I don't disagree on what could occur --- the counter argument is what could be imposed under a binding arbitration scenario given only UPS now has an active A fund among major carriers?

Unfortunately, those with 5 or less years until retirement upon date of new CBA ratification may not see your scenario as a threat --- and are pushing SS to raise the current $260k on the current A fund.

Once they retire they're protected.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and how the current crew force will react

I hope & pray there won't be deafening silence!!

 

What would be wrong with allowing new hires to choose A, B or a combo. Let them take control of their decisions. If the new hire is young enough, a 20% B fund would look tempting vs an A fund. IF the company really wants to sell more B fund vs A fund, then they could add in a big 401k match for those that elect the B fund retirement plan. It would not be too complicated to throw a mixed choice in where you could choose say a 15% B and a 25% A or whatever.

For that matter, the company would not have to divide the cockpit (good point), they could offer the same choices to all pilots. Of course most currently on property are older and would not forgo an A for a few years of increased B. But there are some young guys here that might make a choice of a combo package.

Some numbers would make you really have to think about it. What about a 25% B with a company match 401K 1 for 1. I know I didn't take into account the IRS limits with my vision. FDX has enough money to throw at this problem and make it go away. I don't think they would ever throw enough to really solve it, but they could if they wanted to. If they want out of the A fund business, there are ways to get out without going to war with the crew force...but we know the tactic they will take.

 

I'm with you, Gun. If this was to happen, eventually the "A-planners" will be in the minority to the "All-Bes". That is when payback, for the "under the bus toss" starts, as it should.
It was once said; "it's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees". I feel as strongly about this as I do about preferential bidding.
Keep the faith,
fbh

 

Curious, what makes you think we would ever be subject to binding arbitration? My understanding is we would have to, very foolishly in my opinion, agree to that path.

 

K
IMHO, we don't want anyone set apart.... even if it is by choice. Division will be there and down the road it will just cause dissension in the ranks!! I saw it in the guard with different retirements and different jobs... Tech/ART vs AGR. As a permanent part timer, I saw it cause issues. Now put it on a larger scale. The follow on contract for instance, some wanting more B plan while others wanting changes to the A. The company then offers only the "all B scalers" the carrot, see the potential? At some point, they will be the majority.
If everyone is eating the same slop from the same trough, then we can try and get more fiber thrown in the mix and it effects everyone's diet the same. Just my two cents.
Pakage

 

Narrow body positions are replacing wide body. The message was posted with a purpose in mind. They're trying to lessen the shiite storm before it starts.

I expect some of us will be excessed. 50 is a number being thrown around. Many will move from MD11 or Airbus to 757.

 

Equal Pay for Monkeys - YouTube

 

Exactly. it wouldn't hurt those retiring in the next 5 years. Maybe 10 years. But at some point those that threw the new generation under the bus will get a nasty surprise.

Reminds me of those donkeys who are part of the top 1%. Not all of them, just a vocal minority. Anything that doesn't result in a big windfall for them is peripheral.

 

I'm not very good at math, but if they are replacing A300's & MD-10's with 767's why wouldn't an excess bid go from widebody to widebody?

Hmmm ...

 

[QUOTE=DLax85;1547636] the counter argument is what could be imposed under a binding arbitration scenario given only UPS now has an active A fund among major carriers?

The federal ERISA laws are very clear. An arbitrator can not terminate nor freeze a defined benefit (DB) fund. The only way we can lose it are a distress termination in bankruptcy (judge must approve), or we negotiate it away.


If you read the ERISA mandated letter that the company sends, you'll see that our DB plan is adequately funded. There is no reason for us to fear that it is in jeopardy.

Additionally executive management's DB fund is tied with ours. For what it's worth Dave Webb & I discussed it would be akin to cutting off your nose to spite your face, as executive management would have to terminate their own DB fund if they terminated ours. Don't know all the legalities of this, but when Webb was the MEC chair he had crossed thru these scenarios.