FedElta

The PRP only pays $112 per month, and does not adjust up.

Regards,
BG

Flying Boxes

The HRA is an individual account worth $25K (partly paid with scope money obligated to all union members) to those over age 53 on 1 January 2008. Sec 27.H.7.c & Sec 27.I.7 shows this is an incentive to stay. First section specifically prevents pro-ration (it was not, we didn't think of that). The second allows the HRA to pay for Post-Medicare Healthcare. Now look at third sentence of Sec 27.H7.e. "Any unused amounts in the HRA at the last to die of the pilot, eligible surviving spouse and eligible surviving dependents will be forfeited to the VEBA." So there was enough thought to keep the HRA money in the trust under these conditions, but absolutely no thought about returning unused portions to the trust at age 65. This was sold to the membership as "removing an impediment to retire" or "removing a disincentive to retire". But is written as a give away.

Maybe this should be the "Group Trust Fund" to provide money between 60-65, kind of like removing a disincentive to retire!

And the VEBA is a trust, with conditions set by the CBA. So this was possible. Just not profitable for some.

Now for the Post-Medicare Healthcare.

If a pilot is paying for it, shouldn't the pilot have access to the money when needed? Why not use the VEBA trust ($0.50/CH) to go into individual pilots trust based on their employment history (kind of like seniority!), instead of group trust fund? Why not get out what you put in? ALPA is tracking dues, and $25K plus interest for every pilot over 53 as of 1 January 2008!

The Post-Medicare is a group fund which conveniently we all pay for regardless of how much is contributed. I think the CBA healthcare was designed more to profit some individuals at the expense of the rest.

I like the $0.50 VEBA Trust if all who pay into it have access to the money! Using other healthcare should save trust money for others when needed without discriminating against those with other healthcare. I just can't shake the feeling that the CBA was designed to funnel money to specific groups vs looking out for all members.

Than how come there kind of is!

As I understand healthcare at FedEx (I do not have Tricare, so may be incorrect).
Tricare is primary and FedEx picks up remaining cost as a secondary insurance. So the Post-Medicare should have a secondary insurance vehicle for ALL pilots to benefit for what they "paid" for.

Unused DSA goes into HRA.

Flying Boxes

Good info to know! And congrats on your retirements! I am not close to retirement so many things I'm not sure of. But from what I understand, things could have been done a little better.

I do not advocate taking anything away and do not care if pilots stay till 65. Improving things for retirees helps everyone including myself, even if DW told me we do not negotiate for retired pilots (or pilots not on the seniority list) during discussions about this CBA! I am glad we are improving new hire pay in the ongoing negotiations.

The CBA language should match the sells job though. Or just come out and say what is in the thing. I actually did read the thing!

Flyinhigh

It reimburses up to $112 per month for you and up to $112 per month for your Medicare eligible spouse to cover the cost of a Medicare Part B supplement. Just as a side note, you can't get Tricare For Life unless you enroll in Medicare Part B. The cost of Medicare Part B is indexed based on your Modified Adjusted Gross Income.

FDXLAG

Flying Boxes,

I hope your comment about "we didn't think of it" was sarcasm. At the time it was customary for pilots not to retire at 60 but move to the back seat. It was a willful decision to make that money a no strings attached gift from all of the pilots to a select few.

But no other quibbles with your posts.

BlackKnight

Master seniority list shows 4171 as the last number. Post on PFC shows 4336 as the last number. Which one would be more accurate? I'm assuming the post, and it's just a number of seniority numbers/crewmembers didn't make the July cut, but ~160 seems like a high number...

brn2fly1

4171 is correct, the 4336 was before July 1st when the adjusted the seniority list for pilots that have left.

TonyC

I wasn't part of the MEC then, so I don't have any insights as to why the MEC chose anything. However, I don't see it as having excluded anybody, since everybody has the option to participate. If somebody has a better plan available than what is offered by FedEx and these VEBAs, then they are under no obligation to use them. However, that choice they make does not equate to the MEC choosing to exclude them.

I cannot imagine the chaos that would evolve if we tried to tailor 4,000 health insurance plans for 4,000 individual situations so that each and every person would have exactly what's best for them. Hey, I don't want the plan for "Spouse Same Age Excellent Health" because my wife is 3 years younger than me, why isn't there a plan tailored for that? Well, sure, but my ex-wife is still entitled to health care provided by me from the divorce decree, and my new wife is twenty years younger than me, but she has an chronic endocrine issue, so why can't I get a plan that fits my situation? Can you imagine the convoluted machinations if we tried to do that?

Just because some retirees will choose to not use the CBA benefit doesn't mean they were excluded. They have just as much right to use the benefit as anyone else.



Where do you come up with 2008?

I suspect you're not reading very carefully.

January 1, 2008 is the effective date for several programs, and the cutoff date for some, but it has nothing to do with pilots aged 53 and over. Do a search of your CBA for "age 53" and you'll find a single occurrence:


I've already mentioned this before, but I guess you might have missed it. Are you sure §27.H.7.c. establishes a condition on the VEBA, or could it be a plain language explanation of a condition that otherwise exists? You see, maybe you're an expert on ERISA law (I'm not), but it's not as simple as we may want to to be. (That's Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.) ALPA National's ERISA expert is a preeminent authority on the law and respected to the point that The Company's negotiating team has been known to defer to her interpretations on intricate ERISA issues. I trust her to know what she's talking about on this subject, but I don't trust you and I don't trust me to know, to ABSOLUTELY KNOW, what was considered, what was not, what is legal, what is not, and what could be done within the confines of that law.

It may very well be that we had the option to establish conditions and criteria for distribution of funds that would have required a pilot to retire in order to receive the benefit. Or, it may very well be that such conditions would be a violation of ERISA law and open us up to age discrimination or other forms of liabilities. I don't know, and YOU DON'T EITHER.

I'm willing to admit I don't know, and I want to explore the possibilities. You are convinced you're right, and you know who to blame for it. Since it really doesn't help anything or anyone to continue repeating our positions, I'll just leave it at that.



We weren't the first group of folks to use a VEBA -- we didn't invent them. The question of what to do with funds remaining after the recipients kick the bucket is not unique to us, so it's not like we needed a magic fortune-telling machine to foresee the possibility and fashion an appropriate provision in the VEBA language.

But I'm curious to know how YOU know that "absolutely no thought" was given to "returning unused portions to the trust at age 65." In fact, we know that there was thought given to the possibility that the pilot might not have a zero balance in that fund at age 65. Do you know what options were considered for the disposition of that money? Were you in the room with our Negotiating Committee, our attorneys, and our ERISA expert when the options were laid out and considered? Of course you weren't.

OK, we get it. You characterize the Pre-Medicare VEBA as a give-away, and you will not be convinced other wise. You certainly have a right to that opinion.



So says Flying Boxes, ERISA expert.



Every pilot has access to the benefit.

No pilot is required to use it.

I don't know how it could be more fair.



Why not get rid of it altogether, add 50˘ per credit hour to everybody's paycheck, and leave it up to each individual pilot to save for his own post-retirement health care?


Oh, and if you fail to save enough and you get really sick -- so sorry.

And if your spouse has a catastrophic event right after the stock market takes a big dip -- too bad.


How does one profit from accessing health care? How can it be at the expense of the rest? Are you saying that a newhire should not be entitled to the same health care as a 25-year pilot because he hasn't paid as much in premiums? So when the newhire takes his wife to the hospital to deliver their second child and the 25-year pilot takes his (third) wife to the hospital to deliver their first child, should the newhire have to pay more? Is he getting a benefit at the expense of the rest of the pilots?


I do not understand your logic.




I'm not sure you want to shake the feeling.

Nobody has direct access to the money; everybody has access to the health care insurance. I fail to see how that is discriminating.






.

TonyC

I'm getting the feeling that there's only one person in this conversation with an agenda. I made the mistake of answering your questions because I thought you wanted the answers. Clearly, you've already answered your own questions to your own satisfaction, and have little use for any other answers except to springboard to your own sermon.

Maybe the feeling I'm getting is wrong. I hope so.






.

Flying Boxes

TonyC,
Open, honest discussion is good. Sometimes people are correct, sometimes they are wrong. I do not claim to be an expert at anything. But I do read the CBA, Union correspondence, research issues. There needs to be better communication, as has been stated since ALPA was formed. It is better to provide good information with pros and cons than "read the TA" type response.

Union email a few months back detailing the legal limitations and how the union created the retirement strategy was EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD BE PROVIDED for big ticket items like retirement, healthcare, etc. Makes it easier to understand and defend, or at least accept if not in favor.

I disagree with some of the strategic decisions the union made, but I have a right to a different opinion. I also try and provide options for improvement. We are in more agreement than disagreement in reality. And discussion of improvements is always good, even if it doesn't change anything. It keeps the dialogue open.

When you are asked a question about something you agree with, you generally answer directly and in detail.

When asked a question about something you don't agree with or something you don't want to state, you post pages of CBA language, espouse law (ERISA), etc. ….so it gives the impression you have an agenda. Your statement in a previous thread, "I wish it were that simple. It is, really, until you start talking to the ERISA attorney." I read that to imply you know the answer, it was a discussion about age 53 and age discrimination. You have just now said you don't know one way or the other. So...

The simple answer to my previous question that generated the "agenda" statement was about using the $0.50/CH VEBA contribution to offset Tricare expenses. I would have preferred the answer, "No, the pilot would have to choose between Post-Medicare Healthcare as defined in the CBA or Tricare. You don't get both."

Now the last sentence of Sec 27.I.3 states, "The purpose of this provision is to allow the ongoing monthly VEBA contributions of 50 cents per paid credit hour to be funded out of compensation that would otherwise be paid directly to pilots in cash."

Sounds like money earned by all pilots for a benefit that not all pilots will use. But can't opt out of the payment. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT THING FOR ALPA TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON TO ALL. Did Retiree Healthcare prior to this work like active pilot healthcare, WRT Tricare? (I don't know what retiree healthcare consisted of before CBA 2006) Would it ruin ALPA to research using the VEBA trust to offset healthcare expense unto the limit of those who do use the post medicare healthcare?

The $25K HRA VEBA would not be an issue for me if it did not include the scope penalty. Using that money to remove an impediment to retirement when it could have helped pilots pay for family medical bills, etc instead. That was money obligated by the CBA to everyone. I received a payment the year prior! I have no problem with money negotiated from the company going to the $25K. I would prefer the DSA be turned into the HRA instead.

Enough discussion on the past, time to move forward.

Happy 4th of July!