence of the plan in our country, and one can see why there are such important questions like cui bono and the absolute lack of trust in anything produced about the scheme. Please see past the extra $500/month or whatever it comes out to be a best and study all of the consequences if the plan goes right and all of the pitfalls if the plan goes wrong. Dr K.

 

We're just trying to find a way to improve our Benefit calculation formula. If FedEx had a similar benefit calculation as UPS, or FDA would be $5200

 

The Model compared the existing formula, and the new formula, then used Monte Carlo modeling to calculate likely outcomes over time. Different colors in the bar charts too, depending on whether you went for a 5% ROI, historical market returns, etc.
Results were composed of the already earned benefits, floor benefits, and likely performance returns.
If you were like me, and chose returns equal to the hurdle rate, then the results didn't have any of the much loved secret sauce denigrated so vehemently here.

(And yet, that secret sauce over time is a much loved component of the Big B plan Only crowd here. How odd, stock market only does well for B plan investments)

 

I and my ilk got PBS on the property? How odd, I could swear I was awarded PBS trips well prior to CBA2015. Only back then, there were no answers other than...it's a request.

As to what I was paid? 0$

(For full disclosure, in 2014+2015 I did earn BLG and my normal salary. I did protect min days off during training months. I flew Zero draft trips.)

 

Any retirement scheme tied to career earnings would require change to Sec 24 allowing seniority to dictate career earnings. Until ALPA and others understand the relationship between the two, I will be opposed to change.