LUS 401k Match
- Thread starter bikeguy
- Start date
scorpion 2
Veteran
- May 11, 2012
- 539
- 562
700UW said:
Who manages the funds assets?
The Fund's assets are managed by professional investment managers who follow the investment objectives set by the Fund's investment committee. -
So who are these folks? Acme investments maybe, located next door to Miss Saigon's massage parlor?
I see a lot of good questions and a lot of very general answers.
Just give me a 401 contribution like the FA's and stick that IAMNPF right up a dark place... At this stage of our careers the last thing any of us need is another promise of great things down the road.
Incorrect, there were Fleet Service guys on our committee. Out of 7 A&P mechanics on the committee 6 voted against the deal. A&P mechanics were outnumbered on the Committee even though they are the majority and the guy who carried the most A&P as far as roll call was not an A&P , IIRC he was a painter who had a Construction business on the side and worked at AA just for the health benefits because he had once been injured without benefits and suffered a financial hardship. Charlie Meyer the only A&P mechanic who voted in favor of the deal got to keep his Local and remain President even though all the mechanics from his Local are in 591. Unfortunately under the current TWU rules we could still end up with just as more Fleet Service Presidents sitting in on our contracts as Mechanics due to the incomplete consolidation of line M&R into 591. We could have the Fleet Service Presidents of DCA, NY, ORD, DFW and SFO sitting with the A&P Presidents from 591, 567 and 514. Mechanics could be outnumbered by guys who arent even in our contract group by two.700UW said:
Would take very little to correct this but so far the International has not elected to do so, unfortunately they even blocked the Title II guys from MCO from going into 591. Their current President was OK with it because representing those members is a hardship for the Local, but they declared that there will be no movement of members between Locals. Sad.
Noticed that most of the links say iamdelta, are you recyling used propaganda from the failed Delta campaign to convince us that the IAMNPF is a good deal?700UW said:
Bottom line , pretty much all pension funds are invested.
With a 401K you determine what level of risk you want with your money, the lower the risk the lower the return and you may not end up with enough to live off of but you can retire and work if you want to.With a 40K you have to basically put aside any hopes of deferred compensation(pie in the sky) and concentrate on earning enough in the here and now to be able to put away enough to survive in later years.
With the IAMNPF they take your money and pool it with other peoples monies. They obtain ownership of your money with a promise (pie in the sky) that they will be able to give you more in the future than you would get with the same amount of money put into a 401k but normal retirement is 65 and there is a 4.8% penalty for every year prior to that and you can not work to suppliment your retirement income. If the plan starts running short of money they can cut your benefits and if you go back to work to make up for the cut they may cut them even more. Its essentially a somewhat more secure ponzi scheme where the only guarantee you get from the PBGC should the whole thing collapse is a max payout of $13000/year.
With our current frozen plan the company is responsible for providing the benefits we earned and are vested for, if the plan runs short of money the company has to provide the funds to meet their obligations. If the company goes bankrupt our benefits are insured under the PBGC and only those who have earned over the maximum insured amount would see a cut in benefits, IIRC its around $50K/year, very few of us have anywhere near that.
Given what we have gone through I dont want any more "pie in the sky promises". I want our Union to demand that our AA pension be fully funded, especially since AA is extremely profitable. I want those funds locked in. I do not want my money going to the IAMNPF, for the 12 years I have before age 65 I would rather concentrate of squeezing AA for as much as I can and for each hour I work, each hour over 40, make them put additional funds into my 401K instead of giving the IAMNPF a lesser sum and having them make me a promise that I dont believe they will live up to either. I uneqivically DO NOT WANT MY AA PENSION ROLLED INTO THE IAMNPF as that will simply make us more tied to a promise that will likely be broken and will move what we have earned under AA to a less secure place in the IAMNPF and we would lose the ability to retire at 60 without reduction and would lose the ability to retire at 55 and work somewhere else while collecfting our AA pension with just a 15% reduction (48% reduction under IAMNPF, 100% if you go back to work)
So truth be told, the picture becomes quite clearer. We know that prior to 2009 the IAMNPF was teetering on falling to a less favorable status amongst pension funds. Maybe the question needs to be, "Who really benefitted from the influx of new US Air members to the IAMNPF?" I believe a T/A presented in 2008 while the employees were still reeling from BK was a shameful opportunity by the IAM to slip it in when odds were favorable for that CBA to be agreed to. Would the membership be educated as to what the fund really had to offer and was there any ability to pull that one issue off the table had enough employees disagreed? Apparently not.700UW said:
No doubt many Funds were challenged by market downturns over time yet I suspect there are many similarities to shenanigans played at other Pension Funds such as the Teamsters Pension whereby leadership has a hard time keeping their mitts out of the till.
The TWBoo here at AA has already tried to market this Alliance BS with the promise that we also will obtain immediate vested status with the IAMNPF and will be included. Although there is no interest for it, you have to ask how wise it would be to again try to inject a large workforce on the mechanic side that already is making preparations for retirement. This short sided strategy by the Fund administrators will undoubtedly lead to further future benefit reductions to keep it sustainable.
Just to make it clear, LAA F/A's get their 401K contributions determined by age. Under 40 = 5.5%. 40-49 = 6.9%. 50 and over is 9.9%. These are contributions and no match required. These are also only for F/A's hired before the bankruptcy. The new hires get what is going to be the new plan going forward and what the LUS F/A's are getting. As far as I know, LUS gets a 3% contribution plus the 2.5% match. The LAA program does sunset. I think there is 3 years left. The disparity between the 2 F/A groups is because of the JCBA process. We got some things, LUS got others.
scorpion 2
Veteran
- May 11, 2012
- 539
- 562
The bottom line question is; who's getting paid to manage the fund? If our AA pension trust were to roll over into the IAMNPF we will start picking up the tab for the management costs of the plan. Its a guaranteed windfall for the managers but not for us! Even if we vote not to allow our trust to roll over into the IAM plan the money we would put into the plan will be skimmed to run the plan. We are being targeted by greedy vultures looking for a free meal and trying to prey on the vulnerability of the situation. If this alliance goes thru we are going to have a real battle on our hands.Bob Owens said:
scorpion 2
Veteran
- May 11, 2012
- 539
- 562
Isnt the average age around 54 for AMT's at LAA? It is in Tulsa from what I remember.IORFA said:
Similar threads
