You missed my sentence about one option. That would be preferred.

However, any company (not just FedEx and us pesky pilots) trying to extricate themselves from the over burdensome regulations placed on pension funding and at the same time make those employees close to whole is a major problem. Especially when those current employees are looking at a retirement horizon sometime between 1 month and 30 years out. The 29 year old sees 35 years of market gains and their potential much differently than the 64 year old sees his 30 years of past work. Similarly, the math required to make those pilots ‘whole’ is vastly different.

My point is that two plans, the haves and have nots, like the failed TA presented, creates instant hostility and infighting at the next round of negotiations. 3 options might push that fighting out to contract 2032. 5 options might, as John says in the last video and currently pax carriers have, ‘make retirement simply a function of payroll.’

Someone with better info on longevity and ages of pilots than I can define these better but my back of napkin spitball example is something like:

60+ (or current 25 year guys) keep current with a bump
50-60 get 80% of that bump and 15% market $$
40-50 get 60% and 20% market $
30-40 get 40% and 25
<30 get 30% market.

I don’t know exactly what they’re position is, I’m not advocating or trying to negotiate, I’m just offering a point of view that may allow the issues of work rules and scope to be the unifier and decider in the future negotiations instead of hard dollars which makes it easier for the company to buy votes with retirement adjustments.

There’s still the argument about years dedicated being worth $x vs working your self to death. The old A/B ratios we currently face, that’s another philosophical challenge. I don’t have all, or any, of the answers, but it’s not a one size fits all solution.