You are so believing the "get us a TA now" group. Our pension has not "cost" the company anything for five years. They have not put in any additional funds. Of course that fund is not just for the pilots, but for everyone on property that still has a pension. It's not going away. They are only trying to get us to settle for getting rid of our A plan. I'd love to know what the "cost/money" that was allocated to the pension in contract 2015. I feel pretty sure that the company never put that much money into our retirement. So they still owe us those funds. I know the value of the retirement "gains" that was postulated for TA1 could not be substantiated by anyone. The best answer I ever got was ALPA National did the calculations. WTF???

All of our current contract calculations are for retiring at 60 and they should be. IF you go longer, then it's your choice. But you were fully funded to retire at age 60/25 YOS. The new way of thinking is Using age 65 to show compounding moneys is disingenuous. Of course 5 more years of compounding will have more money. BUT you could have already been retired for 5 years. That's really the goal. To retire. The sooner you can afford to retire, the better for your family, your longevity, etc. Continuing to show data for age 65 is just wrong, and the union should quit doing that.

Our guys cannot answer basic questions that I think should be almost common knowledge. What is the average number of months a pilot lives or draws retirement? How has that number been affected with age 65 retirements? What portion of the "retirement pool" are the pilots? How much did the company contribute towards our retirement over the life of the previous contract? Then maybe some more difficult questions. If we take our current portion of the pool how much could we afford to increase each pilots retirement without going below the 90% lower limit? For every pilot that goes to 65 vs 60 their actual payout will be less, so how does that affect the pool? If they go longer and thus have a shorter lifespan, shouldn't an age 65 retirement be more per year?

Sorry, I started to just ramble in my brain.

 

Your point about retiring later than age 60 is something I've brought up with my block rep. He told me the average retirement age is over 64. There are gains to be made on this point.

I asked a former block rep about how the retirement costs of TA 1 were calculated because I'm sure they assumed an age of 60. His answer was that the info was protected by an NDA and he that he couldn't tell me.

 

I enjoy all this added engagement in our Union and the way forward. But, to counter the thread drift please add some value to the thread theme of not a single pilot left behind.

Whether you agree with it or not, email your reps and let them know.

I believe A No pilot left behind strategy will lead to a more unified front now and better gains for all in the long run.

Scroll back into the thread to see some opposing views.

 

Flying longer....especially night hub turns....doesn't increase your longevitiy. There's large company savings to the A plan, on both ends, when guys chose to fly beyond age 60. X more years to fund it. X less years to pay it out. With all that said, we should never agree to change full retirement age higher than 60. It benefits the guys who want to retire at 60, and the guys who chose to keep flying beyond 60.

In Transparency, Integrity and Unity (for Everyone),
DLax

 

I agree with everything you said. I don't want to do away with the option for full retirement at 60. My point is because almost everyone works well past 60, increasing the A plan benefits isn't as expensive as the union and company claim.

 

All the math in the world isn't going to force the company to increase the pension more than in TA1, nor without ending it for new hires. You can argue cost/savings all you want, but regardless it is a liability on their balance sheet that jeopardizes their existence.

The NMB will not be sympathetic that one of the most lucrative private pensions in the world, with an increase to $169k, was not more.

You either accept the 169k with a split retirement, or you waste all our time.

 

This is may be true. Thus, the split retirement offer can (must!) be modified and improved!

VR,
DLax

 

Would that age be the same with a more lucrative pension? How much has that age been influenced by the company's proclivity (until the last few years) to hire lots of relatively older applicants and military retirees (who needed more time to get their high five or to recover from less-than-ideal career starts)? How much was it driven the previous few years by stock market mediocrity, inflation, and uncertainty?

The point is that the age of average retirement number is pretty meaningless and the company could change it in any number of ways. Environmental factors could also change it in any number of ways. From a pension perspective, it would seem to be in the company's interest to keep the average as close to 65 as possible.

I do believe that an unimproved pension coupled with low BLGs will cause folks to stay longer.

 

Low BLG would get a pilot with 25 YOS and high five to leave earlier. Would make $130k a year for just breathing. Why work all year for $230K with a bigger tax bill.

 

Exactly. If 4a2c is executed, a captain with 25 YOS and high 5 would likely be working for less than $100k a year in take home pay if you consider what they could be making to not work at all.