Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Latest company negotiations update >

Latest company negotiations update

Search
Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Latest company negotiations update

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 11-08-2014, 09:58 AM
  #111  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 55
Default

Originally Posted by Shaggy1970 View Post
Dave,
I am no financial expert but the way I understand it is Total defined contribution limit is 52K but the most any employer can invest on your behalf is 31,200 you can put in 17500 in your 401K and that leaves 3,300 you can contribute additionally to reach the 52K limit.
Thanks. I don't know either, so it sounds like a job for my accountant to show me the answer.
Dave Behnke is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 10:49 AM
  #112  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sluggo_63's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,273
Default

Originally Posted by gcsass View Post
I learned much in the guard......awesome group of guys....except for Popeye......and he was just different!

The guard leadership was so caring......they would often come into my room and ask how I was doing....offer to rub my shoulders if I seemed stressed.....weekly foot rubs.....things like that

The best thing was that they had a bunch of hard charging, hard partying, steely eyed FedEx pilots who taught me everything I know about flying a jet!
That sounds awesome! Where do I sign up? I'd love to meet those steely-eyed guys some day! The guys I know are more aluminum-foily eyed guys.
Sluggo_63 is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 11:57 AM
  #113  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 331
Default

Originally Posted by Sluggo_63 View Post
That sounds awesome! Where do I sign up? I'd love to meet those steely-eyed guys some day! The guys I know are more aluminum-foily eyed guys.
They are such good dudes that they surely must have been Marines in another life!
gcsass is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 11:59 AM
  #114  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Default

Here's a funny thing -

Management says an accepted fare system improvement is waiting for us in their proposal...That sounds so tempting.


Fact - They fouled up current accepted fare policy mid contract. There is nothing preventing them from restoring it's full functionality IMMEDIATELY.

A new CBA is not required. No LOA is required.

They don't even need to tell anyone, which is how they changed it in 2006 and how they implemented the sick optimizer. Apparently this method is preferred.

This "smart efficiency achievement" was a mid contract give back. We'd like it back with no penalty toward other improvements. We won't even ask for the money we lost from 2006 until now. This shouldn't be hard because I've been assured from a good source that the company's offer is not concessionary. Therefore this is a no brainer. Implement at soonest.

Last edited by Gunter; 11-08-2014 at 12:17 PM.
Gunter is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 01:28 PM
  #115  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by Dave Behnke View Post

So I'm curious, was it the entire previous MEC who directed the Dear Leader to counter the will of the crewforce and support Age 65?

Yes. Their letter to the membership, signed by each Block Representative, has been mentioned and discussed many, many times here on APC throughout the course of the past ... what is it now ... 8 years.

They did not support a change to the Regulated Age, they agreed to DROP OPPOSITION to the change, PROVIDED that certain conditions were met. The conditions were met, and we dropped our opposition.

(Only a third of FedEx pilots who responded to Prater's Blue Ribbon Panel poll wanted to oppose the change even if change was inevitable. The percentage for ALPA pilots together was about the same.)



Originally Posted by Dave Behnke View Post

Also, I know of at least one previous Committee Chair who was "fired" by the Dear Leader absent any consultation with the MEC. Unless you're simply speaking hypothetically, then it's fine.

Nothing hypothetical at all. You may notice my deliberate insertion of the word "indirectly", separated by commas, into the sentence describing the relationship between Committee Chairmen and the MEC.
"Committee Chairmen work for the MEC, indirectly, not the other way around."
Since the entire MEC cannot be in continuous session to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the MEC, they elect officers and charge them with those responsibilities. It is the MEC Chairman who speaks and acts on behalf of the MEC to conduct the daily business, which includes oversight of the MEC Committees. If a Committee Chairman refuses to conduct himself in harmony with the goals and direction of the MEC, it is the MEC Chairman's responsibility, and it is certainly within his authority, to fire said MEC Committee Chairman.

It makes one wonder why the MEC had to meet and do the dirty work in this instance. It would imply that the MEC Chairman wasn't doing his job.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 01:52 PM
  #116  
Proponent of Hysteria
 
FXDX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Default

[QUOTE=TonyC;1760285]
They did not support a change to the Regulated Age, they agreed to DROP OPPOSITION to the change, PROVIDED that certain conditions were met. The conditions were met, and we dropped our opposition.

That is one of the main reasons you guys were ousted. You still don't seem to get that.
FXDX is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 01:57 PM
  #117  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by FXDX View Post
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
They did not support a change to the Regulated Age, they agreed to DROP OPPOSITION to the change, PROVIDED that certain conditions were met. The conditions were met, and we dropped our opposition.
That is one of the main reasons you guys were ousted. You still don't seem to get that.

I don't know what you mean by "you guys" or who you think was ousted. If you're referring to me, I wasn't on the MEC then. Nobody who was on the MEC then was ousted. Our current Secretary-Treasurer was a Block Rep who signed the letter.

So, maybe you could clarify.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 01:59 PM
  #118  
Proponent of Hysteria
 
FXDX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Default

I mean guys from that regime and those that continue to pine for their return.
FXDX is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 02:17 PM
  #119  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by FXDX View Post

I mean guys from that regime and those that continue to pine for their return.

Does "that regime" include the FedEx ALPA R&I Committee Chairman who served on Prater's Blue Ribbon Panel that commissioned the poll? Question 1: "Do you want the regulated age to change to 65?"






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 11-08-2014, 03:02 PM
  #120  
Ok, No more sleeping Dog
 
FLMD11CAPT's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD-11, F/O
Posts: 889
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG View Post
Actually the amount over the IRS limit would be paid in cash. At least according to the PFC column.
Which would be immediately be taxed at your normal rate instead of growing taxed deferred in a retirement vehicle of your choosing........
FLMD11CAPT is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TheManager
Major
9584
07-28-2015 12:15 PM
Quagmire
Major
253
04-16-2011 06:19 AM
Rocket Man
Cargo
2
09-18-2005 12:59 PM
RockBottom
Major
0
07-31-2005 10:20 PM
Freighter Captain
Cargo
0
05-27-2005 09:42 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices