Meanwhile all we have to do it point to DAL's IRS approved plan that does not restrict company contributions. I'm not buying the excuse. I do think the company wants to limit their exposure for potentially having to plus up if the plan loses money. I think the company probably said if you want this before it's approved you have to give up our exposure. So ALPA blinked.

Whether you think that or not, the company will not approve a CBP without the limits in the LOA. If this gets voted down, more concrete terms for the CBP will definitely be something to negotiate in the next UPA. It looks like we just weren’t explicit enough as to what we wanted. Not sure if Delta was, but we definitely were not.

From my understanding, there is no “wait & see if the IRS will approve something else option,” so if that’s your top issue (it’s mine). The CBP will likely be off the table this cycle.

It's just one of many issues I have with the rush job. It's not even affecting me as much as my FOs who now have to chose between funding their PRAP or using the $13,000 per year to maybe fund their kids 529 or paying down their mortgage, putting the money somewhere earning 10% in a brokerage account that they'll only pay 15% capital gains tax on, etc etc. The screwing over of the RHA for 2-3 years is another. Call me crazy but I believed ALPA when they told us in the roadshows for this contract that our MBCBP will be "just like DAL has". Well it's absolutely not in this LOA.

I'd personally prefer to get it right the first time vs all the permanent gives in this LOA.

But we all have a vote.

I just hit PRAP Cash spill this year. Good problem to have but an annoying one when the CBP could let that sit tax free on the way in then more investable after 59.5. I agree the proposed CBP isn't to everyone's liking and may get punted but I think by the end of this CBA and for however long it takes until the next one there will be a growing number of pilots who are annoyed by how much cash we get from the company's 18% that will take the full tax hit.

And I think you'll be surprised with how much you have in your PRAP at the end of your career. I'm at the point of paying taxes now to do pure ROTH contributions because my PRAP has grown to the point where I'll be in the same tax bracket in retirement that I'm in now. More tax deferred money is actually a PITA. My financial advisor has me minimizing my funding and taking as much cash as possible to limit my tax bill by using a brokerage to pay capital gains at this point because it's less than I'll pay on withdrawals from the PRAP when I retire. Yes first world problems but don't assume tax deferred is some financial panacea. Taxes will always get paid. What the rate is matters. Also does anyone believe taxes won't go up at some point with our astronomical national debt?

Hopefully at some point ALPA can tell us why the company thinks there’s a difference between our plan and Delta’s. They aren’t gaining anything by imposing this rule. They give us the exact same amount of money, it just goes to a different account. Maybe they are being more conservative than we think is reasonable, but if it were 100% cut and dry, why would they be insisting on this? What do they care?

I care because that's money I HAVE to dedicate to the PRAP to make up the difference. The CBP was supposed to give us options on how to manage our retirement. But this LOA takes options away from us. It's forcing money into a CPB that otherwise we'd be able to direct how we wanted it invested. I'm too lazy to do the math but on the other UAL forum someone did and I recall they showed someone hired in their 30s with 25-30 years of locking in an additional $13000 into the CPB with only 30% in equities is losing out on approximately $700,000 in earnings over that time compare to just putting it into an S&P fund/etf. I care because this LOA would lock those of us who planned to utilize maximizing our RHA out during our WB CA years are getting hosed. Who wins? Those who have $300k already in their RHA who don't want more. But that was addressed already by the $10k max that's in place.

If you’re 59.5+ or even close, this is a slam dunk. If you’re farther away, you are probably better off taking the tax hit and just investing it in something with a better return, unless you are a relatively conservative investor. That is a very person-specific calculation, though, so each person would have to run that for themselves.

I'm in that demographic as are my friends. It's a no from me and most of my friends as the RHA stop for 2-3 yrs have hit us hard. We lived through the lost decade as FOs and are just now reaching WB CA so we don't have the recommended $315k RHA accounts. And yes I have tric care

Well, we don’t have the plan details, which is also a shortfall, but in your boat if this passes I would be maxing the contributions to what I can possibly afford, rolling it over to the PRAP or an IRA and converting it to ROTH. Same tax liability if you just had contributed it to a brokerage account as you mentioned, but with no tax in the back end.