View Poll Results: LOA 24-05 MBCBP
YES
32
17.11%
NO
155
82.89%
Voters: 187. You may not vote on this poll
Loa 24-05 mbcbp poll
12-09-2024 | 07:09 AM
#101
On Reserve
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 67
Likes: 10
Agreed it is an unknown and part of the risk evaluation needed to weigh your decision. I'm not suggesting anyone vote one way or another. I will say that I believe there is additional risk in timeline expectations from the IRS under the upcoming administration.
12-09-2024 | 08:20 AM
#102
Line Holder
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 599
Likes: 46
For those of you with 100% overall equity allocations that are angry the CBP is conservative and can't lose principal I can only suggest this: Take the win and go live life, either now or in 1-2 years after IRS approval. It doesn't matter to me. This was never going to be an account with asset allocation control.
12-09-2024 | 05:45 PM
#103
On Reserve
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Just to be clear, the RHA / Active HRA is tax advantaged money. I’d like “another venue” as well, but this LOA temporarily eliminates the freedom to choose which venue.
I’m not in love with the lower-cap company PRAP contribution, but I only see this being a real issue for folks that aren’t contributing. It could be more of an issue over time as IRS limits rise though if it isn’t concurrently raised. In any event, it sure looks to me that the lower PRAP cap is simply an outcome of having the eventual optionality of splitting funds between a MBCBP and RHA/Active HRA anyway; therefore, an outcome of our UPA that wasn’t clear at the time, but this LOA will have to cover.
Although while it is low risk I think the potential for an unexpected tax liability in the event the IRS doesn’t like something about this later should be part of the decision as well.
I don’t care how folks vote, but I have to say of everything I’ve ever voted on this some fantastic first world problem stuff that is likely to be okay either way it goes.
I’m not in love with the lower-cap company PRAP contribution, but I only see this being a real issue for folks that aren’t contributing. It could be more of an issue over time as IRS limits rise though if it isn’t concurrently raised. In any event, it sure looks to me that the lower PRAP cap is simply an outcome of having the eventual optionality of splitting funds between a MBCBP and RHA/Active HRA anyway; therefore, an outcome of our UPA that wasn’t clear at the time, but this LOA will have to cover.
Although while it is low risk I think the potential for an unexpected tax liability in the event the IRS doesn’t like something about this later should be part of the decision as well.
I don’t care how folks vote, but I have to say of everything I’ve ever voted on this some fantastic first world problem stuff that is likely to be okay either way it goes.
12-10-2024 | 01:57 AM
#104
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 80
so, is this LOA one of those things where if it fails, it keeps going up for vote every other week until it passes? Because it sure feels like that kind of thing.
is this going to require another round of voting out our reps, a la Tumi?
is this going to require another round of voting out our reps, a la Tumi?
12-10-2024 | 02:51 AM
#105
Line Holder
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 452
Likes: 15
If it fails we need to replace the NC - mostly the same NC that gave us the tumi TA.
12-10-2024 | 07:08 AM
#107
Line Holder
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 516
Likes: 6
From: 756
We have no leverage right now.
After reading all the union material and watching the Q&A, I was pretty agnostic to it passing or not. I am highly against wasting any unity or capital on recalling anyone.
Some pilots were extremely vocal to their reps to get the CBP implemented early. Without leverage - this was what early implementation looked like. Pilots chose status quo. Seems like the process worked.
After reading all the union material and watching the Q&A, I was pretty agnostic to it passing or not. I am highly against wasting any unity or capital on recalling anyone.
Some pilots were extremely vocal to their reps to get the CBP implemented early. Without leverage - this was what early implementation looked like. Pilots chose status quo. Seems like the process worked.
12-10-2024 | 07:16 AM
#108
Banned
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 589
Likes: 1
We have no leverage right now.
After reading all the union material and watching the Q&A, I was pretty agnostic to it passing or not. I am highly against wasting any unity or capital on recalling anyone.
Some pilots were extremely vocal to their reps to get the CBP implemented early. Without leverage - this was what early implementation looked like. Pilots chose status quo. Seems like the process worked.
After reading all the union material and watching the Q&A, I was pretty agnostic to it passing or not. I am highly against wasting any unity or capital on recalling anyone.
Some pilots were extremely vocal to their reps to get the CBP implemented early. Without leverage - this was what early implementation looked like. Pilots chose status quo. Seems like the process worked.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
