The math is imperative. An understanding of the ERISA laws, is helpful to balance the "conventional wisdom" that corporate America has so successfully espoused in getting rid of DB plans.

Of course the company would prefer to "drop" the DB plan. Fortunately, the ERISA laws prohibit them from doing so, and unless ALPA "gives" it away, it is not going to happen outside of a distress termination in bankruptcy pending approval by both a Federal judge & the PBGC.

If the company provided 25% I personally might reconsider my position on the issue if I was in my 30's. You will need that much to even have a "chance" of getting close to the current DB plan payout. That assumes that you have the skill, execution ability and fortitude in managing ALL risk factors, and have positioned your >$2M portfolio to withstand a bear market just prior to retirement.

We now have a 3 legged stool of retirement, DB, DC, and Soc Sec. I had the ALPA provided Schwab planner provide an analysis and retirement plan. The DB pension annuity is a KEY and foundational component of retirement (even if it hasn't been indexed for inflation contractually- the IRS is increasing the max qualified pensionable earnings $5k every 3 years). If you were down to just two- DC and SS, and had a bear market like 2009 with 3-4 years to retire, how healthy would your portfolio be??? If you had an asset allocation to target up to 6% ROI (and would need to keep equities even after retirement to sustain the growth while withdrawal) you would be heavy in equities. Equity heavy portfolios lost 35-45% in the bear market of 2008/9. That would set that $2M back so significantly that there would be some hard decisions (without a DB plan to cover non-discretionary spending). That is the market risk you take with an "all-in" DC only plan.

ERISA laws mandate funding minimums to cover obligations smoothed over time periods. So you -the gear yanking pilot do not have to sweat or manage market, portfolio or systemic risk. Your bet is that the company will remain profitable (out of BK court), and your representative collective bargaining agent would not be foolish enough to give away the DB "leg" of the 3 legged stool of retirement support. It matters little of what the company "wants", as long as there are contractual obligations, profits, and stability in the ERISA law.

Again IMHO, the company has been adroit financial managers thru the biggest economic downturn since the great depression, as well as previous recessions. Past history is no guarantee of future results, but that is how most bet.

 

Sure we would have all taken an increase in our A plan. The company wasn't going to give it. It was their line in the sand. Believe it or not, biatch about it all you want. Guys who thought the A fund retirement was going to be improved were delusional. If you honestly thought that I can imagine why you won't let it go. I personally was shocked that we got an increase (however small) in the B fund.

This are simply my opinions, and I was a no vote, but it certainly wasn't because of the lack of improvements in the A fund. That wasn't going to happen, and if anything the union NC probably should have tempered those expectations because that was the source of a lot of angst over the new contract. Live and learn.

 

The old "line in the sand". Is that all it takes? We should have drawn one too. Not just over hard fought items we wanted to keep.. How about a 20% raise? Ruth's Chris catering?

Next time they should use that early.

Well, if they truly had a line in the sand, how about putting it somewhere else? Waiting 9+ years for a 3% raise??

 

I hear ya. I voted no. Not real pleased with the contract but it passed. And yes, that is all it takes. Just like ours was PBS. It takes 2 sides to agree, I am of the opinion they would never have agreed. I will spell it out for you now that its over. $130K in todays or 2050 dollars is a lot of money, indexed or not. It leads the industry, indexed or not. They froze the "A plan" for the rest of the company in 2008 (or so) and there is no way they could justify not only keeping ours, but increasing it as well.

Could they afford to increase it? Financially, probably. Company politics and appearances, no way. So I will say it again, it was never going to happen, no matter what we gave up. They had to find some other vessel to use to sweeten the pot and I wish they had sweetened it more than they did, but we got what we were willing to stand up for, and it wasn't that much.

Its on the pilot group as much as the NC and the MEC, if not more so.

 

Once the court case is won, you'll be happy.

 

Again, if Delta tried to get rid of or significantly diminish their profit sharing and the Delta pilots fought that off successfully, that would be a...miserable failure?

 

Only the lawyers will be happy.

 

Oh good lord... If the price is right elsewhere, I'm sure they'd give up part of it. Ask them...

To my knowledge, while the hourly compensation was significantly increased, they lost badly in this area. The pilots didn't see the value in the TA.

As I tried to tell you before, we didn't improve many areas of our contract. So what? Were these real cornerstone items? Retirement was, remember that? Probably not...

Our retirement is an extremely important piece of our contract. Huge. I hope to live a long life after Fedex. While it's easy to overlook the future, it will be there before you know it.

We got 3% raises. After 9 years. In an outstanding negotiating environment. Retirement was an end game negotiating topic and we let them go with "it's our line in the sand". We also ran out of money. I'd say that's a fail...

 

Apparently Southwest came back to SWAPA with less money and PBS on their second go round. Things that make you go hmmmmm. Will be very interesting to see how that plays out.

 

If you think that's winning, then we were winning before we even saw a TA. Outside of bankruptcy, nobody can take away our "A"-Plan ... unless we vote for it.


Do you also teach your sons the best way to not lose is to not play the game? Perfect record: Zero losses (and zero wins)



By the same logic, The Company should begin bargaining next time around with a demand that we take a 30% pay cut. When we settle for only a 10% pay cut, we can credit ourselves with a huge victory.




.