Aircraft maint issues

[WeAAsles]

Dam Weaasles I actually agree with you, that would be as unresponsable
as the fund managers treating themselves to bottles of wine at $1065 a pop. ....................OH CRAP I FORGOT, THEY DID THAT!

Yea I wish I had invested with this guy years ago. Today I'd be RICH RICH RICH!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

 

[WeAAsles]

"When you buy just about anything these days, it's easy to go online to price compare. You know pretty quickly whether you're getting a good price.

But 401(k)s are a different beast. Although the government requires disclosure on fees, it's not easy to tell whether you're paying too much. Millions are, but will never know it.

Of course, neither your employer nor the government will tell you how to do this, but you need to vet your plan for fee levels. You'll receive a plan disclosure statement that can open up the door. Here are some guidelines from Employee Fiduciary:"


https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2017/02/20/4-ways-to-spot-401k-rip-offs/#4df37f5769b2

 

[WeAAsles]

For those of you in this thread planning on pulling the trigger on your Social Security the second you walk out the door. Think a little harder.

"Planning for retirement income is different than traditional investing for wealth accumulation and maximizing returns. The goal of retirement income is to convert one’s savings into an income stream that lasts for life. Claiming Social Security early sets up the conditions for a permanently reduced standard of living in retirement."



https://blogs.wsj.com/experts/2015/10/23/the-new-math-of-delaying-social-security-benefits/

 

[WeAAsles]

The IAMPF is a multi company plan , there is a major difference
between it and LAA's frozen plan & you cannot lump the two together
like the TWU tried to when the formation of the ASS was announced.

Tucked into the 2014 federal spending bill were provisions that
would allow multi- employer pension plans to to reduce benefits
for future & "EXISTING" retirees. And if you look at the PPGC
website the multi- employer plans must go through a series of
benefit reductions before it can even think of declaring insolvency.

This is why we bring up the Temsters plan, one of their plans is
in this process now!

I know many of us know this but many of our co-workers do not.

Chil the way I look at it is this. There are 4 parties that are going to decide if we go into this thing or not? The IAM, TWU, AA and Us. Right now my retirement goals are already on target without the IAMPF being a new addition. As a Collective group I may not have a say on whether or not I can choose between having a higher 401k Match or not? It might not be put on my table?

So let's say as you guys would term it, I get stuck with the IAMPF. My advocacy choice then being what UAL Fleet gets which is IAMPF and a 3% Match (at least) That knocks off 2.5% of what I'm currently getting in a match. I'm not going to give up the amount currently going into my 401k account so I'm going to make up that difference with whatever raises we still have coming. And for the next few years I might continue upping my contribution too with our anticipated yearly raise. (BTW setting up a flexible cushion just in case another 2003 or BK ever rolls along that I can draw the percentage back if I have to)

The IAMPF I'm thinking of honestly as nothing more than play money. It's NOT going to be part of my Retirement living calculations. It already did cut back on future benefit payments and ABSOLUTELY could do it again. Barring any major catastrophes I don't think "IT" will cut benefits for any of us when we're already in retirement (But YES it could) But "IF" it does so what. A few less games of golf a month is all I'm going to lose from it. And it's NO WHERE NEAR going insolvent either.

Anyway when you finally get your JCBA to vote on it's up to you if you want to go nuclear ONLY because you see IAMNPF in RED on the highlight sheet? I'm personally just not going to sweat it in the overall picture of my JCBA. It's actually pretty far down on my priorities list honestly.

 

[WeAAsles]

Currently IAM Represented Mechanics have a contribution going into the IAMPF of $2.20 per hour up to 40 Hours.

$2.20 x 40 x 4 = $352.00/ $4224.00 per year.

Your BASE pay rate is $41.76 per hour not including premiums.

$41.76 x 40 x 4 = $6,681.00/ $80,172 per year.
Now you guys add in your license premiums and your average amount of anticipated OT or extra hours on to that. You all "currently" come out over $90,000 per year TOS. The $4224.00 NOT deducted from that figure BTW.

Doing the math I just see this whole IAMPF argument as more of an emotional boogeyman debate than I see it having anything to do with any reasonable financial one.

 

[Deleted member 14439]

Currently IAM Represented Mechanics have a contribution going into the IAMPF of $2.20 per hour up to 40 Hours.

$2.20 x 40 x 4 = $352.00/ $4224.00 per year.

Your BASE pay rate is $41.76 per hour not including premiums.

$41.76 x 40 x 4 = $6,681.00/ $80,172 per year.
Now you guys add in your license premiums and your average amount of anticipated OT or extra hours on to that. You all "currently" come out over $90,000 per year TOS. The $4224.00 NOT deducted from that figure BTW.

Doing the math I just see this whole IAMPF argument as more of an emotional boogeyman debate than I see it having anything to do with any reasonable financial one.

Boogeyman or not it needs to be each individuals choice as to participate in it or not. I`m digging your new avatar there Weez!

 

[toroshark]

Chil the way I look at it is this. There are 4 parties that are going to decide if we go into this thing or not? The IAM, TWU, AA and Us. Right now my retirement goals are already on target without the IAMPF being a new addition. As a Collective group I may not have a say on whether or not I can choose between having a higher 401k Match or not? It might not be put on my table?

So let's say as you guys would term it, I get stuck with the IAMPF. My advocacy choice then being what UAL Fleet gets which is IAMPF and a 3% Match (at least) That knocks off 2.5% of what I'm currently getting in a match. I'm not going to give up the amount currently going into my 401k account so I'm going to make up that difference with whatever raises we still have coming. And for the next few years I might continue upping my contribution too with our anticipated yearly raise. (BTW setting up a flexible cushion just in case another 2003 or BK ever rolls along that I can draw the percentage back if I have to)

The IAMPF I'm thinking of honestly as nothing more than play money. It's NOT going to be part of my Retirement living calculations. It already did cut back on future benefit payments and ABSOLUTELY could do it again. Barring any major catastrophes I don't think "IT" will cut benefits for any of us when we're already in retirement (But YES it could) But "IF" it does so what. A few less games of golf a month is all I'm going to lose from it. And it's NO WHERE NEAR going insolvent either.

Anyway when you finally get your JCBA to vote on it's up to you if you want to go nuclear ONLY because you see IAMNPF in RED on the highlight sheet? I'm personally just not going to sweat it in the overall picture of my JCBA. It's actually pretty far down on my priorities list honestly.

The sales pitch from a FSC to the AMT's for the IAMPF is now starting to heat up.

 

[toroshark]

Currently IAM Represented Mechanics have a contribution going into the IAMPF of $2.20 per hour up to 40 Hours.

$2.20 x 40 x 4 = $352.00/ $4224.00 per year.

Your BASE pay rate is $41.76 per hour not including premiums.

$41.76 x 40 x 4 = $6,681.00/ $80,172 per year.
Now you guys add in your license premiums and your average amount of anticipated OT or extra hours on to that. You all "currently" come out over $90,000 per year TOS. The $4224.00 NOT deducted from that figure BTW.

Doing the math I just see this whole IAMPF argument as more of an emotional boogeyman debate than I see it having anything to do with any reasonable financial one.

Why do visions of Herb Tarleck from the show WKRP come to mind?

 

[WeAAsles]

Boogeyman or not it needs to be each individuals choice as to participate in it or not. I`m digging your new avatar there Weez!

Thanks dvlhog. I've always dug yours too. USMC Spy?

I definitely prescribe to as much individual choice as possible in my contract. Can you imagine if when we did benefits enrollment all of that was already decided for us at a flat rate? I like the flexibility for choosing which benefits I think I need or want for myself.

That's also why I was completely against what seems to have now happened because Parker capitulated to the SCREAMERS yelling for Profit Sharing. The 7% line went down to 3% because of it. I think that was a bad investment on our part and even a few times I went against my own better judgement/instincts on it. Parker (gulp) was right the first time and we should have listened on that one.

I "hope" we do get the "choice" on the IAMPF but again if we don't and it's wrapped in with the entire package again it's just very low on my personal priority list. I'm more interested in other things that add to my economic value. (And flexibility for taking time off too)

 

[WeAAsles]

The sales pitch from a FSC to the AMT's for the IAMPF is now starting to heat up.

So because you have a certificate and I don't that makes you more intelligent on economic matters than me?

No sales pitch. One more time. The IAMPF is a risky investment that could potentially not make its anticipated return worth it? "Could"

Does that sound like a sales pitch to you?

 

[WeAAsles]

Why do visions of Herb Tarleck from the show WKRP come to mind?

Try to forget about my tacky jacket in your mind and dispute the math.

Focus. Dispute the math?

 

[WeAAsles]

The unknown factor in this entire conversation. Our own mortality rate.

"However, the U.S. was found to be on course for the lowest average life expectancy levels of all the rich countries worldwide. The study predicted an average age of 83.3 for women and 79.5 for men by 2030, not dissimilar to levels forecast in Mexico and Croatia. Current levels are 76.5 for men in the U.S. and 81.2 women, according to the study"

(BTW Toroshark, I see Lemmy is your avatar. Lemmy was only 70 when he croaked)


https://www.google.com/amp/www.cnbc...ojected-to-be-on-par-with-mexico-by-2030.html

 

[toroshark]

So because you have a certificate and I don't that makes you more intelligent on economic matters than me?

No sales pitch. One more time. The IAMPF is a risky investment that could potentially not make its anticipated return worth it? "Could"

Does that sound like a sales pitch to you?

Just wondering why you bother to come on the Amt thread and sell the IAMPF. Certificates and job titles dont matter, that is your fall back excuse when questioned as to why YOU care so much about what WE will be voting on. As to the math, I don't require you to teach little ole me to cipher.

 

[WeAAsles]

Just wondering why you bother to come on the Amt thread and sell the IAMPF. Certificates and job titles dont matter, that is your fall back excuse when questioned as to why YOU care so much about what WE will be voting on. As to the math, I don't require you to teach little ole me to cipher.

WHO is selling the stupid IAMPF? Who? Where? One more time I just said it's a (RISKY) investment. Would ANYONE who wanted to sell an investment tell you it was RISKY?

When we get JCBA's to vote on here on this thread (Your Tea Room) I shall not be. I will have ZERO conversation in trying to convince any of you of anything. Don't care at all what you'll be voting on, I just hope (FOR YOU GUYS) it's something you like.

And apparently you do need financial advice since you're obviously so freightened and freaking out about this thing.

 

[2ndGENAMT]

Wow, got on the Forums and saw a few more pages added to the Maintenance Issues thread and thought there may be some good discussion!
But it was just more of WeAAsles Catharsis....