Correct me if I am wrong but: The balance sheet did not significantly change when people were excluded. Less people take out but less money also goes in. It is funded based on how many people are in the program and what their take will be. Less expected out less goes in. Redundant enough.

 

But if its funded, its funded! If they are easing their overall burden on funding the other employees' retirement plans, then it also eases the burden to properly fund our plan! I think that's the point trying to be made!

 

Less goes into a different plan(cash bal). The pension plan has fewer liabilities each year. Not and R and I guy just doing some reasoning.

Also, when the Company floated that plan for us, I believe they guaranteed us something like 3% return on our money. Problem was if it returned more than that they kept it.

Past...

 

So 100% is still 100% good, but that is not what was said.

401K matched at 3.5% and cash balance contribution at 5-8%.
http://www.commercialappeal.com/mca/...382871,00.html

For what its worth the pilots having a seperate fund at USAIR actually made them an easier target. Fewer tears and fewer votes.

 

If the company matches the 401(k) at 3.5%, they would be making money as long as the employee didn't max out their 401(k). If you put in the max amount for those of us under 50 of $15k, you would only get $525 bucks match, and that is over the course of the year, vice matching 50% of the first $1k (and getting the current $500).

I don't disagree that their are potential risks in having a defined benefit plan, the key is to maximize the benefits that it brings to us in retirement while minimizing that risk. Give the R&I guys a call and ask them how they would like to plan on doing that, hopefully you will get some reassurances that this issue has been looked at and will continue to be looked at.

 

Dude, don't negotiate with yourself-at least not in public. Leave the attempts at bad news for the managerial types. Don't worry they've thought of every one of your worst nightmares and then some. No need to help them along.

 

Call me stupid but I believe the 3.5% means they will match up to 3.5% of my salary (within other limits).

I am not giving any secrets away to management so not really sure about negotiating by myself (billy Idol song?). But if my solidarity is being questioned I will glad to stand up on my next day hub turn with a hat, lanyard, and pin and sing the internationale. I may need to borrow a hat but I can fake the words

 

Boy, you asked for it, but your not really stupid. Company matches the 1st 1% you contribute, and then half of the next 5%. So as long as an employee contributes 6%, he gets a 3.5% match. Messes with low level types that make less than $14300. Even if they contribute most of their income, they don't get up to the old $500 match, which they would have gotten with a $1000 contribution. Above that salary level, it gets better than the old 401. Except for us, since our 401 is spelled out in the CBA

 

Wrong. If an employee who makes say $40K per year puts in 6% of their salary, $2400, the company will match the 1st 1%, $400, and half of the rest, 2.5%, or $1000, for a $1400 total. Only those under about $14300 get hosed. Also, the max contribution for a Non-HCE (Highly Compesated Employee, which any pilot off probation is) is more than 15%

 

I didn't call you stupid-there you go negotiating with yourself again. Don't sell yourself short, you're a hell of a slouch, Judge. I didn't question your commitment to the union either. If you read my post carefully, I already said that you weren't inventing ideas that management wasn't already aware of. You are however giving those who want to do these types of things, hope that they can sell this to the pilot group in the future. You think you are ahead of the curve with your thinking, but you are forgetting something paramount in negotiations. Why offer a solution to a problem that your opponent hasn't even said existed? They will be more than happy to create a problem for you. The Jetblue guys tried to create a transcon duty problem that didn't exist, and currently we are creating a retirement issue that didn't exist. Sorry FH, Jetjok, EXDal737 and others this isn't the first group of pilots who had the retirement messed up by a long shot(at least 25 years or so). It's just the first group of baby boomers. Anyway other than a relevant current example, my comment wasn't really about age 60. Your whole argument comes from a position of weakness because you are creating the problem(at FDX) and any solution from said argument will likely be a weak one.