Tumi LOA...?
 

I thought the people that were saying this LOA is like the Tumi TA were being quite dramatic. Now it's seeming more like that's the case. ALPA voted on this with no feedback, and opened voting on it before any information was even available. Now every day we're getting more and more information slowly put out, but it seems like this is being sold to us instead of the LOA selling itself. Every concern that is brought up, the answer for why we are doing this is essentially "the company says so". This was how things felt with the Tumi TA, that the company just handed it to us and said sign here. We are not even getting any fact team inputs on this. The last piece of this seems to be next week when a pre-recorded Q&A with prior selected questions will be posted. It looks like the sell job is in full force. I'm trying to find any personal angle where the benefits of this LOA will offset the negatives, but I'm struggling to find anything. I'd love for anyone to chime in with one part of this LOA that is positive for the majority of pilots.

The CON letter from the C33 guy had quite a few numbers on it showing why this is a bad deal for most people . The PRO letter was the equivalent of "trust me bro, we will make it better eventually". This is why I immediately voted NO.

If you're over 59 with a fully funded RHA and don't mind taking away retirement options from those coming behind you than this is your LOA!

I'd say if you're ~55 or older, this LOA is for you. 100% of the company's 17% contribution spilling into a tax deferred account??? Accessible within 4 years to roll into your PRAP or IRA to invest as you see fit??? Sheeeot. Meanwhile, you can still get the max into the PRAP (77.5K in 2025) with your 31K contribution. There is NO downside. The meager returns of the tax deferred CBP will still beat the PRAP cash with a 30% tax hit up front... at least for 3 or 4 years, then you can roll it out. I'm a yes please! But I don't think it will pass, not enough of us old dudes to get it over the line.

No downside? RHA gone for 2-3 years is a huge downside for many older pilots. You talk the 30% tax hit, RHA money is never taxed. So if you planned to fund your RHA when you were making max money at the end of your career based on a contract provision that's been in place since 2012, well you're hosed with no chance to recover.

so much for unity, but hey as long as you get yours right? this is what all the emails seem to say as well, to vote for what is only personally best for you

Guppie, why did you create a new account?

I'm in the under 50 group with a modest RHA so far and still love the idea of shoving as much as I can into a CBP for over a decade plus hitting 415c limit plus catchups in your 50s plus backdoor Roth IRA before rolling it over at 59.5. Doing the math on that it's an opportunity to stash an astonishing amount in a relatively short period. But I also don't think it will pass and understand it could use a few tweaks for many.

I've got a decade on you and I too want the CBP. Just not this LOA version. I just want the CBP we were sold on with our UPA. IOW a mirror of DAL. I'd prefer to wait on the right one, not the right now one. It was my understanding that this would be an option with somewhere to put the 17% spill as an alternative to the RHA. This LOA isn't that.

Hope you don't hurt your back pulling up that ladder.

It’s not really pulling up a ladder. Financially savvy pilots should be contributing to their 401K, and they would be able to benefit from this plan. That being said I don’t think it will pass because most people want to spend their whole paycheck.

Interesting philosophical decision whether to write a plan that benefits the people to want to save a lot for retirement, or the people who want to buy a new truck. I would have preferred Delta’s plan, but apparently the lawyers were too scared.

Age 67… that is pulling the ladder up.

Did you read the Q&As? They're admitting that a letter will be done. They're just trying to rush this in place for those who want it now.

“ Q: Can ALPA request a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) from the IRS on the application of the Contingent Benefit Rule?

A: ALPA cannot request a PLR because we are not the plan sponsor. If ALPA wants United to pursue a PLR, we would need agreement between United and ALPA on the request. United has committed to filing for a Private Letter Ruling (PLR) on whether the PRAP Employer Contribution amounts need to be reduced with the CBP whether the LOA passes or fails, subject to MEC approval.”

For the record I want to maximize my post retirement tax free money. For myself and many others that means funding the RHA further. Not exactly a new truck, but maybe a new hip or new knee in 20 years without having to take a 35% tax hit by pulling out of a tax deferred account.

Tax deferred isn't an end all be all. Uncle Sam will get his pound of flesh. Someone hired in their 30's just putting away IRS max into VOO or some other S&P index and never touching would have $12m+ in a taxable account. Tax bill on withdrawals would be more than they're paying now unless they make some serious Roth conversions over the years. That's another use for the money they're not forced to stash in a CBP.

Eh, I could stop saving extra now and still retire with millions. I’ve reached 415c limits for the last 10 years.

So, instead of buying a new truck maybe I’d could save $2000 a month in my kids 529. Maybe we could help grandma buy a place near us since she’s getting older, maybe we want to fatten up the taxable account.

Just because you’re not putting money in a 401k doesn’t mean you’re wasting your paycheck.

Things happen in life. Not all are able to max out their PRAP. And most of our seniority list has been here for less than a decade. They haven't had as uch time to build up their PRAP and RHA. And many don't have Tricare like you probably do. It's BS for you to put this on pilots that aren't as "savvy" as you are. It's also BS to assume that most pilots "want to spend their whole paycheck." You're fortunate. Be happy for that. And realize that all aren't as fortunate as you.

Thats fair, I painted with too broad a brush. I probably have too great an aversion to paying taxes. Like I said I wish we got what Delta did.

I hear you. I hate taxes too. One of my big concerns is pumping stuff into things like the RHA and converting to Roth what I can afford now because too much tax deferred can cost you more in liftetime taxes. Women in my wife's side of the family tend to live long. Just being honest with myself and my family history she's going to be stuck paying taxes as a single filer vs married at some point down the line which is an instant tax increase for the rest of her life.

If we both die in a car crash tomorrow our kids will be millionaires and you guys get to split a rounding error amount of RHA money. I'm not one of those who are stressed over my heirs not getting it. I'm more concerned with the Uncle Sam not getting it.

Because he got banned, as got banned as Jsled before that, etc, etc

If you ever want delta then stop accepting less. We already capped our sick time.

Our sick time is way better than Delta’s. They lose theirs every year. I wish the 95 hour sick pay rule didn’t go into effect though.

It's irrelevant that that they lose theirs every year when we have no sick time payout at retirement. They get 250+ per year and no cap, so unless you plan on calling out for 4 months straight ours is worse. After we vote this in let's see what United wants to cap next

Lots of people call out for over 250 straight before they start LTD. Being able to get paid 90 hours a month while you work thru a longer term medical issue seems pretty good to me. I don’t see how Delta’s is any better or worse, just different, I’m not an expert on Delta’s plan though. If there was anything I would like from Delta’s contract it is their green slip construct (especially for reserves).

Not sure why you are so negative about this (LOA). It’s not earth shattering with either outcome, and it’s not “United” capping anything. This a proposal from our union to try and speed up the CBP.

I'm not sure how a hard limit on 401k contributions would be considered anything other than a cap.

It's math. It takes us 42 months just to accrue 250 hours of sick time. Almost 4 years for us to accrue 250, and that's without getting sick during those 42 months. Takes them 12 months max to reset back to 250. I can't grasp why some folks say ours is better. It's not. During that same 42 months it takes us to accrue 250 hours, DAL pilots have over 1000 hours available to use.

Thread drift, but does anyone else see the humor in labeling this the Tumi LOA? It's funny because the person who coined the term Tumi TA is now the MEC Chair.

The MEC Chair didn't sell this POS LOA to the MEC. The R&I committee and the NC did. And the majority of the members of the MEC voted for it, unfortunately. They were too focused on helping the lawyers out by calling another special meeting the day after the LOA was voted on to file BS Article VIII charges against a rep who's term ends in two months. Many of the reps that voted in favor of Article VIII charges were the ones that voted in favor of this LOA. They were too busy working for lawyers instead of working for the memebership they represent.

This isn't on the MEC Chair. This is on the reps that voted in favor. Hopefully the results of this vote snaps them back to where they their focus needs to be.

The MEC Chair is a defacto member of the NC within ALPA. You can't realistically blame a Negotiating Committee for bringing something to an MEC while insulating the MEC Chair.

I don't think any Article VIII charges were voted on or brought in the most recent meeting, nor was a separate special meeting called the day after the LOA.

Take another look at the Nov 22 MEC Update email, subject line "Special Mtg Wrap-Up"

The proper term is “ex officio member” per the Policy Manual and the Negotiating Committee takes their orders from the MEC (the reps). The MEC Chair is then tasked with carrying out the direction of the MEC when the MEC is not in session.

TLDR: The MEC Chairs do not have as much power as everyone seems to think.

We should pass out yellow lanyards and get some Delta attorneys for 2025.

Stop wearing hats... seriously.

we did the hats off/ lanyard thing in 2009, at the end of POS UPA2003 (bankruptcy contract). I’m glad Delta was able to follow our example. It worked well for us… as we penned a new contract three years later in 2012 😏. That was a full 2 years + after the 2010 merger announcement.

So, as an "ex officio member" of the NC per the Policy Manual, the current MEC Chair has no power or responsibility for this LOA BUT by the reverse logic a prior (out of office) MEC Chair was fully responsible for the failed TA? I really cannot keep what version of reality we are on at any given moment. Not trying to be snarky but comments on this thread are arguing sometimes the MEC Chair is responsible and other times the MEC Chair is not responsible during negotiations. My personal contention has always been the buck stops with the MEC members themselves no matter who the officers are. Just my opinion.

The MEC Chair you speak of was personally selling the failed TA, and even went so far as to hit social media to tell everyone 'You're welcome." That MC pushed that POS TA to the pilot group and use it as a way to get elected to President of the Air Line Pilots Association, International. That MC pushed to change the MEC Policy manual to require two thirds of the MEC to recall any committee members (protection for the NC comes to mind). Also pushed to get a 3rd term and used that 3rd term to sell us TUMI.

100% spot on.

So, there’s the difference between what an MEC Chair is supposed to be vice the MEC Chair that tried to throw his own pilot group under the bus for his own benefit.

The decision to reach an Agreement in Principle or TA is first made by the MEC Chair. So if an agreement goes to the MEC for consideration there most certainly is responsibility placed upon the Chair. Obviously, the MEC members are then responsible for anything that goes out for membership ratification.

What seems to happen when things go wrong is people abdicating their responsibility as a filter layer. The Negotiating Committee should not progress issues into objectionable territory in the first place. To that end, they should be under the watchful eye of the MEC Chair, who is a de facto member of the committee. The MC should never let the MEC see and consider an agreement that didn't first meet that chair's approval. And the MEC should never approve an agreement for membership ratification "just to let the members have the final say." It is their responsibility to serve as a stringent filter and reject unworthy agreements.

So when garbage like the failed TA gets to the membership there are plenty of responsible individuals. The former MEC Chair that let much of the contract sections take shape before his third term expired is no exception. Likewise, the current Chair has plenty of responsibility for the current LOA TA. The membership will decide whether that responsibility merits mostly credit or blame.

Just to comment on this bit, regardless of applicability to this thread, those decisions don’t always happen in a vacuum, especially when external factors are thrown into the mix (mediation/arbitration pressures, divided pilot groups, etc.). Sometimes an MEC is given no choice but to send lesser agreements out for ratification.

In a perfect world you’d be correct but things get muddy sometimes. FWIW.

I would counter that "most" of the times that happens it's because the MEC did not solicite membership input via polling or asking for comments before voting on things. This LOA and the TUMI TA are glaring examples of them being out of touch with the membership because they never got our input.

You would be wrong. The times I’ve seen that happen the MEC knew damn well what the membership was thinking and exactly how split that membership was, hence my earlier allusion to a divided pilot group.

Couple that with pressure from mediators and pilots who think they should ALWAYS get to vote on ANY agreement the NC comes up with and the decision gets a little more complicated.

That rep in question is a puppet of SW in 171 and has potentially done damage to the association. I am all for an outside investigation into her actions and their determination if an Article VIII is warranted.