Originally Posted by
kronan
TonyC,
Great job of advancing the knowledge base of how we got here. One addition, this is anecdotal though, I have a vague recollection of our NC desiring to work on our A plan limit during the TA that resulted in CBA 2006.
What I recall is that the pay rates in the 2006 CBA would not put many people above the FAE cap established in the 1999 CBA. Most of those who would be affected were benefited by the small age/longevity multipliers that were established to offset the time value they could not realize of the small "B" Fund increase. I also recall that at the conclusion of negotiations, The Company's head Labor Relations attorney discussed and acknowledged the need to raise the FAE cap during the "next" CBA negotiations. (And then came the "Bridge to nowhere" CBA.)
Originally Posted by
kronan
You imply that FedEx is $200k to the good by limiting our raises to a slope below 3%, and relate that to less $$ available to put food on the table. But inflation has been running less than 3%, and doing so over the past 22 years. There are various inflation calculators available, but after plugging the $183.37 into several of them, $291.31 was the highest value I found. And that's significantly less than the $341.12 you used as a comparison. And still a sizable gap below the $335.56 of our current pay rate (Shoot, that $291 inflationary value is only slightly greater than current NB pay).
I'm sorry. I did not mean to imply that. I meant to state it as a fact. That is the amount of money that The Company has saved by keeping our pay rates below the 3% slope (for a 15-year, widebody Captain -- the amounts are proportionateey smaller for other seats and year groups).
Now, we can debate whether our pay rates SHOULD have risen at that rate, and that's fine. There are a number of cost of Living indices which use different metrics and different assumptions. In addition to food, there's energy, trasnportation, housing, apparel, health care ... and so on, and those are treated differently by different indices. For example, the index for the elderly is weighted more by increased health care costs.
My point was this -- there is an assumption that is very prevalent that 3% is the norm for pay rate increases. It's not true. We lag behind that. Furthermore, we won't know what the rates will be in the future. They might fall below 3%, or they might exceed 3%. But most importantly, just keeping up with the cost of living is NOT ENOUGH. We deserve more than a COST of living increase. We deserve a better STANDARD of living. Seat progression and longevity raises do not constitute pay raises. We deserve to put better food on the table, better cars in the garages, and better shoes on our kids' feet. (Well, maybe not the shoes. ;-) )
Originally Posted by
kronan
It would be great if we had indexed our A plan to the IRS limits for Defined Benefit Compensation, but we didn't. We didn't in 99, we didn't in 2006, and we absolutely totally failed to do so in 2015.
In fact, the Main emphasis from our Chairman regarding our TA goals in 2013, 14, and for his partial year of service in 2015 sounded a great deal like your proposed simplicity of restoring our combined Retirement Compensation to the 50% + level it once was.
Indexing the FAE Cap would be great, but I'm not even asking for that -- THIS time. Including a cost of living multiplier for the Defined Benefit would be great, too, but I'm not asking for that, either. I realize that getting the FAE cap back to a level that provides a 50% replacement ratio is a big step, and I'd be happy with that first big step. As I've observed before, some will say it's too big of a step, it will cost The Company too much money. I look at it from the other side -- The Company has saved a lot of money by failing to raise the FAE cap all these years. They have the money to fix it now.
Originally Posted by
kronan
If the PSPP had gone into effect, it would mean an extra $5800 (minimum) for every 25+ year Pilot with earnings in excess of $290k.
That may be The Company's contribution on behalf of the pilot to the PSPS, but the number of shares/pancakes that buys and how much they will be worth when he retires will remain to be seen -- it can vary.
Originally Posted by
kronan
One difference between the PSPP proposed Benefit formulas compared to the previous tweaks\improvements\complications is that the Benefit is greater for those pilots furthest from retirement whereas in the past if you were "Young" your actual benefit was $0.
I disagree. Every pilot in his first year of service, even while on probation, earns 2% of his eventual High Five Final Average Earnings to be paid upon retirement until he and his spouse die. Under the PSPP, the retirement benefit is based on the eventual value of the share that will be purchased based on how hard he works that year. The way I see it, the pilots with the most to gain by fixing our "A" Plan by raising the FAE cap are the young, junior pilots.
Originally Posted by
kronan
And you didn't address Why our NC added a bit more complexity to "make whole" a small percentage of our pilots had the PSPP been adopted. We have a small minority of pilots who choose to drop a sizeable percentage of their monthly schedule.
That dynamic wasn't even considered in trying to determine which pilots would fall into the "donut hole." We have pilots whose combination of years of service and age will not permit them to see any benefit from the PSPP, even if they work a full schedule. Those pilots would be "made whole" in some way (not specified) so that they will not be any worse off than if we had never changed to the PSPP. In other words, they will see no harm, but also NO BENEFIT from the change. Or, in OTHER words, they will be left behind -- no improvements. That violates another tenant of negotiations: Nobody gets a pass, and nobody gets left behind.
Originally Posted by
kronan
Pilot Compensation is the total package. Taxable Pay, B plan contributions, as well as the Promise to Pay Deferred Compensation of our Pension. I hope FastBurner will chime in with a WAG of what it would cost FedEx to improve our Pension to the $230k, but my mental math of an extra $100k per pilot stumbles over all the zero's.
And personally, I don't want all of our next CBAs compensation improvements to be Deferred in a Promise to Pay Pension.
I can divide $100 by 12 ... $8,3333,33 per month. To FedEx, that's pocket change.
Originally Posted by
kronan
What I've told my Reps, and submitted via the online survey that was available to each and every FedEx Pilot, is that I want improved pay, an improved Cash over Cap B plan, and improvements to our A plan-even if the only method of doing so is via a PSPP like Benefit Calculation change.
I also commented that there's nothing particularly sacred about a 2% "contribution\floor"...no reason that 2% couldn't be a 2.1% or 2.2% value. After all, the Cash Benefit Pension plan FedEx recently terminated for our fellow employees used 5% (and 8% for some)
That's all I'm asking, is for everyone to tell their Block Reps what they meant when they said (in the polls and surveys), "Improve the 'A' Plan." For me, it's simple -- increase the FAE cap to twice the IRS limit.
I'm in favor of improving the "B" Plan and Cash over the Cap, too. What scares me is that so many people view that as a fix to the "A" Plan. It is not. 50% Replacement ratio cannot be achieved by "B" Plan changes alone. The "A" Plan MUST provide 50% income replacement. The "B" Plan will address the rising cost of living issue ... for now.
Good discussion.
.