PRAP
#101
On Reserve
Joined: Sep 2024
Posts: 55
Likes: 11
From: B-787 Captain
#102
I'm voting no primarly because this suspends my ability to fund the active HRA until the IRS determination letter. For someone that has kids, or goes through any medical event for the year, this program is huge.
I don't understand the need to rush this. Yes, the VEBA RHA is a problem because it can be overfunded and isn't a willable asset. That does need to change, but why are we rushing it. Do it right the first time, even if it takes a little longer.
I don't understand the need to rush this. Yes, the VEBA RHA is a problem because it can be overfunded and isn't a willable asset. That does need to change, but why are we rushing it. Do it right the first time, even if it takes a little longer.
#103
#104
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2023
Posts: 451
Likes: 5
I'm voting no primarly because this suspends my ability to fund the active HRA until the IRS determination letter. For someone that has kids, or goes through any medical event for the year, this program is huge.
I don't understand the need to rush this. Yes, the VEBA RHA is a problem because it can be overfunded and isn't a willable asset. That does need to change, but why are we rushing it. Do it right the first time, even if it takes a little longer.
I don't understand the need to rush this. Yes, the VEBA RHA is a problem because it can be overfunded and isn't a willable asset. That does need to change, but why are we rushing it. Do it right the first time, even if it takes a little longer.
In Unity...
#105
I'm a no on this as well. Quick back of the napkin math says over 25 years the difference between the amount the company is not contributing to the PRAP and instead putting into the MBCBP will be over $700,000. The MBCBP is too conservatively invested for serious growth. I understand the reason for it and it certainly serves a purpose. But this is not the way.
#106
Line Holder
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 33
From: 777 CA
I'm a no on this as well. Quick back of the napkin math says over 25 years the difference between the amount the company is not contributing to the PRAP and instead putting into the MBCBP will be over $700,000. The MBCBP is too conservatively invested for serious growth. I understand the reason for it and it certainly serves a purpose. But this is not the way.
#107
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 532
Likes: 10
I'm a no on this as well. Quick back of the napkin math says over 25 years the difference between the amount the company is not contributing to the PRAP and instead putting into the MBCBP will be over $700,000. The MBCBP is too conservatively invested for serious growth. I understand the reason for it and it certainly serves a purpose. But this is not the way.
1. Less conservative investment, perhaps 50/50 or even 60/40 stock/bond portfolio.
2. Cash over cap option.
3. No PRAP company limits.
#108
It's a great deal for old farts like me as we can put it all to work at 59.5 by sweeping it in our PRAP but I'm a hard no because of the gives. Forcing me to use my money to fill the PRAP? Um why did we get 17/18% B/C fund when I'm still going to have to put my own max money into it? I'll lose the option of funding the RHA (tax free retirement money) for 2-3 years at least according to the Podcast. The 2024 AHRA money will not be swept in January either which means it's sitting in a money market for 2-3 years earning nothing. At least the RHA made 8.5% this year and is tax free when I pull it. The UPA that we voted in says the company will do it and they even came up with a plan for the people who feel they've overfunded it by maxing the amount of spill to $10k and then it's paid cash. So now they're catering to them even further? The same ones pushing to pad their retirement by 2 more years as WB CAs? Hard pass.
#109
Line Holder
Joined: May 2015
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 33
From: 777 CA
Whether it’s now or in a year or two, we will get the CBP as an option instead of the RHA. As I’m all for this as an option to dump money into pretax, I feel like we should be focusing on what we want to actually change. Top things for me:
1. Less conservative investment, perhaps 50/50 or even 60/40 stock/bond portfolio.
2. Cash over cap option.
3. No PRAP company limits.
1. Less conservative investment, perhaps 50/50 or even 60/40 stock/bond portfolio.
2. Cash over cap option.
3. No PRAP company limits.
The UPA spells out approximately 30% equities.
22-B-2-c-(1) Except as set forth in Section 22-B-2-c-(2), a Company appointed investment
fiduciary will target an equity allocation of thirty percent (30%)
I agree it's overly conservative but it's what we've agreed to. It's something to work on probably next contract.
#110
Line Holder
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 638
Likes: 12
Whether it’s now or in a year or two, we will get the CBP as an option instead of the RHA. As I’m all for this as an option to dump money into pretax, I feel like we should be focusing on what we want to actually change. Top things for me:
1. Less conservative investment, perhaps 50/50 or even 60/40 stock/bond portfolio.
2. Cash over cap option.
3. No PRAP company limits.
1. Less conservative investment, perhaps 50/50 or even 60/40 stock/bond portfolio.
2. Cash over cap option.
3. No PRAP company limits.
The CBP has to stay in the black or else the company is on the hook, so I’m sure they see it as significant risk to invest it in anything but the most conservative vehicles.
As for the PRAP limit, the company thinks they are just complying with an IRS rule. I don’t read it the same as they do, but my tax expertise accrues from handing some docs to my CPA once a year and occasionally staying at a Holiday Inn Express. I have to accept that UAL might have some lawyers who understand this better than I do. I don’t really see what incentive they’d have to invent this problem.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



