Transport Workers and Machinist Union to Jointly Represent Ground Workers at the "New" American Airl

[Tim Nelson]

You didn't answer the question, so I'll ask it again: How much money would one have to save in a 401k to buy an annuity that pays a monthly benefit of, let say, $2500 per month for life at 62 years of age? I will tell you, because you will definitely not answer that one, so you can educate yourself on retirement security.

Let's say Joe wants to retire at 62 and he figures that to have a nice retirement he needs about 2500 bucks per month to do so. He's married and wants his wife to be cared for if something happens to him. Let's say Joe lives to 78, the average life expectancy for males and his wife lives to 81, the average for females in the US. Joe then goes shopping for a 19 year annuity that guarantees $2500 per month. The actuary from Insurance company x says, we'll fix you at an 8% growth rate on your money--the average for the stock market--for 19 years at $2500 per month guaranteed. Joe needs to fork over $292,018.74.

You know what the average 401k savings is in this country? In 2012 in reached a record high of $77,300. So, can you see the problem?

Let's look at the USA Fleet IAM pension. You were in, I think, in 2008. So, Let's say you averaged 80 bucks per year from 2008-2013.
6X80=480, vested.
Now, in 2014 the the switch to Scedule B occurs. Lets say the IAM increases the COMPANY's current contribution from $1.05 per hour to $1.20 per hour. That brings you up to $54.05. Then let's you receive an average of $.10 per year for 20 years until you retire.
Consevatively, for a USA Fleet that would be $2629 per month for life. LIFE. Not 19 years. Best part, you don't fund it, the company does.

Also, Tim, how many proposals were submitted to the USA Fleet negotiating committee to get out of the IAMNPP? You act like the IAM forces its members into the plan. If you want out, why not reject any agreement in which the IAMNPP is part of? If switching to a 401k match BS plan is what the USA Fleet membership then it should be negotiated. I have a funny feeling not too many proposals were submitted to get out of the IAMNPP. Just sayin.

i think my position is incredibly reasonable. Imo, id doesnt make any sense to follow the path you drew since the members have no control and have already seen this pension scramble twice in the last ten years to slash or abolish schedules on the backs of its members just to stay green. How can you convince anyone that the defined amount wont get pimped on again? And why wouldnt uniteds new management have anything to do with the iam pension for 16,000 new members? Something is wrong. regards,

 

[Real tired]

The bottom line is the IAM pension will provide USA and AA employees to retire with security. What do you propose? Let me guess a 401k. At USA the MX has an $85 per year multiplier, pretty damn good. Fleet currently is about $80. Pretty damn good too. No past benefits were
cut under the plan. And, as for Fleet, the contribution is $1.05 per hour. Negotiate up, which will happen, and the multiplier will be at least in the $60 range to start. You act as if 401ks are immune to market volatility. Check any comparison between the IAM plan and a 401k. No comparison. Ask how many SWA get the 9.3% match, not even 25% do because they don't contribute the max. Also, how much money do you think you need to save to buy an annuity at age 62 that would provide you with $2500-$3000 a month for the rest of your life? Take a swipe at that one and I'll get back to you.

Also, get your facts straight; the IAM plan is over 103% funded, far from dying. Check out the adjustable benefits and the contribution rate tables. Even with going to one schedule it is better than any plan out there, including your beloved 401k.

That's odd.

For any USAirways Mechanic, that meets eligibility, that would retire today, your monthly benefit from the IAMNPF would be $454.97 per month. A far cry from $2500- $3000 a month.

It won't be until 2035, if we kept the same multiplier, and it isn't reduced that we will be able to take home $2,335.09, before taxes, per month.

I'll be near 80.

 

[swamt]

It seems to be very clear that the US guys want the IAM out. It seems very clear that the AA guys want TWU out. So the IAM and the TWU put their little minds together and come up with a joint union system to continue to screw the mechanics at both carriers.
One thing I have not seen out here is someone starting an AMFA drive at US. Let's say the teamsters get their election, if they were to win then this does in fact drive out the IAM. However, you guys "DO NOT" want the teamsters representing you at integration time, or any time for that matter. Let's say the teamsters loose or no election is called, then you guys will have to vote for or against the "association".
If you guys were to start a drive for AMFA now, there would be enough cards by the time the merger was done. After AMFA wins at AA and you guys had more than enough cards for AMFA at US then it would be a no-brainer at integration time. I really don't think the teamsters will get the blessing to have an election. They have been caught fraudulently forgery of cards at AA, it would be dumb of the IAM if they did not challenged this fact, and challenge the eligible list. Teamsters are known for crooked acts during card collections and elections. Some-one needs to start an AMFA drive at US, as it seems no-body wants this new "association" union they are working on. Good luck to you guys, and you should be seeing a filing by AMFA at AA very soon.

 

[Socplat13]

That's odd.

For any USAirways Mechanic, that meets eligibility, that would retire today, your monthly benefit from the IAMNPF would be $454.97 per month. A far cry from $2500- $3000 a month.

It won't be until 2035, if we kept the same multiplier, and it isn't reduced that we will be able to take home $2,335.09, before taxes, per month.

I'll be near 80.

That's because you've only been in the plan since 2008. Answer this question: In five years, how much would you have to save in a 401k to pay you $500 per month, and let's say you live to 80? $500X12=$6000. Let's say you retire at 65. $6000X15=$90,000. $90,000/5=$16,000. So you would have to save $16,000 per year for five years and you would likely be funding half of that yourself, that's how most dc plans work.

So, tell me, you think that's a better deal than the IAMNPP?

For workers with a longer time to retirement it's a no brainer.

 

[wings396]

The IAMNPF for US started in 2003, for the FSA group. Take into account the some people were furloughed at some point after that date, and therefore didn't get credit during that time.

 

[freedom]

That's because you've only been in the plan since 2008. Answer this question: In five years, how much would you have to save in a 401k to pay you $500 per month, and let's say you live to 80? $500X12=$6000. Let's say you retire at 65. $6000X15=$90,000. $90,000/5=$16,000. So you would have to save $16,000 per year for five years and you would likely be funding half of that yourself, that's how most dc plans work.

So, tell me, you think that's a better deal than the IAMNPP?

For workers with a longer time to retirement it's a no brainer.

only problem with the IAMNPP is that it's not "your" money , it's the plan's money , and if there's a short fall you basically have to share you retirement with everyone else and take less .

 

[Tim Nelson]

only problem with the IAMNPP is that it's not "your" money , it's the plan's money , and if there's a short fall you basically have to share you retirement with everyone else and take less .

his math is incorrect plus he is assuming way too many things. The iampf is unsustainable starting the next decade as more retirees and less actives, thus it is likely, if not mandatory, for the iam trustees to steal from the actives for a third time or slash current benefits for retirees, pending the new legislation. The problem is that many of us probably would be retired so either way we would be at risk of the iampf stealing our pensions again. regards,

 

[FWAAA]

In the typical single-employer defined benefit pension plan, the employer is on the hook to make up any shortfalls in investment return so that the promised benefits can be paid. For example, AA's plans were frozen last year yet AA will be making contributions to the plans for many years as long as the plans are underfunded.

So with the IAM's DB plan, who will contribute more money to the plan if the investment returns fall short and the plan is underfunded and cannot pay the promised benefits?

The prudent solution is for the mechanics and related at new AA to select a bargaining agent that has the negotiating skills to get the AA M&R workgroup a Defined Contribution plan on the scale of the Southwest plan with a large employer match. Stick with the industrial unions and you're doomed to make less money and enjoy a less prosperous retirement.

 

[1AA]

In the typical single-employer defined benefit pension plan, the employer is on the hook to make up any shortfalls in investment return so that the promised benefits can be paid. For example, AA's plans were frozen last year yet AA will be making contributions to the plans for many years as long as the plans are underfunded.

So with the IAM's DB plan, who will contribute more money to the plan if the investment returns fall short and the plan is underfunded and cannot pay the promised benefits?

The prudent solution is for the mechanics and related at new AA to select a bargaining agent that has the negotiating skills to get the AA M&R workgroup a Defined Contribution plan on the scale of the Southwest plan with a large employer match. Stick with the industrial unions and you're doomed to make less money and enjoy a less prosperous retirement.

The IBT would love to get their hands on that money.
DO NOT LET THE IBT GET YOUR PENSION MONEY.
If an election happens DO NOT VOTE FOR THE IBT!!!

 

[Socplat13]

his math is incorrect plus he is assuming way too many things. The iampf is unsustainable starting the next decade as more retirees and less actives, thus it is likely, if not mandatory, for the iam trustees to steal from the actives for a third time or slash current benefits for retirees, pending the new legislation. The problem is that many of us probably would be retired so either way we would be at risk of the iampf stealing our pensions again. regards,

My math is absolutely correct. Also, the IAMNPF is quite sustainable as it is well over 100% funded. The IAM trustees have stole nothing from the actives as no earned benefits have been touched. Not one red cent has been cut that has been earned under the plan. It is against the law to cut earned pension benefits.You really have no clue Nelson.

Again, if your group wants out then you should negotiate out. Let the members decide. There is nothing that prevents that. It's called contract proposals submitted by the membership, and other than some uninformed people like yourself, I would venture to guess not to many have submitted proposals to do so.

Nelson, how many retirees had most of their nest eggs wiped out in the financial crisis of 2008? Earned savings gone in a few days. Retirees receiving benefits from a db plan lost zero, goose egg, nada. You act as if the casino of Wall St. is a safe investment and you are Warren Buffett. The average worker who has a dc, 401k plan has $77,000 in their account. Is that enough for a person to retire on?

Going to one schedule in the IAMNPF was mandated by the PPA of 2006. I could more realistically argue that going forward the schedules could increase because the plan is doing so well.

 

[Socplat13]

only problem with the IAMNPP is that it's not "your" money , it's the plan's money , and if there's a short fall you basically have to share you retirement with everyone else and take less .

Not true. Once you are vested the money you have earned under the plan is yours and cannot be cut for any reason, unless the entire plan is terminated and turned over to the PBGC.

 

[Tim Nelson]

My math is absolutely correct. Also, the IAMNPF is quite sustainable as it is well over 100% funded. The IAM trustees have stole nothing from the actives as no earned benefits have been touched. Not one red cent has been cut that has been earned under the plan. It is against the law to cut earned pension benefits.You really have no clue Nelson.

Again, if your group wants out then you should negotiate out. Let the members decide. There is nothing that prevents that. It's called contract proposals submitted by the membership, and other than some uninformed people like yourself, I would venture to guess not to many have submitted proposals to do so.

Nelson, how many retirees had most of their nest eggs wiped out in the financial crisis of 2008? Earned savings gone in a few days. Retirees receiving benefits from a db plan lost zero, goose egg, nada. You act as if the casino of Wall St. is a safe investment and you are Warren Buffett. The average worker who has a dc, 401k plan has $77,000 in their account. Is that enough for a person to retire on?

Going to one schedule in the IAMNPF was mandated by the PPA of 2006. I could more realistically argue that going forward the schedules could increase because the plan is doing so well.

u dont have to admit that they stole our future benefits just like you dont have to admit that the plan is funded by twice slashing future benefitsschedules in the last ten years. Of course it is 100% funded and i have no doubt that you and roach will continue to say its "guarantees". Your math was the same math roach used back in 2003. Lmao.
Btw there were proposals from our members who have continually suggested that it is better to have an iam pension, and matching 401and social security. We are stuck with this iam pension but it remains to be seen if theiam 141 would listen to getting 401k matching funds as opposed to getting a higher contribution for the shifting iampf. regards?

 

[freedom]

I've been doing some thinking lately about the IAM pension ... it might not be so bad after all ..as long as we don't increase our funding ... From what i gather the pension money is lumped into some sort of giant pot where all the different unions such as the mechanics and other skilled crafts dump in their money ...

I'm not sure what the numbers are , but it's possible that the majority of contributors to the pension make more than we baggage handlers do and thus their rate of contribution to the plan is higher ...

According to what i read about the PGBC , it appears that those who get larger payouts take greater haircuts , sparing those closer to the bottom who end up taking lesser haircuts....

As long as we aren't dumping in a ton of money , and aren't getting super large payouts either , in the event the fund collapses , we would be hurt far less than others who are dumping in far greater amounts of money ...so in the end our return on investment might actually end up being cushioned by the higher paid work groups .... maybe ... just a thought .

 

[mike33]

I've been doing some thinking lately about the IAM pension ... it might not be so bad after all ..as long as we don't increase our funding ... From what i gather the pension money is lumped into some sort of giant pot where all the different unions such as the mechanics and other skilled crafts dump in their money ...

I'm not sure what the numbers are , but it's possible that the majority of contributors to the pension make more than we baggage handlers do and thus their rate of contribution to the plan is higher ...

According to what i read about the PGBC , it appears that those who get larger payouts take greater haircuts , sparing those closer to the bottom who end up taking lesser haircuts....

As long as we aren't dumping in a ton of money , and aren't getting super large payouts either , in the event the fund collapses , we would be hurt far less than others who are dumping in far greater amounts of money ...so in the end our return on investment might actually end up being cushioned by the higher paid work groups .... maybe ... just a thought .

Figures you would think like that.....take ...take...take...even if it doesnt belong to you.....

BTW......you are not exactly correct in your thinking........

 

[freedom]

Figures you would think like that.....take ...take...take...even if it doesnt belong to you.....

BTW......you are not exactly correct in your thinking........

it's pragmatic thinking .... you should remember that in my mind this pension plan is doomed ..because we are "forced to share" our retirements , I might as well ensure that I come out ahead of this game ... Besides , what's there to worry about , what I speak of will only happen if the plan fails ... and as has been said MANY times , this plan is fully funded past 100% and our pensions are "guaranteed"