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.

 

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.

 

Right now the contract is the only thing "saving" us from the company chaning our pension. They already changed it for most everyone else. The company is allowed to change the pension all they want. You cannot lose your accrued benefits, but they can change your pension plan gonig forward. We have a contract that stipulates our pension. We have to agree to change/reduce our own. Voting for the TA1 would have allowed members to reduce their own retirement voluntarily. Or maybe chose an option that they "think" is better.

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.

 

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?

It sounds like it can be done if the laws are changed. People talk about that all the time when it comes to tax increases affecting tax deffered retirement accounts. There was a time when social secutiry income was not taxed. Estate taxes seem to change every 5-10 years. We are looking at a possibility of age 67 soon, etc. Hell, we even had a constitutional amendment just to tax ourselves any income!

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.

 

Please don't run to replace PM in May!

 

I was just making the point that everything has risks. He was making it seem like just because something is law that its protected. In any case, I don't have the terpement for that job. I would probably get insulted with the offers managment would make at the table.

 

Vidra, can you explain how you came up with the double down number? Thanks.

 

Well said. It's tough to win when THEY can change the rules whenever THEY want.

 

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.

 

We get zero 401k contribution on LTD. That should be fixed.