Originally Posted by pinseeker

Yes, the timing of the costs are different, but that doesn't mean that the VB plan isn't more expensive than the current A plan. Unless they unequivocally said that the VB plan isn't more expensive or cheaper, or even the same cost as the current A plan, they avoided the question.

If you think that the VB plan isn't more costly, then explain how a 5% ROI with the same or lower investment dollars can yield more than the current company average ROI of over 6%. Furthermore, the plan requires the company to contribute a fixed percentage of the pilot payroll every year. If the pilot payroll increases every year, which it does unless there is a reduction in flying, the company contribution increase every year. In 23 years, the contribution would be double what the contribution is today.

It's funny how many things they won't say because it's proprietary information. Did they also mention that FedEx has made greater contributions to the A plan for the last 5 or 6 years than required? That sounds like it is a real hardship for them.

Why are we spending our dues money to solve a problem for the company and then accepting pennies on the dollar in return? The VB plan as proposed by the MEC to the crew force still falls way short of the 50% of final income replacement during retirement that the union said was their goal. When the first contract was signed, the top pay rate was around $200 per hour. If you multiplied that by 1000 hours, you get an income of $200,000. So that retirement of $130,000 was 65% of the highest pay rate. Now they are looking to replace it with something in the 35% range and we take all of the investment risk. No thank you! Get the retirement back up to at least 50% with no risk to us, and then we can talk!