My apologies for being so long to respond to this post. It's been a busy month.
Originally Posted by
kronan
Our Union spent most of 2016 researching and validating what Mgt's position on the A plan was during negotiations.
At least that's what the MEC told us they were going to do. Have you seen any tangible results of that "researching and validating"? For example, do you know what it would cost to raise the CBA FAE cap (the "High 5 Cap") from $260,000 to, say, $280,000? If we seek to raise the cap, we should know how much it would cost, right? Because, when The Company responds with "That would cost too much," we should know if they're telling the truth, or bluffing, or just flat out lying to us, right?
In 2015, we've been told The Company said just that -- it's too expensive. All we could do is take their word for it, and give up trying to negotiate any improvement to our A Plan.
But do we really know any more now? Go ahead. Ask your Block Rep how much it would cost to raise the FAE Cap. I've asked, numerous times. I asked the Negotiating Committee Chairman at a Joint Council Meeting, and the MEC Chairman cut me off and accused me of asking a political question. He witnessed the fights in the MEC conference room during the last CBA negotiations, and he doesn't (didn't) want to go down that road again. In other words, he didn't even WANT to improve our current A Plan. That doesn't sound like legitimate results of an honest effort to "research and validate" management's position that improving the A Plan would be too expensive.
How expensive is too expensive? Are we talking about the difference between First Class and Lie Flat seats in Business, or the whopping $25 credit you can get for cancelling a $250 hotel room? If there was research and validation, give us some details.
Originally Posted by
kronan
I could wish that the research had been done in 2012 as we prepared to enter negotiations in 2013, but it wasn't. Instead it was a constant drumbeat of the Company can afford it, and we need to return our 777 Intl Capts income replacement ratio to something closer to the intended 50%.
Our Union has said increasing the Traditional A plan is expensive, and it is unlikely that mgt would agree to improvements because of the associated expenses.
I agree, the research should have been done a long time ago. It was not done then, and I'm not convinced it has been done YET. If it has been, why haven't we been educated with details? I'm not asking for the same level of details that have been published about a hypothetical Variable Retirement Benefit, I'm talking about simple numbers for an actual plan that exists today -- our A Plan.
If you walk in to an automobile dealership and want to know the price of the shiny new car on the showroom floor, you expect to learn how much it costs. You may get some salesman evasion like "The monthly payment is ..." or "We've got some great discounts" before you get to the total price, but they're not going to say, "You can't have this, it's too expensive." Any evasive answers are motivated by a desire to keep you interested in the purchase, not to discourage you from buying, or refusing to sell to you.
So, why do we get the same answer ("It's too expensive, The Company will never agree") now that we got then? Research and validation?
No, what we got was the MEC Chairman reading a book that led us down a rabbit hole called the Variable Benefit Plan. That's where hundreds of thousands of our dues dollars have gone. (And The Company must be mightily impressed by our ability to toss dues dollars down that rabbit hole.)
Originally Posted by
kronan
And I'm sorry, but there is no friggin way that anyone with 25+ YOS is earning retro VB benefits. Not happening. IF the VB comes to pass, calculations aren't going to go. hmm, Tony C hit 25 years in 2015, so let's credit him with
265,000 *2% for 2016 and 270,000 *2% for 2017, and 275,000 *2% for 2018 or an Instantaneous Annual Pension benefit of 16.2k in addition to his existing 130k.
Instead, what will happen, is Tony C would accumulate an additional VB benefit for every year beyond it's transition date. IOW=Tony C would have his 130k and the additional ballpark 5.6k he would earn in 2019.
Apologies to TonyC for assuming he's in the 25 year ball park.
Adding YOS to our existing A plan improves the benefits 5.2k a year. But I thought there was an Already insane amount of disapproval over the Total Elimination of a YOS Cap in the VB proposal
Yeah, well TonyC wishes he has 25 years. Maybe he'd be bidding better trips by now.
In fact, I won't have 25 years when I reach my 60th birthday. Even when working beyond Age 65 was only an option for Flight Engineers, I would have been satisfied to retire at Age 60 with my years of service times 2 percent times my "High Five" ...
IF ... IF the FAE Cap had risen over the years commensurate with Average Earnings. The FAE Cap was never intended to remain static at $260,000 any more than our hourly rates were intended to remain static at 1998 rates.
Since the FAE Cap has NOT been raised, the only option I have to achieve the same retirement income (replacement ratio) is to increase my Years of Service by working beyond Age 60.
Want me to retire at age 60? Simple. Raise the FAE Cap.
And here's the beauty of the thing. When you raise the FAE Cap, EVERYBODY benefits. No donut hole of people we have to cut special deals for because they would be hurt otherwise. Raise the cap, and those who already have 25 years of service will have an increased retirement benefit. (OK, maybe there is one pilot whose "High 5" is
exactly $260,000 and they would have to improve that figure first. It's far more likely that High 5's are already well above $260K.) Junior guys will benefit because their "Guaranteed for life" benefit will be increased from $130,000 to the higher amount. Nobody's future would be dependent on how long they could participate in a new "Defined Contribution and Hope for a Good Stock Market" scheme.
So, since we've completed the "2016 research and validate exercise", let me ask this simple question, again.
How much would it cost to raise the FAE Cap by $20,000?
.