Airline Pilot Forums

Tighten your seatbelts......this is gonna be a rough ride

FedEx faces potential loss of U.S. Postal Service business, company warns » The Commercial Appeal (http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/jul/16/fedex-faces-potential-loss-us-postal-service-busin/?CID=happeningnow)

Well, there goes all the day-flying...

....and the hiring

....and the hiring
Hope not. They've known about this for sometime (these annual reports aren't written last minute) and they still continue to hire. So my guess is they don't really expect to lose the contract, but they still have to report this kind of stuff in their SEC filings.

Or I could be way off and hiring will stop for years. I just try to be optimistic.

....They've known about this for sometime....

...actually since 2006! ;):)

UPS will bid aggressively for this...

So my guess is they don't really expect to lose the contract, but they still have to report this kind of stuff in their SEC filings.

That's what those of us who flew it prior to FedEx thought also. Then again, it wasn't even up for bid when it went purple.

UPS will bid aggressively for this...

Yeah, but they won't be able to get the job done. They may "aggressively bid" it, and the USPS may even award them the contract, but the USPS will be disappointed in the product and service :)

The sky is not falling...yet. Read the full article. Or just read the quote below...

"The loss of that business would be a significant interruption, but I think there's a relatively low likelihood they would lose it," said Donald Broughton, analyst with Avondale Partners LLC.

Putting services out for competitive bidding, "That's standard procedure in a government contract. It's part of the regulatory process that they have to disclose it as a risk factor."

This guy is probably almost as qualified as a bunch of pilots to analyze FedEx.

Yeah, but they won't be able to get the job done. They may "aggressively bid" it, and the USPS may even award them the contract, but the USPS will be disappointed in the product and service :)

This might be the most ridiculous quote I have heard in a long time.

This might be the most ridiculous quote I have heard in a long time.

I agree...you would think that purple is the only one's who can carry the mail ontime.....

I agree...you would think that purple is the only one's who can carry the mail ontime.....

It simple, really:

If you want your product "Synchronized", use UPS.

If you want your product "On Time", use FDX.

:rolleyes:

Due to the USPS being faced with the financially unsustainable model it currently operates under, this contract will be far less lucrative than it has in the past.

A contract is definitely better than NO contract, but a contract that pays out a fraction of what it used to has a trickle down effect on cost versus return for whichever company gets the award.

I am sure if the purple dinosaurs don't want it there are plenty of other "cargo" carriers willing to move the mail....

Sorry all you brownies but you know damn well UPS won't bid it cause it does not have enough profit margin. As for "purple dinosaurs".....While I wish my friends back at brown nothing but the best.....the purple coolaid is better in all aspects. Both still great jobs but for junior guys (and senior alike I'm sure) purple is better and guys don't complain (which trust me, after the s#!* sandwich brown fed us with the furlough, I get it and get it personally).
What say we all just get along and raise the bar in contract talks, those "snooty pax guys" are getting close to our rates again. We generate way more revenue and profit then any pax carriers and should compensated relative to that!

Sorry all you brownies but you know damn well UPS won't bid it cause it does not have enough profit margin. As for "purple dinosaurs".....While I wish my friends back at brown nothing but the best.....the purple coolaid is better in all aspects. Both still great jobs but for junior guys (and senior alike I'm sure) purple is better and guys don't complain (which trust me, after the s#!* sandwich brown fed us with the furlough, I get it and get it personally).
What say we all just get along and raise the bar in contract talks, those "snooty pax guys" are getting close to our rates again. We generate way more revenue and profit then any pax carriers and should compensated relative to that!

I am a ups'er, we would screw it away! Typical mismanagement would find any excuse or lie to explain missed service:eek:

Just curious, how many FQS will UPS have to hire if they get the contract? :eek:

Sorry all you brownies but you know damn well UPS won't bid it cause it does not have enough profit margin

Then I guess management was lying to us when the Prez of the airline said that they were actively bidding on the USPS contract. We currently fly USPS packages and mail on select routes in our system anyhow (see ONT-HNL), so I don't think it's a stretch that we're bidding on even more of their business.

If the FDX Corp - USPS contract goes to another bidder, you can be assured the carnage on Hacks Cross will be greater than that on Democrat. You don't let a $7 Billion dollar contract with penalties [to the USPS] slip away without having done your due diligence. I would also suspect we might see a completely new definition of ‘just culture’, and a major house cleaning on Democrat if this contract is lost.

The fact is, the USPS likes FDX Corp and FedEx Express because we carry our sh!t. We don’t out-source our flying. FedEx Express has control of all our crews and our own jets. Except for FDX and possibly UPS, there’s nobody else domestically capable of moving the product. Emory is gone, DHL is gone, and Atlas, Polar, Kalitta … lack the infrastructure and lift to make it happen. I’m not even sure UPS could make an immediate surge domestically to move the amount of overnight express product FedEx Express moves for the USPS. FDX holds the advantage simply due to the fact our model opts to NOT out-source, where UPS management has attempted to downsize their airline and move to out-sourcing. When FDX Corp signed the initial contract, manning and lift were both available to immediately surge to the extra daily flights, lift, and sort. System reliability in the time sensitive environment is key to the success of this contract. FDX Corp has it, and FDX has demonstrated it.

If the FDX Corp - USPS contract goes to another bidder, you can be assured the carnage on Hacks Cross will be greater than that on Democrat. You don't let a $7 Billion dollar contract with penalties [to the USPS] slip away without having done your due diligence. I would also suspect we might see a completely new definition of ‘just culture’, and a major house cleaning on Democrat if this contract is lost.

The fact is, the USPS likes FDX Corp and FedEx Express because we carry our sh!t. We don’t out-source our flying. FedEx Express has control of all our crews and our own jets. Except for FDX and possibly UPS, there’s nobody else domestically capable of moving the product. Emory is gone, DHL is gone, and Atlas, Polar, Kalitta … lack the infrastructure and lift to make it happen. I’m not even sure UPS could make an immediate surge domestically to move the amount of overnight express product FedEx Express moves for the USPS. FDX holds the advantage simply due to the fact our model opts to NOT out-source, where UPS management has attempted to downsize their airline and move to out-sourcing. When FDX Corp signed the initial contract, manning and lift were both available to immediately surge to the extra daily flights, lift, and sort. System reliability in the time sensitive environment is key to the success of this contract. FDX Corp has it, and FDX has demonstrated it.

How do you purple guys know what UPS is capable of doing? I work here and even I don't know what they could do in a short amount of time. Don't forget - we have a mature trucking route system. Not all of the mail has to go on an airplane. If I were you guys, when Fred figures out how to fully utilize the trucking network, things will be a-changin' for you guys.

I'm hoping that things don't change all that much for you guys, because I don't think your 4a2b clause would fix the loss of flying. Good luck...

This might be the most ridiculous quote I have heard in a long time.

Not necessarily....they can and do step over dollars to pick up dimes.

That being said, I expect a lot of spittle and frothing from our Purple brethren any moment now. :D

Sponge bob what are you doing in a fdx thread. I thought you didnt stray. Can you imagine a ups guy talking about 4a2b?

Want to see spittle, wait till the UPS guys find out that Freddie is going to cut the healthcare for its non union employees and pawn it off on Uncle Barack. I can hear the wailing of unfair advantage now. That is why I think we will keep the postal contract we can pass a lot of fixed non union labor costs off on Uncle Sam. ;)

Sponge bob what are you doing in a fdx thread. I thought you didnt stray. Can you imagine a ups guy talking about 4a2b?

Want to see spittle, wait till the UPS guys find out that Freddie is going to cut the healthcare for its non union employees and pawn it off on Uncle Barack. I can hear the wailing of unfair advantage now. That is why I think we will keep the postal contract we can pass a lot of fixed non union labor costs off on Uncle Sam. ;)

Barney...I knew you'd be right there. I never said I didn't "stray"...bear in mind my only comment about "straying" (actually my phrase was "crashing") was that it was about time you crashed one of the UPS threads, which you did. I'm not so toddler-like to assume that this board is proprietary. But given reading comprehension...indeed intelligence are but one of your likely several short suits, I have to make allowances. ;) Given this website was started by a UPS guy, it may well be you are off the reservation altogether, but I'm all about free speech and liberty, so let's not get you in another stutter-fest, losing your limited mind.

I'm more in agreement with Shaggy that UPS will blow any bid on the contract. They don't want the airline ANY larger than it is...even if it would make them boat loads of cash. The margins simply don't attract a company that always assumes the end of the world is next week like UPS does. While they are all kinds of stupid in many aspects of running an airline (compared to Fed Ex in particular...hat tip to Fred), they are masters at making and managing money and assets. The history of the company (over 100 years of sustained profitability) speaks volumes, and Fred is a piker in comparison all things considered. I view UPS as a job...a vehicle to my success. I characterize this as: "The best job I've ever had working for the worst people I ever have." You seem to view your job as a religion, and defend it with a jihadist fervor that is as toddler-like as it is stupid.

Everybody needs a hobby, son. On your way now, you've got a boss to service. ;)

Wow talk about rants all that I did was give a logical explanation as to why Fdx would keep the lion's share of the USPS contract (in a fdx thread mind you) and you go into some Castroesque screed about world history.

But as to your request, yes dear, I wont predict brown spittle if you dont predict purple spittle.

And you think UPS is the only company to do that? We've done that for years now...try another gloom and doom prophecy...

What happens, happens. I agree that we have more than demonstated our reliability. Whether that is what the postal service wants, or we are in a new world of cost cutting no matter what...we'll see.

You guys are a trucking company that has airplanes, and we are an airplane company recently expanding into more trucks - and we are buying more planes - more efficient, cost effective planes. And our trucking side has been doing well...year over year very well.

Everyone at Fedex is worried about the major announcements in October of reorg of our system. I'm not. It has been in play for months.

More efficient isn't a bad thing, as long as our MEC, weak as it is, doesn't role over and give away everything for a penny when pressed. (We tend to fold easily here, just my observations over the past 20 years)

The reorg has all but played out in flight management:

Huge amounts of flexs..(low paid instructors - save money)
Fleet captains - 1 manager doing the work of 5 (save money)
Non line holding managment flight ops administrators...(1/3 the cost of an ACP)
New training programs - do the bare minimum in the school house - remember the nice to know, have to know speech? It is more like, bare minimum to know. SAVE MONEY)
Get rid of less efficient gas guzzlers... (save money)
Optimize, Optimize (two legs in, more efficient scheduling...provided the cargo carve out remains in place...SAVE MONEY)

But, the crown jewel of management - Convince the pilots and our negotiating committee to sell out our pension for pennies on the dollar, convert it over to a B plan. They will sell it to us that it is better - we need to do this now, or we could loose it entirely - THE SKY IS FALLING. Or maybe we sell out the new hires, give them a "new portable pension", like the rest of the employees at Fedex. History has always shown that guys on the list have had no problem selling out the junior guys, or guys not even on property yet. (Guy being gender nuetral of course) I think our Chairman, former R and I guy, an investment guy on his many days off, is already sold on it - based upon some of his comments.

I could do okay with a 17% B fund now, provided I was given 50k for every year I've been on the property to seed the fund with, and that still wouldn't get close to our A plan, with the current crummy rates of return.

OOPS thread creep...back to the topic...

That overweight woman hasn't yet sang her song on the postal contract...

Wow talk about rants all that I did was give a logical explanation as to why Fdx would keep the lion's share of the USPS contract (in a fdx thread mind you) and you go into some Castroesque screed about world history.

But as to your request, yes dear, I wont predict brown spittle if you dont predict purple spittle.

World history Barney? Really? If that's all you've got, you have far bigger problems than me.

The irony is I'm agreeing with you, and your labia still hurts.

And you think UPS is the only company to do that? We've done that for years now...try another gloom and doom prophecy...

What happens, happens. I agree that we have more than demonstated our reliability. Whether that is what the postal service wants, or we are in a new world of cost cutting no matter what...we'll see.

You guys are a trucking company that has airplanes, and we are an airplane company recently expanding into more trucks - and we are buying more planes - more efficient, cost effective planes. And our trucking side has been doing well...year over year very well.

Everyone at Fedex is worried about the major announcements in October of reorg of our system. I'm not. It has been in play for months.

More efficient isn't a bad thing, as long as our MEC, weak as it is, doesn't role over and give away everything for a penny when pressed. (We tend to fold easily here, just my observations over the past 20 years)

The reorg has all but played out in flight management:

Huge amounts of flexs..(low paid instructors - save money)
Fleet captains - 1 manager doing the work of 5 (save money)
Non line holding managment flight ops administrators...(1/3 the cost of an ACP)
New training programs - do the bare minimum in the school house - remember the nice to know, have to know speech? It is more like, bare minimum to know. SAVE MONEY)
Get rid of less efficient gas guzzlers... (save money)
Optimize, Optimize (two legs in, more efficient scheduling...provided the cargo carve out remains in place...SAVE MONEY)

But, the crown jewel of management - Convince the pilots and our negotiating committee to sell out our pension for pennies on the dollar, convert it over to a B plan. They will sell it to us that it is better - we need to do this now, or we could loose it entirely - THE SKY IS FALLING. Or maybe we sell out the new hires, give them a "new portable pension", like the rest of the employees at Fedex. History has always shown that guys on the list have had no problem selling out the junior guys, or guys not even on property yet. (Guy being gender nuetral of course) I think our Chairman, former R and I guy, an investment guy on his many days off, is already sold on it - based upon some of his comments.

I could do okay with a 17% B fund now, provided I was given 50k for every year I've been on the property to seed the fund with, and that still wouldn't get close to our A plan, with the current crummy rates of return.

OOPS thread creep...back to the topic...

That overweight woman hasn't yet sang her song on the postal contract...

Easy there chief...man you guys are sensitive. Barney is over the top, but it seems to be spreading.

I think you guys will keep the contract, the government is just trying to chisel some cash...you are one of those eeeeevil corporations I keep hearing about in the lamestream media afterall. ;)

No worries, just wanted to rant...it does a body good every once in a while...and nothing personal...just ranting.

But are senior management can be pretty evil(not to mention a few at our own association - I understand why ALPA was decerted here once before...)

Easy there chief...man you guys are sensitive. Barney is over the top, but it seems to be spreading.

I think you guys will keep the contract, the government is just trying to chisel some cash...you are one of those eeeeevil corporations I keep hearing about in the lamestream media afterall. ;)

What happens, happens. I agree that we have more than demonstated our reliability. Whether that is what the postal service wants, or we are in a new world of cost cutting no matter what...we'll see.

Just a FYI, reliability and on time performance did stop the USPS from switching companies last time.

World history Barney? Really? If that's all you've got, you have far bigger problems than me.

The irony is I'm agreeing with you, and your labia still hurts.

Certainly dear. Your opinion of ups is much more realistic and manly than my opinion of FDX. Thanks for coming on and sharing.

Sponge, not quite sure what I said to set off your tantrum this time, could you quote it for me?

LAG you used to be a little entertaining now in this thread and the last UPS one you are just annoying.

No worries, just wanted to rant...it does a body good every once in a while...and nothing personal...just ranting.

But are senior management can be pretty evil(not to mention a few at our own association - I understand why ALPA was decerted here once before...)

Since you probably were not here when ALPA was decertified the first time, who do you think ALPA 1, FPA and ALPA 2 are?

I'll give you a hint... Look at the Master Seniority List. That's who
ALPA 1, FPA and ALPA 2 are. Changing the name on the door doesn't change the List.

LAG you used to be a little entertaining now in this thread and the last UPS one you are just annoying.

I try to be entertaining till the guy b!tching about FDX pilots whining starts whining and attacking. If you will notice in either thread I did not start the name calling. It is the usual case of if you dont like the message attack the messenger. A good display of cartoon bob character is on display in the UPS QOL thread. Notice how soon he goes into his typical little girl rant.

I disagree. Our list has changed.

The type of people on the list has changed. Less military, more civilian. More diverse, from all sorts of different background.

Those in leadership at the union have changed, less trade unionists and more "business approach" types, managers not leaders...(but they look good in their suits with their Botox injections.)

Company is doing major direct dealing now and ALPA isn't saying a word. 4 people fired in HK domicile - members choosing private attornies over ALPA - no faith in their representation.

The list has changed, we have changed, and not sure I like what I see. The latest from PC has me worried...talks about the decline in priority freight requires better organizational conversations...sounds like they are going to tell us why we need to accept less soon...

I would like to see ALPA proactive instead of reactive. What I see now looks more like FPA except the guys in the suits at kirby and poplar are getting paid more and there are more of them...(and the results they get aren't good...cargo carve out is one of many examples of our lack of influence in the national scheme where we are the largest dues paying member per person by far.)

Since you probably were not here when ALPA was decertified the first time, who do you think ALPA 1, FPA and ALPA 2 are?

I'll give you a hint... Look at the Master Seniority List. That's who
ALPA 1, FPA and ALPA 2 are. Changing the name on the door doesn't change the List.

I disagree. Our list has changed.



Those in leadership at the union have changed, less trade unionists and more "business approach" types, managers not leaders...(but they look good in their suits with their Botox injections.)


Now there is a scandal, who is getting botox ? and is it being expense d on their ALPA slush fund accounts!!! Inquiring minds need to know

Now there is a scandal, who is getting botox ? and is it being expense d on their ALPA slush fund accounts!!! Inquiring minds need to know

Durng his last visit to HK, before he ran out after his very short brief, a lot of the HK wives commented on SS's forehead and scalp, as he had something going on with it cosmetically...let alone the manicures and the Gordon gecko style suits and ties (that style must be in somewhere)...he is a bigger clothes and salon horse than most women...just saying - not meaning to insult horses though.

Oh, and let's not forget his perm...

I'm sure with the extra pay over-ride he gets that the ALPA slush fund isn't needed to pay for it...but that is a good rumor and conspiracy theory to promulgate.

C'mon man. This is not about UPS vs. FDX fighting for the contract, or what union leader does what with his hair. Anybody ever heard the term "preparing the battlefield"? The FDX spokesman quoted in the story no doubt treated the Commercial Appeal reporter to lunch at a fancy restaurant, and supplied them the entire story (complete with a carefully scripted headline, no doubt). Probably gave them the phone number of their UPS counterpart as well.

It's exactly the way I would be preparing the PR battlefield if I were about to enter CBA negotiations, unable to ignore large numbers of impending retirements (driving needed hiring), but yet wanted to reduce expectations in the 4500+ pilots' minds. "Hey we might get the postal contract, again, but for a lot less money this time. And a majority of the Nine Supremes say that Obamacare is da law. So to make ends meet pilots, what do you want to give up first....Optimizer scheduling for PBS scheduling, your sweet vacation, no-penalty age 60 retirement, or your company-paid health care?":rolleyes:

Completely agree about setting the field with doom and gloom. Going to be asking for some give backs...Don't care about Botox but I could use a little less financial market analysis from pilots.

C'mon man. This is not about UPS vs. FDX fighting for the contract, or what union leader does what with his hair. Anybody ever heard the term "preparing the battlefield"? The FDX spokesman quoted in the story no doubt treated the Commercial Appeal reporter to lunch at a fancy restaurant, and supplied them the entire story (complete with a carefully scripted headline, no doubt). Probably gave them the phone number of their UPS counterpart as well.

It's exactly the way I would be preparing the PR battlefield if I were about to enter CBA negotiations, unable to ignore large numbers of impending retirements (driving needed hiring), but yet wanted to reduce expectations in the 4500+ pilots' minds. "Hey we might get the postal contract, again, but for a lot less money this time. And a majority of the Nine Supremes say that Obamacare is da law. So to make ends meet pilots, what do you want to give up first....Optimizer scheduling for PBS scheduling, your sweet vacation, no-penalty age 60 retirement, or your company-paid health care?":rolleyes:

But agree with your post, and I am very tired of the MEC Chair flying to HK to spend 30 minutes on Capitol hill issues about 401K's that will effect less than 2% of our pilots, and less than 10 minutes on the issues concerning our 4 fired pilots. Less management and more leadership, and much better communication.

Management is prepping the battle field, and we need to talk about the fact we are still pouring money into huge airplane orders, writing off some big losses, and still turning a profit, despite the poor economy.

Maybe Fedex will lose the USPS contract to another company that gets the contract in a closed door deal where Fedex will be unable to competitively bid on it?

Oh wait, this already happened 10-11 years ago and it was Fedex that wrested away the postal contract in a closed door deal from a number of different companies that subsequently went belly up and thousands lost their jobs.

Somehow if purple loses the contract I don't think that anyone will lose their job, if anything they will have to hire people to remove the Fedex drop boxes from the front of thousands of post offices!

Maybe Fedex will lose the USPS contract to another company that gets the contract in a closed door deal where Fedex will be unable to competitively bid on it?

Oh wait, this already happened 10-11 years ago and it was Fedex that wrested away the postal contract in a closed door deal from a number of different companies that subsequently went belly up and thousands lost their jobs.

Somehow if purple loses the contract I don't think that anyone will lose their job, if anything they will have to hire people to remove the Fedex drop boxes from the front of thousands of post offices!

If the number of different companies had been providing Good Service to the USPS, the opportunity would have never presented itself to FDX....the mindset of Good Enough for the Govt only works when YOU actually ARE the Govt.

And, back then-UPS had the mindset that the post office was "the competition", why would we want to help YOU expand your package service.

As to the story managing expectations....that's more about managing investor expectations that contract negotiations. If it was about our contract, then I'd expect mgt to be pushing to get a new contract up for vote well prior to the USPS contract results (And, I'd expect my union to be in slow down, where's the fire Fred). My expectation is that we'll be voting on a new contract summer 2014, well after the results are known.

The service we've been providing to the post office has been profitable on both sides. But, certainly have to be aware the post office is in dire straights financially. Just think of how email and online shopping have exploded over the past 5-10 years. Like it or not for the post office, first class mail is declining and I can't see that trend reversing itself

Maybe Fedex will lose the USPS contract to another company that gets the contract in a closed door deal where Fedex will be unable to competitively bid on it?

Oh wait, this already happened 10-11 years ago and it was Fedex that wrested away the postal contract in a closed door deal from a number of different companies that subsequently went belly up and thousands lost their jobs.

Somehow if purple loses the contract I don't think that anyone will lose their job, if anything they will have to hire people to remove the Fedex drop boxes from the front of thousands of post offices!

Bitter?
What a douche bag.

There ain't a f'in thing that anyone on this board can do about what any of these companies do and I'm not so sure we should be taking this to such a personal level. Unless, of course the 12 angry men are actually the BOD in disguise.

Oh well, carry on.

And you think UPS is the only company to do that? We've done that for years now...try another gloom and doom prophecy...

What happens, happens. I agree that we have more than demonstated our reliability. Whether that is what the postal service wants, or we are in a new world of cost cutting no matter what...we'll see.

You guys are a trucking company that has airplanes, and we are an airplane company recently expanding into more trucks - and we are buying more planes - more efficient, cost effective planes. And our trucking side has been doing well...year over year very well.

Everyone at Fedex is worried about the major announcements in October of reorg of our system. I'm not. It has been in play for months.

More efficient isn't a bad thing, as long as our MEC, weak as it is, doesn't role over and give away everything for a penny when pressed. (We tend to fold easily here, just my observations over the past 20 years)

The reorg has all but played out in flight management:

Huge amounts of flexs..(low paid instructors - save money)
Fleet captains - 1 manager doing the work of 5 (save money)
Non line holding managment flight ops administrators...(1/3 the cost of an ACP)
New training programs - do the bare minimum in the school house - remember the nice to know, have to know speech? It is more like, bare minimum to know. SAVE MONEY)
Get rid of less efficient gas guzzlers... (save money)
Optimize, Optimize (two legs in, more efficient scheduling...provided the cargo carve out remains in place...SAVE MONEY)

But, the crown jewel of management - Convince the pilots and our negotiating committee to sell out our pension for pennies on the dollar, convert it over to a B plan. They will sell it to us that it is better - we need to do this now, or we could loose it entirely - THE SKY IS FALLING. Or maybe we sell out the new hires, give them a "new portable pension", like the rest of the employees at Fedex. History has always shown that guys on the list have had no problem selling out the junior guys, or guys not even on property yet. (Guy being gender nuetral of course) I think our Chairman, former R and I guy, an investment guy on his many days off, is already sold on it - based upon some of his comments.

I could do okay with a 17% B fund now, provided I was given 50k for every year I've been on the property to seed the fund with, and that still wouldn't get close to our A plan, with the current crummy rates of return.

OOPS thread creep...back to the topic...

That overweight woman hasn't yet sang her song on the postal contract...
Any talk of giving away the defined benefit plan needs to cease. Lets say you got hired at 35 & have been here 20 years & got 50k per year you'd have $1M.

An immediate annuity at age 55 with would yield $55k per year. Not bad, but likely less than your A fund if you retire as a WB CAP with over 20 years.

So unless fred is willing to provide much more than that, no one should even consider it.

Especially when FDX is in compliance with funding as required by ERISA laws.

If the number of different companies had been providing Good Service to the USPS, the opportunity would have never presented itself to FDX....the mindset of Good Enough for the Govt only works when YOU actually ARE the Govt.

Got anything to back that up or is it just a WAG on your part?

Any talk of giving away the defined benefit plan needs to cease. Lets say you got hired at 35 & have been here 20 years & got 50k per year you'd have $1M.

An immediate annuity at age 55 with would yield $55k per year. Not bad, but likely less than your A fund if you retire as a WB CAP with over 20 years.

So unless fred is willing to provide much more than that, no one should even consider it.

Especially when FDX is in compliance with funding as required by ERISA laws.

Don't worry about it. See below:

This may come as a shock, but your future is influenced mostly by factors outside your company and outside your union...

:rolleyes:

Got anything to back that up or is it just a WAG on your part?

I don't know about Kronan, but as someone who flew mail at the so called "Eagle Hub" in Indy before coming to FDX, I can say that the Emory/Express One/KittyHawk/etc conglomeration that used to handle the mail is no comparison to FDX in reliability or network size and coverage. The only company that could conceivably compete with FDX is Big Brown, if they so choose. Even there, it would take quite a bit of work and capital expenditures (planes, training, etc.) to start up Postal service at UPS

Any talk of giving away the defined benefit plan needs to cease. Lets say you got hired at 35 & have been here 20 years & got 50k per year you'd have $1M.

An immediate annuity at age 55 with would yield $55k per year. Not bad, but likely less than your A fund if you retire as a WB CAP with over 20 years.

So unless fred is willing to provide much more than that, no one should even consider it.

Especially when FDX is in compliance with funding as required by ERISA laws.

Because an immediate annuity is the only possible investment plan (not) if you were given a lump sum payment based on ERISA funding calculations for "your" money in the plan right now AND you have to have the $130K each year AND spend it all... Maybe that sounds as safe as can be to you, but I'd happily take "my" money today with a plus up in the B Fund (say 13%) and a 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 match on 401K contributions. When I walk out the door, I don't want my retirement to be in any way dependent upon the financial health of FedEx. Since over 80% of Fortune 500 companies have terminated their Defined Benefit plans, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the writing's on the wall.

But if it works for you, stay with it. I would prefer the option to cut and run and given the chance to vote that way, I will.

But if it works for you, stay with it. I would prefer the option to cut and run and given the chance to vote that way, I will.

Personally, I would consider a lump sum with the idea that divorcing myself from FDX might save my retirement if things went south. But - if I took my lump sum and placed it with an insurance company then I'm married to that company's solvency. I think FDX is extremely well run so I believe the odds of it failing and taking my retirement with it are slim. Either way, it would be a business decision based on the numbers, not emotion or philosophy.

Personally, I would consider a lump sum with the idea that divorcing myself from FDX might save my retirement if things went south. But - if I took my lump sum and placed it with an insurance company then I'm married to that company's solvency. I think FDX is extremely well run so I believe the odds of it failing and taking my retirement with it are slim. Either way, it would be a business decision based on the numbers, not emotion or philosophy.

Or you could take it and place it with three insurance companies, with another fourth under the mattress to pay for the doctor in switzerland when the rationing board decides you are too old for a new heart valve.

Personally, I would consider a lump sum with the idea that divorcing myself from FDX might save my retirement if things went south. But - if I took my lump sum and placed it with an insurance company then I'm married to that company's solvency. I think FDX is extremely well run so I believe the odds of it failing and taking my retirement with it are slim. Either way, it would be a business decision based on the numbers, not emotion or philosophy.

That's why I would never put my money in an annuity. There are a huge variety of investment choices that generate income but don't cede control of your money to someone for an income stream. Like I did say, however, if you like the idea of a FedEx annuity, stick with it. I don't like it and wouldn't stick with it. But then again, I spread my investments around, buy only dividend paying stocks and use options to reduce my risk (and gains). Just looking to be able to walk away with "my" money and not sweat the cost of jet fuel or the Postal Contract in my retirement.

Because an immediate annuity is the only possible investment plan (not) if you were given a lump sum payment based on ERISA funding calculations for "your" money in the plan right now AND you have to have the $130K each year AND spend it all... Maybe that sounds as safe as can be to you, but I'd happily take "my" money today with a plus up in the B Fund (say 13%) and a 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 match on 401K contributions. When I walk out the door, I don't want my retirement to be in any way dependent upon the financial health of FedEx. Since over 80% of Fortune 500 companies have terminated their Defined Benefit plans, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the writing's on the wall.

But if it works for you, stay with it. I would prefer the option to cut and run and given the chance to vote that way, I will.
The point was to illustrate the value of a funded defined benefit (DB) plan, not the viability of an annuity. Bad comms/illustration on my part in a short post.

The emphasis is that one would need over 7 figures ($M) net present value to generate an income stream equaivalent to the defined benefit payout. (given notional actuarial assumptions etc). I used an annuity to highlight the point, as anyone can easily (google annuity) use the payout of an annuity as a yardstick to compare relative future value. So the payout of an annuity is a rough way to assess net present value, or put another way what you would need in your 401 k to generate an equivalent income stream if you did not have a DB plan.

I don't think many fedex guys have, or can amass a 7 figure retirment portfolio, nor do I beleive that fdx would up our B fund contributions with anywhere near the required amount to even approach the value of the A fund.

The writing on the wall is that corpaorate america has made unilateral decisions that they are not offering DB plans, as they require more contributions. FDX ALPA has a "contract" for a DB plan, and there are only two ways it will go away, if we give it away or if the company is unable to fund it iaw ERISA laws).

The portability benefit is a plus, for the avg guy who changes jobs 7-10 times. Hopefully for us now on the property we will not have to change jobs again.

So to make a very simplified comaprison to assess how much you would need to have in a 401k to equal your DB payout, google immediate annuity, enter your estimated fdx A fund payout (2%x yrs svc x hi 5 avg) hit enter- Do you have that sum? If not you'd be crazy to go away from the DB plan.

If our DB fund was underfunded, or the company was consistenly losing money & heading to BK it would be a differnt story, but thankfully that is not the case.

"The emphasis is that one would need over 7 figures ($M) net present value to generate an income stream equaivalent to the defined benefit payout. (given notional actuarial assumptions etc). I used an annuity to highlight the point, as anyone can easily (google annuity) use the payout of an annuity as a yardstick to compare relative future value. So the payout of an annuity is a rough way to assess net present value, or put another way what you would need in your 401 k to generate an equivalent income stream if you did not have a DB plan.
I don't think many fedex guys have, or can amass a 7 figure retirment portfolio, nor do I beleive that fdx would up our B fund contributions with anywhere near the required amount to even approach the value of the A fund."

Immediate Annuities - Instant Annuity Quote Calculator. (http://www.immediateannuities.com/)

Maxing out high 5 yields $10,833/month (50% x 260k/12). This requires approximately 3M, depending on your age, individual/joint, etc. You're right, I don't have it!

Bitter?
What a douche bag.

What, can't handle a dissenting opinion? Is that the best you can do? Bitter, nope. Just stating a fact. Sounds like your the one that's bitter.

It would be entertaining to see Fedex frozen out of contract negotiations in our "free market" economy just as all those smaller carriers were. That would be a beautiful illustration of turnabout is fair play!

Realize that not everyone love's your purple tailed majesty!

Some other facts:

The express package/envelope business has changed dramatically from ten years ago. It will only continue to get more competitive, with more scrambling for small shreds of business.

The USPS's business has also changed as well.

The need for a "big" infrastructure such as Fedex's is not needed by the USPS anymore. When you get too "big" all that infrastructure costs too much to maintain anyway.

UPS may be big, but they tend to be more efficient. (I have seen both operations from the inside)

Whatever competition and lost revenue by having Fedex drop boxes in front of Post Offices should be recovered by removing them. It's akin to having a Burger King inside of a McDonalds.

The possibility of Fedex or UPS taking over the post office is highly remote because neither of these carriers can handle ALL points delivery. Simple fact, and is constitutionally guaranteed. A change to that would require a constitutional amendment - good luck with that!

What will probably happen is since the actual mail volume has dropped off, it will exclusively be transported as belly freight on passenger aircraft.

The world economy is contracting and does not see any big change anytime soon. This will have the biggest effect on aviation as a whole over and beyond what any of the aircraft manufacturers would like to say.

Fedex pilots will continue to vote Republican and then watch as their union is horrifically eviscerated! Since you are the only union on Fedex property and treat all other Fedex employees with total disdain don't count on any support from them. Can you say "1998"?

"Those that are ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it"

Jealous of you guys? Nope, never. Not interested in your demographic.

Go ahead, flame away!

I bet the moderators will quench this post anyway as they are into protecting all things Fedex, even though you are the one's that directly insulted me!

As to your personal message 2dogs:

Get Over It.
****ing cry baby.
Grow up.

You should take your own advice.

Absolutely no concessions on retirement and vacation. We need to make this loud and clear to the company. Any talk otherwise just weakens our position.

Absolutely no concessions on retirement and vacation. We need to make this loud and clear to the company. Any talk otherwise just weakens our position.

Agree totally with you on the vacation issue. I wouldn't view the option to bail with $X of A Plan loot and plus ups in B Fund and 401K matching a concession. If those who want to stick with the status quo are allowed to do so and those who want to be able to have a loot and scoot option are allowed to do so, I would say that's an improvement. Not unlike the Social Security debate years ago. Fortunately, all that SS money is in a 'lock box', so it's going to be there for us...

Not unlike the Social Security debate years ago. Fortunately, all that SS money is in a 'lock box', so it's going to be there for us...


What does the FDX ALPA union President have to do with any of this? :eek:

Fortunately, all that SS money is in a 'lock box', so it's going to be there for us...

What does the FDX ALPA union President have to do with any of this? :eek:


SS can only mean one thing. So obviously, av8mike is referring to the Nazi "Schutzstaffel". Much like TonyC was referring to FLMD11CAPT, some weeks ago. Pay attention!!:rolleyes:

We don't have a president, we have a chairman. But, that's not important right now. What is important is that av8mike has now cast suspicion upon himself by talking about the SS loot, and exactly how it is kept. How would he know about a "lockbox"? And who, exactly, is us?

Nazi Loot (http://www.detecting.org.uk/html/Hidden_Treasure_Hoards_in_the_Mountains_of_Austria .html)

I wouldn't view the option to bail with $X of A Plan loot and plus ups in B Fund and 401K matching a concession. If those who want to stick with the status quo are allowed to do so and those who want to be able to have a loot and scoot option are allowed to do so, I would say that's an improvement. Not unlike the Social Security debate years ago. Fortunately, all that SS money is in a 'lock box', so it's going to be there for us...


It Would be a concession. The IRS limits (or Caps) the total Dollars one can put into a defined Contribution plan or Plans. That means B fund contributions or 401K contributions,(either your $$ or company Match). Most of our 15 year Wide Body Captains already hit the IRS Define Contribution Caps, so any additional B fund or an increase in 401K company. Stop this talk about our A fund Plan going away or being terminated. The Company is Financially healthy, the A-Fund is healthy.

Not to mention, that Congressional Budget Battle was hinting at lowering the Defined Contribution Cap to $20,000 instead of $45,000. We haven't heard the end of this. Imagine if we did do as AV8rmike suggests. We terminate the A plan with a Buy out and increase our B fund to say 14% and increase the Company 401K match. What happens in 2,3 5 8 years when congress Reduces the Define Contribution Cap?

Once the presidential Election is over, look to Congress to start looking at More Budget cuts, and by Budget cuts I mean increased ways to get more money from the Taxpayers, either by increasing taxes or taking away what few deductions we have left.

Be very Careful what you ask for.

Some other facts:

.....UPS may be big, but they tend to be more efficient. (I have seen both operations from the inside)




I bet you learned a lot about how both companies operate while you were tossing boxes for a couple of summers :eek:

UPS may be big, but they tend to be more efficient. (I have seen both operations from the inside)




Maybe you could hire yourself out as a part time package industry expert. I'm sure these Fortune 100 companies would really appreciate the sage advice you would offer (having seen both operations from the inside)? :eek:

Maybe you could hire yourself out as a part time package industry expert. I'm sure these Fortune 100 companies would really appreciate the sage advice you would offer (having seen both operations from the inside)? :eek:

Ignore this troll. He's a bitter hamfist who is unable to get hired by a major.

I'm curious what UPS would do with all of their employees that don't meet USPS background check requirements, going to be hard getting rid of them with the Teamsters in place.

1. Sell us on age 65 retirement but up High 5 to 300k to offset the age increase saying it is the same as now if you go at 60. It isn't...

2. Convert the plans...but pennies on the dollar for our current years...See earlier posts about tax issues. SS is all for a converting deal...has stated several times in conversations...our plan now for 25 years is worth 3 mil...do your own math.

3. Sell out new hires with a B plan. They will say it is only way to keep it intact for those of us here..

Olly is spot on with his comments.

No change to retirement, vacation or a give on any work rules. No concessions...

Would be nice to hear from our MEC instead of the company for a change...

Heard a scandal of Tailhook proportions is brewing too...hope that just culture mumbo jumbo applies up the chain to those in the rareified air of the offices of republican and democrat...

It Would be a concession. The IRS limits (or Caps) the total Dollars one can put into a defined Contribution plan or Plans. That means B fund contributions or 401K contributions,(either your $$ or company Match). Most of our 15 year Wide Body Captains already hit the IRS Define Contribution Caps, so any additional B fund or an increase in 401K company. Stop this talk about our A fund Plan going away or being terminated. The Company is Financially healthy, the A-Fund is healthy.

Not to mention, that Congressional Budget Battle was hinting at lowering the Defined Contribution Cap to $20,000 instead of $45,000. We haven't heard the end of this. Imagine if we did do as AV8rmike suggests. We terminate the A plan with a Buy out and increase our B fund to say 14% and increase the Company 401K match. What happens in 2,3 5 8 years when congress Reduces the Define Contribution Cap?

Once the presidential Election is over, look to Congress to start looking at More Budget cuts, and by Budget cuts I mean increased ways to get more money from the Taxpayers, either by increasing taxes or taking away what few deductions we have left.

Be very Careful what you ask for.

They have also been kicking around not allowing home interest as a tax deduction anymore. Since almost ALL Americans now work under Defined Contribution Plans, how likely do you really think that is? I give it the same likelihood as home interest deduction not being allowed.

Most 15 year WB captains are bumping up against the Defined Contribution limit? As a very junior 12 year NB Captain, I don't think your math is correct. First of all, the limits for 2012 are actually $50K or $55.5K if over 50 years of age (catch-up contributions), not the $45K you stated.

Assuming a $300K earnings year for your hypothetical WB captain breaks down as follows:
B Plan - $21K (7% of $300K)
401K - $17K (if maxed out)
Total - $38K

The total isn't even close to the $55.5K limit for 2012, if the individual is over 50. Assuming maxed out sick back of 686 hours, the remainder will go to make up the difference, which it would. So, in summary, the only way this will happen is with a $300K year, maxed out sick bank and all sick hours turned in at the end of the year. I don't think that this represents "most of our 15 year WB captains".

Let's instead say that a 4 year WB F/O instead has a 13% B Plan and 2-for-1 matching on his 401K. Assuming a $150K year:
B Plan - $19.5K
401K - $30.5K (only $10,167 of which came out of the F/O's paycheck)
Total - $50K

I think most would agree that they will spend the majority of their career here as either F/O's or NB captain. Plus up the B Plan and have a multiple matching on the 401K and EVERYONE here can hit the Defined Contribution Cap every year they're employed.

Any extra income that you didn't have to use to max out the 401K (almost $7K in the F/O example) plus any unused sick can be used however the individual sees fit to prepare for retirement. There are actually investment choices other than annuities...

I, and many people I talk with about this, agree that we want the OPTION to not be tied to FedEx in retirement. If you do, great, I want you to have that option, but I don't. Not so sure why all the hate and discontent about this... Again, if you want to keep the A Plan for yourself, I will vote to support that. I just don't want to hear a bunch of fellow pilots pounding the table yelling that they don't want to allow me the option to cut and run.

They have also been kicking around not allowing home interest as a tax deduction anymore. Since almost ALL Americans now work under Defined Contribution Plans, how likely do you really think that is? I give it the same likelihood as home interest deduction not being allowed.

Most 15 year WB captains are bumping up against the Defined Contribution limit? As a very junior 12 year NB Captain, I don't think your math is correct. First of all, the limits for 2012 are actually $50K or $55.5K if over 50 years of age (catch-up contributions), not the $45K you stated.

Assuming a $300K earnings year for your hypothetical WB captain breaks down as follows:
B Plan - $21K (7% of $300K)
401K - $17K (if maxed out)
Total - $38K

The total isn't even close to the $55.5K limit for 2012, if the individual is over 50. Assuming maxed out sick back of 686 hours, the remainder will go to make up the difference, which it would. So, in summary, the only way this will happen is with a $300K year, maxed out sick bank and all sick hours turned in at the end of the year. I don't think that this represents "most of our 15 year WB captains".

Let's instead say that a 4 year WB F/O instead has a 13% B Plan and 2-for-1 matching on his 401K. Assuming a $150K year:
B Plan - $19.5K
401K - $30.5K (only $10,167 of which came out of the F/O's paycheck)
Total - $50K

I think most would agree that they will spend the majority of their career here as either F/O's or NB captain. Plus up the B Plan and have a multiple matching on the 401K and EVERYONE here can hit the Defined Contribution Cap every year they're employed.

Any extra income that you didn't have to use to max out the 401K (almost $7K in the F/O example) plus any unused sick can be used however the individual sees fit to prepare for retirement. There are actually investment choices other than annuities...

I, and many people I talk with about this, agree that we want the OPTION to not be tied to FedEx in retirement. If you do, great, I want you to have that option, but I don't. Not so sure why all the hate and discontent about this... Again, if you want to keep the A Plan for yourself, I will vote to support that. I just don't want to hear a bunch of fellow pilots pounding the table yelling that they don't want to allow me the option to cut and run.

If we go to a bigger B plan, does that mean we don't have to worry about losing the USPS contract?:rolleyes:

You might want to throw DHL in the mix...laugh all you want, but they own part of a 121 cargo carrier now that is spooling up 757/767 operations at a very quick rate.....and already have a but load of 747's......just sayin

If we go to a bigger B plan, does that mean we don't have to worry about losing the USPS contract?:rolleyes:

Does that mean you want a new thread?

I'm curious what UPS would do with all of their employees that don't meet USPS background check requirements, going to be hard getting rid of them with the Teamsters in place.

An interesting question. What did FedEx do with their employees who didn't pass their background checks?

JJ

Does that mean you want a new thread?

I figure you'll need about $3,800,000 in your hypothetical 401K account, just to match what you would get with our current A-plan, B-plan and $10,167/yr out of pocket contribution.

Based on 25yrs of contributions, 6% annual return.

And, 30 yrs of retirement at 4% annual return.

I figure you'll need about $3,800,000 in your hypothetical 401K account to match what you would get with our current A-plan, B-plan and $10,167 out of pocket.

Well, can't argue with math like that. Next time don't sweat the details so much. Under what I would like (have the option to either annuitize the A Plan or lump sum out and take the plus ups), you'll still have the B Plan and the 401K. Not sure what you're getting at, but $3.8M to get $130K/year is only 3.4% return. If you'd like, I would be happy to suggest any number of dividend paying stocks or bonds that pay better than that. Also, your assumption assumes preservation of the principle, which doesnt happen in an annuity situation. At the end of the day, they keep the money, not you or your heirs. Finally and most importantly, "fully funded" is a joke. Have $300/barrel oil, weak stock market and it suddenly stops being fully funded. Every year the obligations go up. The difference is either made from investment returns or Company contributions. Bully for you if you think it will go on in perpetuity. I'm much more pessimistic.

Do you share an office with the guy that is working on PBS?

Do you share an office with the guy that is working on PBS?

Thanks for your useful contribution to the discussion!

You are welcome.

The A fund has a higher risk, but has a very high reward if it pays out in full. As a person that has already had one pension frozen, I still believe this is the way to go. Fortunately, FedEx has remained profitable. It may not always be that way, but unlike passenger carriers, there are more barriers for competition. The infrastructure alone makes it very difficult to be a large cargo carrier and particularly one with home delivery across the country. So, I think the risk of pension default to be reasonably low. Again, I plan on it not being there, and if it is my retirement will much better.

A constant income stream is invaluable. When you are spending from your 401k and B fund, the money will eventually dry up if you live long enough. Equalling your A fund check would require a very large amount of money, if you are planning on living on interest only.

If a pension defaults, you can expect a much smaller check from the PBGC. I think it's worth the risk. We would have to get a huge B fund increase to make this remotely close.

You also have to consider the long term effects of changing the pension for new hires. One day, the people with the A fund will be outnumbered and they might not consider protecting the pension during future contract negotiations.

[QUOTE=av8rmike;1234192

Assuming a $300K earnings year for your hypothetical WB captain breaks down as follows:
B Plan - $21K (7% of $300K)
401K - $17K (if maxed out)
Total - $38K

.[/QUOTE]

The Post tax OSP is included in this max

OSP - $15k. (5% of $300k)

Captains that I know that hit the limit either because of this or sick bank buy bank reduce this percent. Below is the ALPA verbage explaining this.

The 415(c) limit is the IRS annual dollar limit on employee and employer contributions to all defined contribution plans sponsored by an employer. This would include the 7% Company contributions to the Pilots’ Money Purchase Pension Plan (B Plan), plus employee and Company contributions to the Pilots’ Retirement Savings Plan (401(k) employee pre-tax contributions, employee after-tax contributions,[B]sick bank contributions and Company 401(k) matching contributions). Catch-up contributions in the 401(k) for employees 50 and older are not included in this limit. The 415(c) limit is indexed to the cost-of-living and is adjusted annually. Due to economic conditions, the 415(c) limit has not changed since the 2009 limit was set at $49,000. The increase for 2012 is simply the normal indexing that occurs annually, this time actually increasing due to a rise in the cost-of-living index. In other words, this is the present law doing what it is designed to do. The threat in Washington, on the other hand, is to write a NEW set of rules reducing the 415(c) limit dramatically. Some proposals have been as low as $20,000 or 20% of income (whichever is less). Fighting these new proposals has been the focus of your leadership.

Well, can't argue with math like that. Next time don't sweat the details so much. Under what I would like (have the option to either annuitize the A Plan or lump sum out and take the plus ups), you'll still have the B Plan and the 401K. Not sure what you're getting at, but $3.8M to get $130K/year is only 3.4% return. If you'd like, I would be happy to suggest any number of dividend paying stocks or bonds that pay better than that. Also, your assumption assumes preservation of the principle, which doesnt happen in an annuity situation. At the end of the day, they keep the money, not you or your heirs. Finally and most importantly, "fully funded" is a joke. Have $300/barrel oil, weak stock market and it suddenly stops being fully funded. Every year the obligations go up. The difference is either made from investment returns or Company contributions. Bully for you if you think it will go on in perpetuity. I'm much more pessimistic.

Let me try again. In our current plan, you'll get $130,000/yr from the A-plan. AND, you'll end up with $1,540,000 in your 401K, using the current 7% B-plan and your hypothetical F/O's $10,167/yr contribution after 25yrs.

Using a 4%(conservative) return on that 1.54M after retirement, that will pay an additional $88,000/yr for 30yrs.

Add that to the $130,000/yr A-Plan and you'll be getting $218,000/yr under our current plan.

If you want $218,000/yr for 30 years under your plan...You'll need 3.8million the day you retire. And, if you're lucky to live longer than 30yrs...You'll have nothing.

Let me try again. In our current plan, you'll get $130,000/yr from the A-plan. AND, you'll end up with $1,540,000 in your 401K, using the current 7% B-plan and your hypothetical F/O's $10,167/yr contribution after 25yrs.

Using a 4%(conservative) return on that 1.54M after retirement, that will pay an additional $88,000/yr for 30yrs.

Add that to the $130,000/yr A-Plan and you'll be getting $218,000/yr under our current plan.

If you want $218,000/yr for 30 years under your plan...You'll need 3.8million the day you retire. And, if you're lucky to live longer than 30yrs...You'll have nothing.

So 50 years from now, FedEx will not only still be an operating corporation, but will still be making annual deposits to the A Plan? Not what I or a lot of my peers are willing to bet our retirements on. I'll happily take the bird in the hand and let you have the two in the bush. We can agree to disagree on whether it's better for you to rely on FedEx for a large portion of your 30 year retirement or not. My buds at the pax carriers and those who are here now from the pax world are pretty unanimous in their agreement with the bird in the hand model. All I want is the OPTION to take my money and run. Give me $800K-$1M+ for the value of my A Plan when i retire and I'll walk out smiling. Only time will tell who made the better choice.

So 50 years from now, FedEx will not only still be an operating corporation, but will still be making annual deposits to the A Plan? Not what I or a lot of my peers are willing to bet our retirements on. I'll happily take the bird in the hand and let you have the two in the bush. We can agree to disagree on whether it's better for you to rely on FedEx for a large portion of your 30 year retirement or not. My buds at the pax carriers and those who are here now from the pax world are pretty unanimous in their agreement with the bird in the hand model. All I want is the OPTION to take my money and run. Give me $800K-$1M+ for the value of my A Plan when i retire and I'll walk out smiling. Only time will tell who made the better choice.

I don't have a problem with the "OPTION". I have a problem with your assumed value of our A-plan. I think you're low-balling it by more than 50%.

And maybe I'm a moron:eek:...But, I'm a refugee from the pax world.

So 50 years from now, FedEx will not only still be an operating corporation, but will still be making annual deposits to the A Plan? Not what I or a lot of my peers are willing to bet our retirements on. I'll happily take the bird in the hand and let you have the two in the bush. We can agree to disagree on whether it's better for you to rely on FedEx for a large portion of your 30 year retirement or not. My buds at the pax carriers and those who are here now from the pax world are pretty unanimous in their agreement with the bird in the hand model. All I want is the OPTION to take my money and run. Give me $800K-$1M+ for the value of my A Plan when i retire and I'll walk out smiling. Only time will tell who made the better choice.
If your plan is fully funded the fact that the corporation does or doesn't exist is not material. Look at annuity.com to see the numbers required to give the life time annuity.

If your plan is fully funded the fact that the corporation does or doesn't exist is not material. Look at annuity.com to see the numbers required to give the life time annuity.

I'm sure all the guys & gals at United, US Air and Delta would agree that a fully funded plan can never go awry... It actually IS material because it's an ongoing process. If the company can no longer maintain ERISA funding requirements, it gets ugly quickly. Look at NW and/or what's going on at AA right now. The A Plan is dependent on the financial health of FedEx, don't kid yourself. If things go south, we might end up with a frozen plan, but that has its own problems. Again, if you like the idea, I'm all for you keeping it. I think we should negotiate a lump sum option, however. It would be in conjunction with a plus up in the B Plan and 401k matching. I'll take less than whatever you feel is set aside in the A Plan at retirement and be happy.

I'm sure all the guys & gals at United, US Air and Delta would agree that a fully funded plan can never go awry... It actually IS material because it's an ongoing process. If the company can no longer maintain ERISA funding requirements, it gets ugly quickly. Look at NW and/or what's going on at AA right now. The A Plan is dependent on the financial health of FedEx, don't kid yourself. If things go south, we might end up with a frozen plan, but that has its own problems. Again, if you like the idea, I'm all for you keeping it. I think we should negotiate a lump sum option, however. It would be in conjunction with a plus up in the B Plan and 401k matching. I'll take less than whatever you feel is set aside in the A Plan at retirement and be happy.

So how many people where in the NW/DAL/UAL et al pension plans?

How many are in the FDX one?

So how many people where in the NW/DAL/UAL et al pension plans?

How many are in the FDX one?

I'm not sure with regards to the other companies, but that information would be readily available on the Internet. Around 5,000-6,000 here including retirees would be a reasonable SWAG. Are you asking for a purpose, or trying to make a point that smaller plans would be less susceptible to the performance of their underlying company?

I'm sure you're aware, the pilots at DL were the only ones to lose their pensions in the DL bankruptcy. There was much speculation that the scramble for the lump sum was part of their problem.:mad:

Remember also that we had tens of thousands in that plan, that are retired, and those others that didn't opt out of it that had a choice.

More in the plan than you would guess. Not just pilots.

I'm sure you're aware, the pilots at DL were the only ones to lose their pensions in the DL bankruptcy. There was much speculation that the scramble for the lump sum was part of their problem.:mad:

Of course everyone else didnt lose theirs but theirs was put on ice. :)

Remember also that we had tens of thousands in that plan, that are retired, and those others that didn't opt out of it that had a choice.

More in the plan than you would guess. Not just pilots.

Other FDX employees had a choice for awhile whether to stay in the traditional plan or go to the cash balance plan. I pretty sure FDX later forced all into the cash balance plan. So that leaves retirees from all FDX that retired under the pension plan, current pilots and some management types left in it.

My point was it's not the entire 100K people that work at FDX that are in the plan. It's a relatively small number considering.

Other FDX employees had a choice for awhile whether to stay in the traditional plan or go to the cash balance plan. I pretty sure FDX later forced all into the cash balance plan. So that leaves retirees from all FDX that retired under the pension plan, current pilots and some management types left in it.

My point was it's not the entire 100K people that work at FDX that are in the plan. It's a relatively small number considering.

That's not the way I understood it. When the rest of the employees went to a cash balance plan, they still kept the years they had worked here before the change. For example, if an employee had been here for 15 years before the change in the retirement plan, they will receive 15 yrs x 2% = 30% of their high 5. If they work another 15 years they will get that through the cash balance plan. In effect, their retirement was frozen. All new hires after that date would only get the cash balance plan.

That's the way I understand it and if that is the case, there are a ton of people in our retirement plan.

I'm not sure what the best way forward is, but I can assure you that management will not offer me enough money to quit the A plan for a cash balance plan. Should be interesting.

That's the way I understand it and if that is the case, there are a ton of people in our retirement plan.



During contract negotiations several years ago, ALPA was permitted to look at (probably not a true audit?) the FedEx's "books." Our auditors came out saying, "It was VERY WELL FUNDED!"

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wearing rose-colored-glasses, I know that once upon a time so was the UAL, NWA, PanAm, TWA ... yada, yada, yada retirement funds. But at least it's good news for the short term. :D

The numbers aren't secret, you get them on a regular basis by law.

There are further details you can get upon request.

Right now we are well funded. Hopefully we won't become too Swedish...we have a lot of Stockholm Syndrome going on...

The numbers aren't secret, you get them on a regular basis by law.

There are further details you can get upon request.

Right now we are well funded. Hopefully we won't become too Swedish...we have a lot of Stockholm Syndrome going on...

I guess the point is what is fully funded? And what is it fully funded with? What assumptions for return are they allowed to use. Those are definitions that are subject to political hanky panky.

Of all the retired airline pilots in the US of A, the ones with the best deal (IMHO) are the NW pilots who managed to retire before their plan was frozen. I guess I can include the guys at the other airlines that died before their fully funded plans went belly up. They are about the only guys besides FDX and UPS (knock on wood) who are getting what they were promised and what they planned to get. If the FDX plan is frozen sometime close to the day I retire I will consider myself a winner. If it is not frozen I will never be able to count on it 5 years out. How is that for Stckholm.

Standing by for more attack the messenger comments.

I guess the point is what is fully funded? And what is it fully funded with? What assumptions for return are they allowed to use. Those are definitions that are subject to political hanky panky.

Of all the retired airline pilots in the US of A, the ones with the best deal (IMHO) are the NW pilots who managed to retire before their plan was frozen. I guess I can include the guys at the other airlines that died before their fully funded plans went belly up. They are about the only guys besides FDX and UPS (knock on wood) who are getting what they were promised and what they planned to get. If the FDX plan is frozen sometime close to the day I retire I will consider myself a winner. If it is not frozen I will never be able to count on it 5 years out. How is that for Stckholm.

Standing by for more attack the messenger comments.

Not an attack here, just stating the numbers are out there. And there are some not clear assumptions in those numbers.

And you hit on something no one wants to talk about, that "assumed rate of return". Lot of peole don't know about that.

Hanky panky is a nice description, I would call it in the case of many other airlines now defunct criminal creative accounting...

Of all the retired airline pilots in the US of A, the ones with the best deal (IMHO) are the NW pilots who managed to retire before their plan was frozen.

My dad was turned down by Delta in '68.

So he went to NWA. Retired in '99.

Now he still gets 120k a year. From Delta. There's your irony.

Of all the retired airline pilots in the US of A, the ones with the best deal (IMHO) are the NW pilots who managed to retire before their plan was frozen. I guess I can include the guys at the other airlines that died before their fully funded plans went belly up. They are about the only guys besides FDX and UPS (knock on wood) who are getting what they were promised and what they planned to get.

American Airlines still had/has the lump-sum retirement option in their current contract.

(that is unless/until the bankruptcy courts take it away)

So...any AA pilots who took the lump-sum, especially those in the late '90s, "got the best deal" - they got the money (multi-millions $$$ in a lot of cases) up-front to fritter away or invest wisely themselves.

I guess the point is what is fully funded? And what is it fully funded with? What assumptions for return are they allowed to use. Those are definitions that are subject to political hanky panky.

Of all the retired airline pilots in the US of A, the ones with the best deal (IMHO) are the NW pilots who managed to retire before their plan was frozen. I guess I can include the guys at the other airlines that died before their fully funded plans went belly up. They are about the only guys besides FDX and UPS (knock on wood) who are getting what they were promised and what they planned to get. If the FDX plan is frozen sometime close to the day I retire I will consider myself a winner. If it is not frozen I will never be able to count on it 5 years out. How is that for Stckholm.

Standing by for more attack the messenger comments.
The ERISA laws are quite specific on delineating funding requirements. The fundamental concepts is that funding is a function of the following criterion: number of annuitants (#pilots), actuary of the annuitants (how long the actuaries say we'll live), and the index.

The index is one of the key yardsticks, of how the legacy carriers were able to legally terminate the pensions. The index was the 10 year T note (which the gov wasnt even selling at the time) and the yield was very low- which drove the funding requirements very high (i.e. assume your portfolio will return 1.5% and you need to save alot) Where most DB plans use a variety of consertvie investments, such as AAA corporate paper which is a more market based index, that is more realistically aligned to how the pension fund invests.

And the bottom line is the companies ability to make the annual contributions based on the above 3 factors.

So there is no hanky panky - the ERISA laws are in place, and the pension protection legislation added more specifics. There are required annual audits, and we get those in the us mail that tells us the current funding level, and number of annuitiants.

If you read that peice of mail that we all get you'll have a better idea of where it stands.

The ERISA laws are quite specific on delineating funding requirements. The fundamental concepts is that funding is a function of the following criterion: number of annuitants (#pilots), actuary of the annuitants (how long the actuaries say we'll live), and the index.

The index is one of the key yardsticks, of how the legacy carriers were able to legally terminate the pensions. The index was the 10 year T note (which the gov wasnt even selling at the time) and the yield was very low- which drove the funding requirements very high (i.e. assume your portfolio will return 1.5% and you need to save alot) Where most DB plans use a variety of consertvie investments, such as AAA corporate paper which is a more market based index, that is more realistically aligned to how the pension fund invests.

And the bottom line is the companies ability to make the annual contributions based on the above 3 factors.

So there is no hanky panky - the ERISA laws are in place, and the pension protection legislation added more specifics. There are required annual audits, and we get those in the us mail that tells us the current funding level, and number of annuitiants.

If you read that peice of mail that we all get you'll have a better idea of where it stands.

Two very good points there. First, ERISA is very specific about how much money is needed based on number of bodies, payout and accuarial life expectancy. Therefore, it's entirely possible to reverse engineer this and come up with a formula to determine "your" portion of the kitty. Once you come up with that, then it's just a matter of how much you would be able to take with you out the door. Similar in concept to winning the Lottery and electing for the lump sum which is lower than the total winnings.

Second, there is a required amount of money that has to be added to the fund each and every year. That bulk of that money comes from returns generated by the fund itself, but in down market years the company has to make up the difference. So if the economy is down, the company has to come up with more money, but the economy is down so the company's bottom line is probably suffering.

Being a pessimist, I'm not all that keen on riding a large part of my retirement on the ability of FedEx to continue this forever. I want to renegotiate this time around and have the option to take plus ups in the 401K and B Plan in order to get a lump sum from the A Plan. The company has already demonstrated that they don't want to be in the pension business, so I don't see this as a very hard sell.

I'm sure all the guys & gals at United, US Air and Delta would agree that a fully funded plan can never go awry... It actually IS material because it's an ongoing process. If the company can no longer maintain ERISA funding requirements, it gets ugly quickly. Look at NW and/or what's going on at AA right now. The A Plan is dependent on the financial health of FedEx, don't kid yourself. If things go south, we might end up with a frozen plan, but that has its own problems. Again, if you like the idea, I'm all for you keeping it. I think we should negotiate a lump sum option, however. It would be in conjunction with a plus up in the B Plan and 401k matching. I'll take less than whatever you feel is set aside in the A Plan at retirement and be happy.

You do understand that Delta pilots lost an unqualified plan that was much like social security in that it required Delta to continue making money after the recipients retired.
B Fund limits on contributions are what is going to determine the continuation of the A plan to keep your total compensation at the levels that we all want.
There is risk involved in everything, distribution of that risk is the key to a viable return.

You do understand that Delta pilots lost an unqualified plan that was much like social security in that it required Delta to continue making money after the recipients retired.
B Fund limits on contributions are what is going to determine the continuation of the A plan to keep your total compensation at the levels that we all want.
There is risk involved in everything, distribution of that risk is the key to a viable return.

What I understand is that there are a lot of us Henny Pennys out here who would like an option. Here's a good read:

Frequently Asked Questions about Cash Balance Pension Plans (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/FAQs/faq_consumer_cashbalanceplans.html)

Current promised benefits stay the same, but it would be possible to offer a cash balance plan option for those who would want it.

Two very good points there. First, ERISA is very specific about how much money is needed based on number of bodies, payout and accuarial life expectancy. Therefore, it's entirely possible to reverse engineer this and come up with a formula to determine "your" portion of the kitty. Once you come up with that, then it's just a matter of how much you would be able to take with you out the door. Similar in concept to winning the Lottery and electing for the lump sum which is lower than the total winnings.

Second, there is a required amount of money that has to be added to the fund each and every year. That bulk of that money comes from returns generated by the fund itself, but in down market years the company has to make up the difference. So if the economy is down, the company has to come up with more money, but the economy is down so the company's bottom line is probably suffering.

Being a pessimist, I'm not all that keen on riding a large part of my retirement on the ability of FedEx to continue this forever. I want to renegotiate this time around and have the option to take plus ups in the 401K and B Plan in order to get a lump sum from the A Plan. The company has already demonstrated that they don't want to be in the pension business, so I don't see this as a very hard sell.

Heard from someone during last negotiations, that when this was conceptually talked about, Fedex felt a 25 year lump sum in their mind was worth $650K...which is a joke and a non starter...so again, be careful, you might want to convert it and if they know we want to convert it, they will give us pennies on the dollar...which is the Fedex way!

Heard from someone during last negotiations, that when this was conceptually talked about, Fedex felt a 25 year lump sum in their mind was worth $650K...which is a joke and a non starter...so again, be careful, you might want to convert it and if they know we want to convert it, they will give us pennies on the dollar...which is the Fedex way!

Apparently, that's not far from what he thinks it's worth:

... All I want is the OPTION to take my money and run. Give me $800K-$1M+ for the value of my A Plan when i retire and I'll walk out smiling. Only time will tell who made the better choice.

$1million is worth *maybe* $40k annually at safe-withdrawal rates.

What I understand is that there are a lot of us Henny Pennys out here who would like an option. Here's a good read:

Frequently Asked Questions about Cash Balance Pension Plans (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/FAQs/faq_consumer_cashbalanceplans.html)

Current promised benefits stay the same, but it would be possible to offer a cash balance plan option for those who would want it.
Conversion to cash balances plans are a sucker play put forward by management that believe their employees aren't very bright or have no choice.

$1million is worth *maybe* $40k annually at safe-withdrawal rates.
According to bankrate.com it would take 1 million dollars for every 4200.00 per month on a 30 year annuity with a growth rate of 3% .

Conversion to cash balances plans are a sucker play put forward by management that believe their employees aren't very bright or have no choice.

Riiiiiggghhhtttt. But a "guaranteed" defined benefit plan is something to hang your hat on... As indicated earlier, the company wasn't interested in offering a cash balance plan. Of course, if they offer $X and you get all huffy about it and walk away, you're really not negotiating, are you? They offer $X, we counter with $Y and hopefully end up somewhere in the middle.

As to the present value of an A Plan upon my retirement, that will depend on so many factors, it's incalculable. What IS calculable is $Y in hand when I walk out the door. You don't like that and are sure you'll live to 95 and have no other outside investments and HAVE to use every cent of the possible $130 each and every year, keep the current plan.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating everyone has to change. I, and a lot of others out here, simply want to add 'Option B' to the retirement choices. If you work here 20 years, retire and then die 5 years later, you're way ahead with what I would like to see because ALL that money goes to your family. Under the current program, you don't start maxing out Defined Contributions until you've been here 15+ years. If you can max that out from year one onward with minimal out of pocket, you can use the difference on other investments. Plus, that's your money to keep. Any cash balance parting gift would simply sweeten the pot.

We have an excellent retirement program here. I would like an option to have a program that's more excellent for many of us.

According to bankrate.com it would take 1 million dollars for every 4200.00 per month on a 30 year annuity with a growth rate of 3% .

Exactly so. And as everyone knows, an annuity is the only place smart people put their money.

If you work here 20 years, retire and then die 5 years later, you're way ahead with what I would like to see because ALL that money goes to your family.




1) Not everyone here has a military pension to undergird their retirment plan. Having one changes your perspective considerably.

2) Not everyone considers retirement a vehicle to enrich their heirs. In my opinion, the money is for me and my spouse. If you work here 20 years, retire and then die 5 years later, you're NOT way ahead -- you're just dead. :eek:

3) Not everyone is as pessimistic as you, planning to die at age 65 (5 years after retirement). I plan to live at least until 99. How big would that lump sum need to be? ;)



Back on topic ("Potential Loss of USPS Contract") ... I predict we will hear an announcement that the USPS contract has been renewed within a few weeks of ratifying our first concessionary CBA.






.

I predict we will hear an announcement that the USPS contract has been renewed within a few weeks of ratifying our first concessionary CBA.


The point of this whole exercise.

... If you work here 20 years, retire and then die 5 years later, you're NOT way ahead -- you're just dead. :eek:...

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking that.:)

I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking that.:)

+1...........................

Back on topic ("Potential Loss of USPS Contract") ... I predict we will hear an announcement that the USPS contract has been renewed within a few weeks of ratifying our first concessionary CBA.



According to the 12 Angry Men on this forum, we already ratified our first "concessionary CBA" = CBA 2006

and we just ratified & agreed to extend our second "concessionary CBA" = CBA 2011

are you now saying that CBA 2006 & 2011 were/are not concessionary & thus, we actually made overall positive gains/improvements? (because it can't go both ways)

Ah yes it is the twelve angry men who keep bringing it up. You 12 reasonable men never sling any trash talk. Wont find me saying concessionary; will find me saying we gave away the FDAs for 3% a year and we got our last one of those for a while.

Concessionary is when you give back, not when you give up.

According to the 12 Angry Men on this forum ...




As much air time as "12 Angry Men" gets here on APC, I have to wonder how many readers have actually watched the movie. (The 1957 movie starring Henry Fonda is the best version, in my opinion.) Contrary to what the title implies, there were only 11 angry men, and one level-headed, straight-thinking protagonist. Played by Henry Fonda, that man was able to calmly convince the others that his dissenting view was in fact the correct view.

That such evolution of conversation might occur here would most certainly be a long, long shot.





... we already ratified our first "concessionary CBA" = CBA 2006

and we just ratified & agreed to extend our second "concessionary CBA" = CBA 2011

are you now saying that CBA 2006 & 2011 were/are not concessionary & thus, we actually made overall positive gains/improvements? (because it can't go both ways)




Actually, it doesn't have to be one or the other, it might be neither concessionary nor an improvement -- we once discussed the concept of cost neutral. :eek:

No, Contract 2006 was not concessionary.

No, the Bridge Contract was not concessionary. Two 3% pay rate increases, a signing bonus, and no work rule changes isn't a huge gain, but it's not a concession.

There's a difference between giving up pay, benefits, and work rules and giving up opportunities. We didn't give up the former, but we did give up the latter. We gave up opportunities and missed a chance to win bigger improvements. That's not as good as we should do, certainly not as much as we deserve, but it's not concessionary.



So, like I said ...







.

No, Contract 2006 was not concessionary.

No, the Bridge Contract was not concessionary. Two 3% pay rate increases, a signing bonus, and no work rule changes isn't a huge gain, but it's not a concession.

There's a difference between giving up pay, benefits, and work rules and giving up opportunities. We didn't give up the former, but we did give up the latter. We gave up opportunities and missed a chance to win bigger improvements. That's not as good as we should do, certainly not as much as we deserve, but it's not concessionary.



So, like I said ...







.

Parts of it were. If you were a Flex instructor, Section 11 was clearly a shot in the pills and concessionary. But who cares about them because they volunteered to take the job and can quit if they don't like it...

Parts of it were. If you were a Flex instructor, Section 11 was clearly a shot in the pills and concessionary. But who cares about them because they volunteered to take the job and can quit if they don't like it...

Man you hit that one out of the park!!!!!!!

Parts of it were. If you were a Flex instructor, Section 11 was clearly a shot in the pills and concessionary. But who cares about them because they volunteered to take the job and can quit if they don't like it...




I don't disagree with you regarding how Section 11 affected Flex Instructors. I was a Flex Instructor myself when our Managing Director announced he would be negotiating on behalf of The Company and bragged about what he wanted to accomplish.

But the Training Review Board we got in Section 11 brought us into the 21st century mentality of training, and it has saved a number of our pilots' careers. Given that huge gain, I would even consider Section 11 on the whole to be a gain.

It's a sum total game -- we don't vote on seperate sections or provisions. We vote on the whole CBA, and I believe you would be hard-pressed to characterize the whole CBA as concessionary.






.

I don't disagree with you regarding how Section 11 affected Flex Instructors. I was a Flex Instructor myself when our Managing Director announced he would be negotiating on behalf of The Company and bragged about what he wanted to accomplish...





.

Was there any table pounding?:D

But the Training Review Board we got in Section 11 brought us into the 21st century mentality of training, and it has saved a number of our pilots' careers. Given that huge gain, I would even consider Section 11 on the whole to be a gain.

It's a sum total game -- we don't vote on seperate sections or provisions. We vote on the whole CBA, and I believe you would be hard-pressed to characterize the whole CBA as concessionary.



Tony prior to the training review board how many pilots lost their job because of a training failure? My guess is none. So what did we gain?




. [/QUOTE]

Tony prior to the training review board how many pilots lost their job because of a training failure? My guess is none. So what did we gain?




I don't know the number, but I would guess it was small. We had only had the one interation of our CBA.

But had it remained in the CBA until today, I am very certain that many pilots would no longer be among our ranks. Instead of training failures leading to terminations, we now tailor additional training and/or retraining opportunities in order to keep pilots on the payroll in a productive capacity as pilots.

How many jobs would have to be saved for you to consider it a gain?






.

No, Contract 2006 was not concessionary.

No, the Bridge Contract was not concessionary. Two 3% pay rate increases, a signing bonus, and no work rule changes isn't a huge gain, but it's not a concession.

There's a difference between giving up pay, benefits, and work rules and giving up opportunities. We didn't give up the former, but we did give up the latter. We gave up opportunities and missed a chance to win bigger improvements. That's not as good as we should do, certainly not as much as we deserve, but it's not concessionary.

So, like I said ...
.

Ok so you do not think section 11 of the 2006 contract was concessionary what about the soft scheduling parameters? You know the ones that were agreed to by the union and not relayed to the crew force until after we voted for the contract? Those have hurt us all every day since the contract.

Ok so you do not think section 11 of the 2006 contract was concessionary what about the soft scheduling parameters? You know the ones that were agreed to by the union and not relayed to the crew force until after we voted for the contract? Those have hurt us all every day since the contract.

You mean this?

FDX ALPA Chairman's letter thread (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/8762-fdx-alpa-chairmans-letter.html)

I still find it hard to believe that there was not outrage shown by this pilot group, when that came out after the CBA had been voted on.

Definition of "concessionary" CBA:

2003 "Agreement" between Allied Pilots Association & American Airlines - under the threat of imminent bankruptcy filing.

highlights:

start with 23% across-the-board pay cut
then gut all work rules
then greatly reduce # of "furlough-protected" pilots - then furlough all of them
then shrink airline causing massive displacements & some to take 50% pay cuts
then refuse for 5 years after the amendable date to negotiate in good faith
then file for bankruptcy anyway & have the courts abrogate the entire thing

now THAT's "concessionary"

(check the MAJORS forum if you want to read about "concessionary" CBAs)

Definition of "concessionary" CBA:

2003 "Agreement" between Allied Pilots Association & American Airlines - under the threat of imminent bankruptcy filing.

highlights:

start with 23% across-the-board pay cut
then gut all work rules
then greatly reduce # of "furlough-protected" pilots - then furlough all of them
then shrink airline causing massive displacements & some to take 50% pay cuts
then refuse for 5 years after the amendable date to negotiate in good faith
then file for bankruptcy anyway & have the courts abrogate the entire thing

now THAT's "concessionary"

(check the MAJORS forum if you want to read about "concessionary" CBAs)



Apples and Oranges. They were losing money - we were not.

Apples and Oranges. They were losing money - we were not.

whether the company is losing money or profitable has nothing to do with the final terms of a CBA

the terms of the agreement when compared to the previous agreement determine "concessionary" or improvement/gains

You mean this?

FDX ALPA Chairman's letter thread (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/cargo/8762-fdx-alpa-chairmans-letter.html)

I still find it hard to believe that there was not outrage shown by this pilot group, when that came out after the CBA had been voted on.

Especially since BC and DW signed the letter before the membership vote for the TA and distributed it afterward.

No more secret negotiating!

To answer your 2007 question, I think BC and DW worked out THEIR A380 rates.

These words come to mind when I think of them. Hard headed, overconfident, corrupt, selfish and, in the final analysis, incompetent.

whether the company is losing money or profitable has nothing to do with the final terms of a CBA

the terms of the agreement when compared to the previous agreement determine "concessionary" or improvement/gains

So: if we get more in one area than we gave away in another area it's not concessionary?

Just trying to figure out what your baseline is!

... what about the soft scheduling parameters? You know the ones that were agreed to by the union and not relayed to the crew force until after we voted for the contract? Those have hurt us all every day since the contract.




Are we going to dissect and re-debate every provision of Contract 2006 in an attempt to characterize it as concessionary? :rolleyes:


No, I don't know about any soft scheduling parameters that were agreed to by the union and not relayed to the crew force until after we voted for the contract. Soft Parameters are used in bid period package construction. They are described in Section 25 SCHEDULING, Paragraph BB.C.1.f. The Initial SIG Parameters and Starting Values were printed in Appendix A to the Scheduling Section, on the last page before Section 26. As I'm sure you know, The Company can override a soft parameter with 45 days notice, and we can add parameters by agreement of the Association and the Company. In fact, we have added soft parameters since the 2006 CBA. I would consider the addition of soft parameters to be an improvement to pilots' schedules, so if the union did indeed sneak some soft parameters past us while we were voting on the CBA, good for them. Please sneak some more in.


I think you're thinking of the "City Purity" letter, which is a different animal altogether.


It's a waste of time to select individual provisions of the 2006 CBA, highlight their weaknesses, and hold that up as proof that the CBA was concessionary. The CBA is a sum of its parts, and has to be evaluated as a whole. If you really believe the CBA had more negatives than positives, there's not much I could say to convince you otherwise.






.

So: if we get more in one area than we gave away in another area it's not concessionary?




Pretty simple concept, huh? ;) :)






.

So: if we get more in one area than we gave away in another area it's not concessionary?

Just trying to figure out what your baseline is!

yes....in terms of the entire agreement.

of course - as some on this board seem to misunderstand - there is give & take (gains & concessions if you want to use those terms) in every section that is opened during contract negotiations - management improves (gains) their position in some areas, and concedes gains to the Association in other areas - & vice versa.

just because management makes improvements on their side to, say, Section 11, doesn't necessarily make the entire CBA "concessionary"

the point I'm making is that in terms of the entire CBA (OVERALL) - if your gains outweigh your concessions, then the CBA (OVERALL) is not "concessionary", but is an improvement/gain over the previous agreement.

our 2006 & 2011 CBA's were, therefore, NOT concessionary (from the Association's/Pilot Group's position)

APA & AA's 2003 CBA was concessionary - not only overall, but in most every section of the agreement as well. the only thing that the APA didn't concede (lose/give up) on (for the most part) was the lump-sum retirement option

none of which has anything to do with the company's profitability

whether the company is losing money or profitable has nothing to do with the final terms of a CBA

Yeah it does.

Regardless if it made it past the MEC, who here would vote "yes" to a contract that is worse than the current one in ANY area with the company making money hand over fist?

It should take severe financial doom (ie chapter 11 or impending chapter 11) to get anyone to even consider a concession in any area of our CBA. Ive been at an airline that went ch 11 (and then 7). And it took the ch 11 filing to get us to vote Yes to concessions.

I don't exactly have any sympathy for the company needing to "make more money".

You still have your NO vote to anything you don't like.

Yeah who started this concessionary talk anyways?

And I also agree with the negotiation part being give and take. It is that just some of us think that we gave a lot more than we took. Luckily we have the 12 reasonable men to tell us otherwise.