|
Originally Posted by sailingfun
(Post 3747262)
Having been through a chapter 11 and losing a pension I can assure you that is the only way to reduce or eliminate a earned and accrued benefit. Even in chapter 11 it must be shown that the pension is grossly underfunded and but for that obligation the company can not reorganize. The Delta pension could have been saved with some changes to the lump sum option but pension law prohibited it. You have been quoted the law but for some reason can't grasp it. Think about it this way. Without the law protecting a earned and accrued benefit it would lose much of its worth. Any non union company could cancel a pension at any time. A union could decide to cut benefits to older workers to increase them for younger workers ect... It would also impact the PBGC.
How much clearer can this statement be from pension law? "Employers are generally free to change retirement plan rules for the future as long as most benefits earned up to the date the plan is changed are protected." Example: Pilot A has 6 years on property (planning on retiring with 25 years on property) and is vested at the current 130k A plan. Say TA 1 passed and he took the 169k A plan increase. Life is good for 5 years. He is now vested at 169k….for those 5 years. TA2028 now has most guys on the new and “improved” pancake plan. They decide to vote for an increase to take their retirement from 11%MBCBP to 15%. To achieve that, all they need to do is agree to change the A plan down to 100k. 50% +1 vote for it because they’re doing “what’s best for them and their family” (only idiots say that when they’re part of a union btw). . So pilot A is looking at 6 years@130k, plus 5@169 then 14@100k (as long as it’s not negotiated lower). I think we can all agree the A plan would have never been negotiated higher after the 169k proposal. The first 11 years are accrued and protected under contract. We agree on that. What about the next 14 years? Nothing I’ve read says it’s protected if the union votes to change it. |
Originally Posted by Jamo
(Post 3747308)
The first 11 years are accrued and protected under contract. We agree on that. What about the next 14 years? Nothing I’ve read says it’s protected if the union votes to change it.
I was kind of shocked by that. |
Originally Posted by IFartInYourSeat
(Post 3747349)
If I recall correctly, during TA 1 didn’t the former R&I lay out a scenario in which the pension can be terminated for active pilots? Additionally, the NC responded to it by saying (paraphrasing here) that “yeah, it can be terminated but we’d have to do it ourselves.”
I was kind of shocked by that. Everything I see leads me to believe that with a split retirement in the contract, "we" can change the retirement for one group or the other contractually. Others have said that cannot happen. I'd like some kind of reference if we cannot. I've posted references where it looks like it can. |
Originally Posted by Bill80
(Post 3747173)
There’s a risk of not getting a pension increase without ending it for new hires.
Originally Posted by Bill80
(Post 3747216)
The anti cutback rule I quoted literally says you can’t have your accrued benefits reduced by an amendment to a plan. It doesn't matter if the union agreed to it or not, it’s an amendment. We’re talking about benefits protected by federal law. The union could only agree to reduce the accrual of FUTURE benefits. Which even then, that is unlikely, because it’s not fair to reduce one groups benefits for another.
At this point I don’t think you’re legitimately asking. You’re just being obtuse and demanding a reference from me, which I provided, that is not good enough for you. Why don’t you reach out to an ERISA attorney, and ask your question? I suspect you’d refuse to believe them anyway because it conflicts with your view of reality. We spent most of our negotiating capital in TA1 raising the pension. And you now think in the follow on contract we’re going to negotiate that away, as if that’s allowed by law? I'm not saying that all of that or any of it is going to happen. Or maybe it just takes a few of the Fortune 500 companies with pensions to throw a few billion towards DC to grease the wheels of congress? I'm just saying that it is a risk. Just because something is law today doesn't mean it wont change between now and death. Just throwing it out there to spell out another risk that seems to go by the wayside. And to be clear, that risks exists today regardless of whats in TA2. |
Originally Posted by FXLAX
(Post 3747498)
Is this true though? Just for argument sake, TA1 was worth $3.8B and about 45% of that value was in retirement improvements. Cant we have TA2 be 100% of the $3.8B be in retirement and keep new hires on the pension?
|
Originally Posted by FedUpWilson318
(Post 3747635)
Please don't run to replace PM in May!
|
Can you go into detail about Double-down 34%
Originally Posted by Vidra
(Post 3742221)
The 401k is not predicated on having a healthy career. However, it does require the company to double-down on the employer retirement contribution when a pilot goes out on LTD to make them "whole" (Ex: 17% goes to 34%). That is how they are successfully utilized at other airlines.
|
Well said. It's tough to win when THEY can change the rules whenever THEY want.
|
Originally Posted by Chainsaw
(Post 3754552)
Vidra, can you explain how you came up with the double down number? Thanks.
|
Originally Posted by plzdontfireme
(Post 3754593)
Other airlines, when you go out on LTD, the company doubles the 401k contribution percentage that you get. So yes, your income gets cut in half (roughly, maybe cut more if you're topped out), but your retirement contribution doesn't get cut in half (though probably won't be 100% of what it would be while you're working.
|
Originally Posted by Jamo
(Post 3747308)
I think age/current time with company has a major point of view difference on this topic. The point that’s trying to be made is that if we split retirement between 2 groups, one can be pitted against the other for all future negotiations. I agree an “accrued” retirement cannot be changed. But future rules for that accruement can be.
Example: Pilot A has 6 years on property (planning on retiring with 25 years on property) and is vested at the current 130k A plan. Say TA 1 passed and he took the 169k A plan increase. Life is good for 5 years. He is now vested at 169k….for those 5 years. TA2028 now has most guys on the new and “improved” pancake plan. They decide to vote for an increase to take their retirement from 11%MBCBP to 15%. To achieve that, all they need to do is agree to change the A plan down to 100k. 50% +1 vote for it because they’re doing “what’s best for them and their family” (only idiots say that when they’re part of a union btw). . So pilot A is looking at 6 years@130k, plus 5@169 then 14@100k (as long as it’s not negotiated lower). I think we can all agree the A plan would have never been negotiated higher after the 169k proposal. The first 11 years are accrued and protected under contract. We agree on that. What about the next 14 years? Nothing I’ve read says it’s protected if the union votes to change it. This problem isn’t going away by keeping retirement together. We had a chance to get new hires after 2015 a big B plan with CoC and chose not too. That was a mistake. There are more lucrative alternatives to the pension that put money into your account. Not a giant IOU from a company that’s insured for pennies and loses value to inflation. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:14 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands