WSJ on SWA/AT Merger

[PCL_128]

I have a question. Are B funds or defined contribution funds, distributed to employee accounts and untouchable (like 401K's) in BK proceedings or are they considered "company assets."

They're untouchable. Each employee has an account setup in his own name, and he owns the assets contained in the account (provided that he's reached the vesting time, typically 3-5 years).

I like the opportunities presented through our 401k program and how much flexibility it allows one to manipulate and invest your own money. SWAPA's 401K was recently ranked number 1 in the 30 best large plans as ranked by Brightscope.

Agreed. The SWA plan is excellent. The company just isn't contributing enough, and you shouldn't have to contribute anything to get a base number of around 13-15%.

 

[PCL_128]

How did that workout for the bankruptcy guys in the last 10-12 year? PBGC? They got basically nothing.

You're still not paying attention. B-Funds can not be taken in bankruptcy, and have nothing to do with the PBGC. It's your money. The company is just required to make a contribution even if you don't, and their contributions are not limited by the 401k contribution limits.

 

[PCL_128]

I'd love for you to tell the IRS that it's irrelevant.

I don't need to, because the IRS knows better than you and calls it a pension. Because ERISA calls it a pension.

 

[HRDiva]

True! Which is another benefit of B-Funds, which have a much higher max contribution limit. I haven't looked at the numbers in a few years, but I believe it was a total (both company and employee) of $49k at the time.

It's $51,000 in 2013

 

[waveflyer]

PCL--agree 100% I'd much rather see retirement improvements than a rate increase-
For me, that and reserve improvements are my issues this contract

 

[HowardBorden]

PCL--agree 100% I'd much rather see retirement improvements than a rate increase-
For me, that and reserve improvements are my issues this contract

We need all three of the R's in my opinion. Rates, Reserve and Retirement.

 

[zymotic]

Ironically, I think SWAPA actually produced such a report (by copying DALPA's, but still). ALPA has a full summary in PDF in the Economics Library, but it's not available publicly, so I can't link to it.

Here's just a quick summary of the highlights so I don't have to type out the whole thing:

United: 16% B & C Fund
Delta: 15% B-Fund (sorry, I was off by a % in the earlier post)
Hawaiian: 15% B-Fund for all newhires (up to 19.4% for pilots hired pre-2005)
Alaska: 13.5% B-Fund
AMR: 14% (match only, thanks to the bankruptcy)
USAirways: 10% B-Fund now, same as AMR when merged
SWA: 9.3% (match only)

For what it's worth, the day the "New American" merges we will get a 14% defined contribution and the first of 2014 16%. I don't know if the AA guys are currently working off a match or defined contribution. However, after merger date (coming this quarter) it's not a match.

 

[jonjuan]

They're untouchable.

Until they're not.....it all may be a mute point

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324050304578412932073225110.html

REVIEW & OUTLOOK Updated April 12, 2013, 12:13 p.m. ET
Now He's After Your 401(k)
The White House pulls a switcheroo on retirement savings accounts.

The White House explanation is that some people have accumulated "substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving." So Mr. Obama proposes to "limit an individual's total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013."

The Occupy Wall Street crowd (Wave, PCL)will be cheering this ideological assault, but the occupiers who mature into productive citizens will someday find themselves in the cross-hairs.

The Administration's political motive here is two-fold: First, it's a redistributionist play and a revenue grab. But for many on the left it's also about reducing the ability of individuals to make themselves independent of the state. They have always disliked IRAs, just as they oppose health-savings accounts, because over time they make Americans less dependent on federal entitlements or transfer payments.

 

[PCL_128]

PCL--agree 100% I'd much rather see retirement improvements than a rate increase-
For me, that and reserve improvements are my issues this contract

If I were sticking around for the polling, those would be my top priorities, as well. The SWAPA CBA has a lot going for it in rates of pay, benefits, and line holder work rules. The deficiencies are in retirement, and definitely in reserve work rules. I'd probably put the latter as the highest priority, in fact. People are going to be spending years and years on reserve now, so the idea that there isn't even a preference for call first or last, aggressive pickup, a bucket list viewable online, etc., is really not a good thing. When reserve was a few months or a year, that could work, because at least they were giving you 15 days off, but I can't imagine living with those rules for years at a time. Especially if you're upgrading in your 50s.

 

[PCL_128]

Until they're not.....it all may be a mute point

The only thing they're talking about is taxing the contributions, not taking the money. Nice try.