This TA will be ratified
 

This TA will pass. Past votes, the unwillingness for the majority to critically analyze a proposal, and benefits disproportionately distributed to certain demographics, insures ratification. If a simple 3 percent for two years got the company an extension on the previous contract and a European domicile, what will prevent this TA from passing?
According to the seniority "crystal ball" and looking at recent retirements prior to age 65, it would be safe to project a minimum of 1300 retirements under the provisions of this contract. Based on a 60k average retirement bonus that is 78 million dollars. Makes the 43 million dollar VEBA HSRA given to only the senior members of the 2006 contract look reasonable. This is in addition to retiree healthcare benefits (pre and post Medicare) being improved for all members, a good thing. But, what was the costing on that provision? We as a pilot group are doubling are contributions into the VEBA system. And according to statements made by representatives of the company the average age of retirement is over 64 1/2 years of age. So while on paper that appears generous, very little money is actually put forth by the company for pre Medicare enhancements, unless the average retirement age substantially changes.
The fatigue mitigating 6 week bid month? A recent message sent from the Union states that the company will not use this provision unless we approve. RIGHT. Care to take that into arbitration. Let me explain the exploitability of this provision. Without hard and fast rules on this provision, strategically placing 6 week bid periods during high demand vacation slot windows could undermine the ability keep the quality of life now afforded with the 4 and 5 week bid periods. Example, two 6 week and ten 4 week bid periods, one 6 week bid period placed in the summer and one placed at the end of the bid year (late Nov and Dec). Do you think if will be as easy to schedule to have the holidays off if that is your priority? Will you be able to knock out the large blocks of time? Possibly, but could the company build pairing to take advantage of this new provision? In addition, what scheduling technique is being adopted currently, fatigue mitigation or pay maximization. Take a look at the 757, 767, Airbus, and MD 11 bidpacks, sure doesn't look like fatigue mitigation is a priority.
Healthcare. The Union has a video explaining the CDHP, overall it is an informative video, but, the explanation of the worst case scenario and the reality of healthcare cost are inaccurate, one major provision of the CDHP is the substantial out of network costs, not discussed at all in the video, this may or may not be significant, depending on the rules governing out of network services not available "in network". Do you want to just "wait and see". Healthcare cost are due to double for those currently on the buy up plan and we have agreed to pay 20% shared cost for eternity. Who bought off on that? Our shared cost should be the same duration as our pay raises, not an hour longer. The company is once again rewarded for stalling in future contract talks...
Discussed in other post are examples of provisions with excessively loose language, deadhead policy, bidding, training, deviation banks, etc, we have all seen what the company will do when an item in the contract is exploitable.
For those sitting in their final seat and able to retire under this contract it is a "no brainier". For the rest of the crew force it's Groundhog Day, continued degradation of quality of life for minimal pay gains.

I was really hopeful to read a passable TA, given our superior leverage position relative to past negotiations, ("Drafting all seats" via FCIF and we had 2.5 more months of increased flights,with respect to peak, and with a static number of willing pilots = more encouragement from Fred to bargain in good faith).

I find it intriguing that the company when beset with higher costs due to legislation (Health care) the Company sees fit to shift these costs to their employees. Yet when they reap rewards from legislation or negotiations, those spoils are not shared with employee groups that contribute to the success of FDX.

Specifically, the age 65 legislation monetarily benefited the Company. Any pilot who began accruing retirement benefits prior to age 35 and works past age 60 reduces the cost of the Company in at least three meaningful ways.

1) The pilot hired at 35 y/o (or less) will have 25 yrs with the Company and can accrue no more percentage points, with respect to the A Plan. Therefore, any years he/she works past 25 years of service become cheaper and cheaper for the company to employ (a "savings" for the Company.

2) The more years that pilot works past age 60, the less A Fund monies the Company has to pay that pilot in retirement because his retirement period is shortened. (Another savings for the Company).

3) The longer a pilot works past 60, the less training costs with respect to "turn over" in employees.

I am not particularly close to retirement (12-17 yrs from now), however, the A Plan is the 800 LB gorilla eating our retirement saving approximately $608,400,000 over the next 28 years for the Company due to inflation. I performed the inflation erosion math that applies to my age demographic and how it relates to our A Plan retirement. I'm a 48 years old male, with an avg lifespan of 76. Statistically, I should die in year 2043. The A Plan limits were established in 1998 at $130,000 USD. (One should think of 1998 as the "anchor" year, and how it relates to inflation and the devaluation of the A Plan.) If I live till the avg of 76 y/o, I should die in year 2043. From the "Anchor year to 2043 = 45 yrs of inflation erosion to A Plan monies. I then consulted the CPI-U chart (referenced by our NC) to determine the average rate of inflation from Jan 1998 (the Anchor) to Sep 2015. Here's the site

CPI-U Calculator

The total inflation rate since '98 to now = 44.21%. The avg inflation rate during that period = 2.6% (it excludes the high inflation rates of the mid '70's and early 80's.) Then multiply 2.6% X 45 (years from 1998 - 2043 {when I should statistically die}) = 117%. Since the company refuses to increase the caps to adjust for inflation, the most accurate method to determine what the A Fund will equal in year 2043 is to relate it to 1998 dollars (isn't it easier to remember what things cost 17 yrs ago vice imagine what things will cost 28 years from now?).

For flow, the math calcs have been added below for those who wish to follow the math.

My Benefit in 2043 equals $59,907.83 in 1998 Dollars or less than half the $130,000.
For those that should live past 2043, every 5 years beyond 2043 are your benefit expectations

In year
2048 = $ 56,521.74
2053 = $ 53,497.94
2058 = $ 50,781.25
2063 = $ 48,327.14
2068 = $ 46,099.29

As one can clearly see, the younger one is, the greater the erosion affect of inflation. Some of the numbers are what pilots not on the property yet, are looking at. You can be sure they will be thinking, "FDX's B Fund is 9% (4.5 years from now) UPS is 12%, DAL is 15%, UAL is 16%, and AA is 16%? At most of those Carriers I can fly daytime? I get better FAR rest limits? I don't get stiffed on accepted fares? I get profit sharing? If I fly draft/volunteer I get 200%, the company rarely disrupts my schedule because Disruption Penalties are painful enough the company actually plans their schedule better?

It is my opinion the Company's offer in the A Fund is obviously concessionary. The paltry increases in the B Fund since 1998 thru the proposed amendment date is 3%. The erosion in A plan far out strips the TA's B Fund "enhancements". If this TA were approved, the company will have effectively shifted the burden of retirement onto us without the commensurate increase in compensation to "self fund" a retirement.

I am baffled why other solutions were not employed to return us to a semblance of "whole" in light of the A Plan. For example, a B Fund commensurate with Industry, higher compensation to self fund retirement, higher 401K matching contributions ($500 match?), FDX stock (there are other ways around the A Fund caps that could avoid accounting rules, yet keep us afloat with respect to inflation.

I'm not a single issue voter, but this issue permeates the other sections. Insurance with its cost increases is a push at best. Work Rules, while there are some modest improvements, there are give backs as well.

One "yes" voter commented, "do you think you are worth THAT much more than other pilots?" The correct retort is, I don't think I'm worth 54% less than a pilot who retired in 1998.

$130,000 divided by $282,100 ( A Plan inflation adjusted for year 2043) = 46% 100 - 46 = 54% less

Turn the oven back on, this TA is half baked.


The math explained.

Keep in mind, if the Company would agree to index our A Plan to the CPI-U inflation rate since 1998 (an increase of 44.21%) to arrive at this year's theoretical maximum limit, one would NOT multiply 130,000 X 44.21%. Remember years ago in math class, to easily find the answer to a percentage problem, you would move decimal points and add a "1.00" to the interest rate, which represents 100% of the original number. In this case $130,000. The inflation from 1998 to today is 44.21%. To calculate what our indexed A Plan max should be today, one would convert the 44.21% to .4421%. Then add .4421 to 1.00 (the 1.00 equals 100% of the principal) this equals 1.4421. Agreed, it's a bit confusing, so get your calculator and do the math. Multiply 1.4421 X $130,000 = $187,473. This SHOULD be the new maximum A Fund limit if we were keeping up with inflation as reported by the CPI-U.

However, since the Company refuses to abide by our theories of indexing to CPI-U. Therefore, to avoid not getting snookered again, we must determine what our "TA
A Fund retirement" will be worth in 1998 dollars during our retirement and the affects of inflation and how it relates to the $130,000 cap during our retirement years.

In my specific case, from the"Anchor year" (1998) till statistical death (2043) = 45 years.


45 years X 2.6 % inflation = 117% inflation will dramatically reduce the benefit by slightly more than 50%.

Remember, your math class and the previous example of the decimal points and adding a 1 prior to the decimal point to account for the original 100% ? Therefore, in this case 117% would be written 1.17% and then add a 1.00 to that number
( 1.17 + 1.00 = 2.17 ). Therefore, my inflation reduction number = 2.17%

To find out how much inflation has reduced the benefit, input into your calculator $130,000 divided by 2.17% = $59,907.83 USD

That's correct. The approximate value of my retirement in 2043 will equal roughly $60,000 in 1998 dollars once adjusted for inflation.

Does the math pass the smell test? 2.6% inflation X 45 yrs = 117%. If inflation is over 100%, doesn't that mean our $130,000 is roughly half, or $65,000? Wouldn't one need to subtract another 17% from the $65,000? That's how we've arrived at the A Fund benefit that's slightly below $60,000.

Anyone living longer than 76, or participating in the retirement program that allows passing this benefit on to a surviving spouse, or anyone younger than 48 years old, will have to increase the affects of erosion and accept a smaller A Plan benefit (saving the Company money).

I ran the numbers for every 5 years after 2043 those younger than I, for demonstration purposes.

"I'm a 48 years old male, with an avg lifespan of 76. Statistically, I should die in year 2043. The A Plan limits were established in 1998 at $130,000 USD. (One should think of 1998 as the "anchor" year, and how it relates to inflation and the devaluation of the A Plan.) If I live till the avg of 76 y/o, I should die in year 2043."

Dude, you're a FedEx pilot. The average life expectancy statistics do not apply to you, especially if you get suckered into working until you're close to 65 under this TA, working extra and not using your sick time in order to collect the bonus. FedEx will not pay out on your A plan for long, statistically speaking, I am very sorry to say. :(

Redeyz is Batman.

Aha. Well, in that case, he will live forever.

Though shouldn't he have a healthy family inheritance?

Thank you. I'm not a single issue voter, either, but this is THE biggest issue for me. Not only do am I disappointed with A plan proposal, I'm ticked off it was even allowed to go forward to the crew force.

Having been an MEC guy, I wanted to make sure I didn't "talk down to" my pilots and gave them a voice. Had they said "no" and "you don't even get to vote" there would have been a huge howl here too.

I like getting to vote. I am glad you have the choice.

I am going to HKG roadshow Saturday and will listen with an open mind. Internally, however, I've gone from a 60% yes vote to about a 70% no. I'll share my thoughts on why once I see the roadshow and make sure I am not AFU (which happens quite often....:D)

Don't go with an open mind Albie! The road show will probably bring you back to 50/50 ;). It's a great production. And in all fairness, the NC should be proud of the gains they brought to the table. I would assume though you've read the actual TA, and applied critical thought to it. I wish that were a requirement for casting one's vote. I'm also very glad to have a vote.

Enjoy HKG!

In 1998 how many FedEx pilots were making 260k? (No B plan then) In 2006, I'm sure a small percentage of pilots were hitting the caps (thanks to draft and carryover-B plan increased to 7%). Thanks to the non-existent pay raises in 2011, an increasing percentage of pilots are impacted by the cap.

But, even with the TA rates, a domestic NB Capt doesn't hit the cap until 2018

And, even with the TA rates-there are still going to be folks choosing QOL over the Capt seat and retire as FOs.

1000 hours is the rule of thumb, and confident it's applicable to the 777 guys with the hidden CHs, but I think my typical year is more in the 950sh. But then, I don't do a week of CO every month and I don't plan to sell my 40% of my vacation back

I am a no voter and I also think this TA will pass.

My crystal ball says that in 8-10 years when we sign the next contract the A plan will be frozen. Due to this fact I will make sure I max out the 260 during the life of this contract to maximize my benefit and I will be doing it as a WB F/O. I know many that do.

Agreed.

That's exactly how not improving the A-plan is a huge hit to our QOL, now, and in the future.

The productivity gains in the TA, coupled with the SLB, and the option to reduce VAC on SLR, will not only delay retirements, but have even more guys flying their a$$ off. The company wins all-round. And as a nice bonus to the company, the overall number of DB payments will be reduced as long-term fatigue and health issues resulting from the continuos optimizing of pairings and of ourselves (as we now work to fund our own retirement), causes yet a bigger decline in our life expectancy.

USMC and Cloudsailor are absolutely right this TA hurts us and really empowers the company moving forward. I am hearing more No's from crewmembers throughout the various fleets. However I still run across enough guys who are completely uniformed and can't wait to vote yes and already have their "BONUS" money spent that I am worried. I ask them why they are voting yes and they almost always say "The union voted yes so it must be a good deal.

There was no B plan in 1998...???

What year was the B plan implemented?

At what percentage?

What was the A Plan formula at that time?

I know the B plan was 6% in 2006...then raised to 7% under the 2006 contract

Now it's going to be raised to 8%...and then eventually 9%

I think a mix of both the A plan & B plan is the most prudent for many reasons.

In order to compare our "total retirement benefit" over the history of Fedex contracts, we should compare the history of both plans.

Old heads, please provide

Thanks.

The fact that the B-plan is a "recent" addition here hammers home my focus on the A-plan.

It is a negotiated benefit. It is deferred compensation. We gave up something - higher pay rates - for an A-plan.

To let that hard-fought, negotiated benefit die on the vine is an insult.

When the company tells the NC "Sorry, increasing the multiplier is too expensive" my thought is "Of course they would say that".

My next thought is "Of course we would say no to such a blatant degradation of one our hardest-fought benefits".

Exactly right and the company has said you will have to give up a lot more to raise the cap. Too much said ALPA, and here we are.

The B-plan was in the first contract.

Date & percentage?

What were the terms of the A plan at that time?

YOS (25 max) x 2% x High 5 ($260 cap)...???

Why would we have to give up a lot more to raise the cap? It would cost them money?

What kind of bonanza did they get when the retirement age was raised to 65? So if people are retiring at an average age (I heard 64 approximately) instead of what it was before (59ish, I'm guessing), that's five extra years they're not paying it, for every pilot. So what happened to that five years per pilot average extra pension that is unpaid? Where is that money?

The YOS(25 Max) x 2%=50% of your High 5 has existed since just after Flying Tiger pilots arrived on the property in August 1989. Prior to that I recall it was YOS(25 Max) x 1.6%=40% of your High 5 plus a COLA of up to 5% a year for inflation. The change from 1.6% to 2.0% eliminated the COLA.

The $260,000 earnings cap came with the first and only FPA contract. I believe it came about because the IRS had a limit of a $130,000 for a defined benefit in a Qualified Pension Plan. Since our max benefit was 50% of FAE the $260,000 assured the benefit would never exceed the IRS limit. The IRS limit is adjusted for inflation, but the contract is not. By the time ALPA arrived the second time and signed their first contract in 2006 the IRS defined benefit limit rose to $175,000 so our earnings cap should have risen to $350,000. Now the IRS defined benefit has risen to $210,000 so the cap should rise to $420,000. Now the sad fact is ALPA has failed to secure the basic benefit that the Fedex Pilots Association secured in 1998 in a parking lot in 1998.


FYI the pension plan was at Federal Express long before the pilots unionized. Almost ALL FedEx employees were covered by the same plan including pilots. The corporation changed the plan for all non pilots around 2007 but the pilots avoided it because we had a union contract. Looks to me that the union has no will to protect the pilot pension.

Lot of guessing, Ill bet it was closer to 62 vice 59. I flew with a lot of over 60 and over 65 SOs.

I dunno. I'm just guessing based on hearing that the average age of retirement now is 64 point something, and all the guys that I'm seeing waiting to retire until the month they turn 65.....Jaysus! Get outta my seat! Or at least stop flying an extra week of carryover every month:eek:

I'm pretty young, but I'm pretty dang tired. I can't imagine doing this for so long, and working so much extra.

So what's the history behind the B plan?

Origination date?

Original amount?

Subsequent raises?

The 2006 contract took it from 6% to 7%, but what happened prior?

It started at 6%.

By your quote "Looks to me that the union has no will to protect the pilot pension"; maybe it can be construed that Management dug in their heels and the Union has gone as far as it could with the current perception of pilot resolve? The company has very good data of our resolve by the way of VBB, AVA responses, number of pilots protecting carry-over, sucking up Open Time, etc. And, our previous MEC did us a disservice by not doing any kind of campaign to build our collective resolve up including a strike vote.

What say you now???

I don't have the 98 contract but it started with that contract at 6%. The 401k was pre Union with the low company match. My understanding is that the B Fund is only available in a CBA. The availability of a B Fund was one of the major reasons given to vote for a Union.

Didn't the B Fund replace Profit Sharing? I thought we took a guaranteed 6% instead of some unknown payout every year.

I think it all originates with Fred Smith and the fact the company is based in the mid-south. Unions are evil according to a huge percentage of the local population. Although the law requires good faith bargaining Fred has been engaged in revenge bargaining ever since ALPA first arrived in 93. His purpose has been to show the pilots plus all other potential union members such as drivers that the pilots made a huge mistake by voting the union in. His tactic has been divide and conquer. It is real tough to get 4000+ pilots reading from the same page when you face an opposition with a very defined command structure with one goal. Ask 100 pilots what the goal is and you'll probably get 100 different answers.

I believe you are correct. The profit share went away when the B plan was introduced.

The "B Fund" as part of the overall retirement package in the airline industry was instituted due to the fact that Part 121 pilots were required by law to retire at age 60. Since the "normal" retirement age has gradually risen over the years to age 65, pilots were at a disadvantage during their most lucrative earning years.

So the "B Plan" was designed to make up those dollars lost during that 5 year period. It was also categorized as a defined contribution plan.

Obviously, FedEx would like to transition to an all Defined Contribution retirement system (although they can't do it via bankruptcy like the Legacy carriers did).

So the question remains, how and when does this transition occur through negotiations? I maintain that it's the MEC's responsibility to educate the crew force about the various options that either could or should hapoen in the future. This is a very difficult task, I know, because not everyone's going to agree, but ultimately, the crew force needs to understand the options and the consequences of this change in the retirement system. Sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the elephant in the room is not the right way to go.

This change, or transition if you will, to a new retirement system is probably going to be the most divisive issue we as a crew force have ever faced, but we can't make a smart decision unless we get ourselves educated on all variables and how those changes will affect each one of us. The MEC MUST lead us in this direction, otherwise the company will use this issue to divide and conquer
us like they have on this TA.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but we better start talking about this like adults, and soon, to make ensure the economic health of our families in the future, no matter when you got hired, and no matter what age you are,

IMHO, I could be wrong.

Champ42272

There are a few key elements of leverage I would throw into the pot.

The biggest one is the A plan and B plan situation. The company is highly motivated to eradicate the A plan because of long term costs and liability. That's indusputible.
It's widely known that a few block reps dug their heels in on retaining the A plan for everyone including those not even on the property.
There are viable solutions that result in a win-win for the company and the pilots that will result in tremendous savings and added incentives. The company approached the union with these options and the union took no measures to truly study the options and extend those options to the pilots. It might have been done internally, behind the scenes, but I received ZERO official info from the MEC or NC.
We just got wound up based on rumors and the "Fear Train" of comments ... The company wants to can the A plan. Guess what? There are options that can make sense for us all!
The A plan is a diminishing commodity as it relates to COLA - comparing it to the 1999 implementation, it's now significantly less valuable and will continue to decline. The company WILL NOT under any circumstances increase the high five or any multipliers. Their liability makes it untenable.
Freezing the A plan based on years of service and a significantly increased B plan (with cash over cap) is a possibility. We need to see the numbers. A company buyout plan for the value of each pilot's A plan has some strong appeal. I'd rather have that money NOW (in installments) and put it to work.
This is real leverage whether the TA passes or not. The company will want to deal with this issue. If the TA passes, we work this as a separate issue as an LOA after extensive study, presentation, and voting. If the TA fails, we re-engage once the dust settles. The long term savings justifies additional pay increases IMO.
In the short term: there is a manning concern, retirements are looming, peak is around the corner, they have the money, surcharges are increased, UPS has a strike vote looming (posturing but it matters in public opinion), etc.
The union reps that blocked the study and release of retirement OPTIONS to the pilots prior to the end of negotiations failed us. The MEC and NC failed to see the wisdom of doing this. It's tough to say my negotiating committee and my union speaks for me when we were not properly represented with the options. Personally, a 6 year contract with all of the work rule concessionary givebacks is unattractive to me. Voting NO means we reject what we see. Simple as that. The big money is in retirement liability. The company will not ignore this.

Pure B.S. The cost of the pension today is no more than it was in 1989 in inflation adjusted dollars. No doubt the 1989 forward pension is less than the previous pension cost when the 25 yr pension yielded only 40% FAE BUT the benefit had a COLA. I suspect the pilot pension very overfunded because it is funded for pilots to retire at age 60 and the pension is no longer paying 50% FAE because of the $260,000 cap when it should be $420,000 in agreement with IRS limits. I see there is some wording about the normal retirement now being age 62 but will still have no reduction for an age 60 retirement. Looks like that is there to reduce funding requirements. At some point management will recover that excess funding and adding it to the FedEx bottom line while rewarding themselves with the huge bonus they claim they deserve. Suggest you read or listen to the audio book. Retirement Heist - Pension Fraud Book - Ellen Schultz

I hate to break it to you but the company offers a very bad deal. Pilots are no more qualified to manage their pension money as professional money managers would be qualified to fly a B777 or MD11 around the world. Yes the B fund is nice to have in addition to the A plan, but it can never replace it.

We would be complete fools to ever consider getting rid of the A plan...you know how much investment you would need to draw 130,000 a year, without touching the principle? How about a mismanaged fund, a stock market crash, a greedy fund manager that's convinced he can make you more money, only to lose it on a gamble. I've seen too many pilots at different airlines retire with a lump sum and wind up losing their investments in the market and having to go back to work, broke. And why have so many people already conceded the fact that the A plan is gone in the next contract??? Are you kidding??? No, it's not going away, and yes, if we don't get a bump this time, we will next time, by gosh...I dont like this TA, but I sure as heck don't want us going back in and trying to dump the A plan in favor of a higher B plan, foolishness...

I'm not sure any review of the "enhancements" of our contract can even come close to rationalizing the lose that the A plan freeze represents. The companies naked attempt to keep the oldest from leaving en mass may backfire, we will only know after the vote. In my opinion the cash payout for giving notice and staying till 31Dec lacks any meaningful meat and may have been one attempt too much to buy (a few) of us off to leave on thier terms rather than our own.

The only reason to even consider voting for this turd is the fear of what will happen next.... nothing :eek: The company stalls, the NMB, in the pocket of industry, balks at letting the rights of labor move in the direction unionists died 100 years fighting for, the right to withhold services, without either the state or hired goons to stop them.

Be there no doubt, we loose and we loose big on this TA. You will never be able to replace the diminished value with a big enough "win" in your company or self funded B plan. The 1% increase in B contributions would be laughable if its repercussions weren't so serious . This TA represents the first serious reversal of fortunes by Fedex pilots in 25 years. Astonishingly, it comes at a time when the companies fortunes are on the rise. I can only shutter what to expect if they ever really feel they have a need to reduce expenses. Hopefully I won't be here to see it.

Neither FH nor PG understand the time value of money. That's a certainty. It's a diminishing commodity/benefit. Looking at alternative solutions is appropriate but the TA as is ... represents mediocrity.

A full buyout of the A plan for each pilot gives me today's dollars ... That coupled with a significantly enhanced B plan - I'm interested. You might not be.

If you want to go down with the A plan sinking ship of diminished value based on COLA, then that should be your choice.

It's not BS nor is it foolishness. They are options based on intelligence and reality. But feel free to beat your chest and yell at the top of your lungs - once you disappear under the waves ... no one will hear you.

Isn't FH retired? Man I hope I've got better things to do in retirement than hang out here.

Again, pure B.S.. I have plenty to do in retirement which includes taking care of the 13 horses I have at home. I get to shovel lots of horse manure which has none of the stink of the BS you're shoveling here. The A plan only sinks in value if the cap is kept at the cap established in 1998.

I enjoy hanging around here when the truth is being distorted. I gain nor lose anything by the vote. It is just a simple choice between right and wrong. Just because you and Fred want to teach the pilots a lesson doesn't mean it has to be successful.Retirement Heist - Pension Fraud Book - Ellen Schultz

The B plan is capped as well.
DC is subject to an IRS limitation, combined values of 401 & B plan will reach it...especially if it's the 18% some advocate. under current CBA language, company contributions stop when you hit the cap(s).

see lec 100s letter from last fall

ROT on generating income from investments is 4%, so you need to accumulate 3.3-3.4 million to live without fearing outliving your investments

Aviation Facts,

Never fly with a Doctor, and never invest with a pilot.

How does a pilot become a millionaire?
Give him a Billion dollars.

I just saw the E-mail from DL Management and Pay Rates for all NON-Union Employees. 14.5% Pay Increase in one swoop. They got 4% last year.

That's more than a COLA of 10% over the last 3 1/2 years. Nice Work ALPO. I was ALPO for years, so glad they are in my rearview mirror.