...and earning below the cap

(So it's not really a cap)

Well, at least not yet anyway😉

 

Oh it certainly is a cap, but like the AMT just one of the loopholes we jump around so that we can live here. Don't like the cap, tell ALPAPAC to get off their a$$ and fix it. Your biatch is with the government not FDX. You and Tony may think a 9% b fund is crap. I dont.

 

On an adjacent note, in the not-too-distant future, I'd like a lump sum A plan option, although every company would low-ball all of us. I have little faith in the long-term viability of pretty much any benefit, be it A plans from obscenely profitable-today companies, mutual funds/401K that a government might confiscate or certainly social security that I'll never see.

I knew guys at the old USAir who got away with vast sums and nobody ever came after it after the company faltered. Ah the good old days...a 2% A-plan.

 

If/when that doomsday scenario occurs, your best choice would be to have that "lump sum" tucked away in ammo, smokes, and booze. Those will be the best forms of currency.

 

It's a perfect fit.






.

 

where did you dig up that ad Tony?

 

Shack....

 

If you understand the above numbers, then you will understand the ramifications of a move by Washington DC to limit the amount under 415 (c) to $20,000, or 20% of your AGI. In effect, it would make anything about the cap taxable income, subject to your tax rate.

I know we love to bash ALPA for all sins past and present here, but while I was working as a Legislative Affairs assistant this was a big area of concern and an area we spent a lot of time lobbying against changes. Many pilots lost A funds in the post 9/11 period, and as their airlines recovered were given profit sharing checks or other cash to help offset the loss. Additionally, most companies went to DC plans (like our B plan) in the 14-18% range.

You can see the irony in getting your pension whacked, only to then be taxed on the "consolation prize" of a reduced DC retirement plan.

My own approach when discussing with law maker's staff depended on their background. If they were historically union/labor supporters, we pitched a history lesson on the unfairness of taxing gains distributed due to the loss of pension.

With more pro business staffs, we pointed out that for most small businesses the only retirement options are 401k plans, SEPs, and other self funded retirement vehicles.

In this case, most of the balanced budget initiatives died, and nobody was willing to make the tough call on how to split the baby. I am proud to have been part of the effort to protect those benefits. I also think it was an example where a little bi-partisan common interest just made sense. Taxing folks who have tried to not become wards of the states in their old age just seems bad, and when it makes more sense to **** money away in Vegas than save for retirement, you have bad government.

All that aside, we are now 18 Trillion or so in debt. I'd squirrel away every nut I could find in my tax deferred accounts now, but I think there is a very real risk to even B plans from the tax man at some future point. There is simply so much money out there in 401ks, etc, the goverment cannot help but see that as a potential source of future revenue. When you look at what most Americans have saved for retirement, the fact you have $100,000, $500,000, or a couple million in the bank make you a very very small percentage of the population. Your votes will be blanketed by many more who have nothing.

So--next time you bad-mouth lobbyists, or special interest groups...here's an epiphany. You are one. And you need advocates. The fact we are absolutely ****ing and moaning about the fact our six figure retirement is not inflation adjusted, and our annual 20k company contribution is not big enough should scare the bejesus out of all of you. You are like the drunk staggering out of a bar at 2 am, with a roll of $100s in your wallet that every other person in bar noticed at some point. If you don't feel like you are vulnerable walking home right now, then you don't know the threat. Its not the company that is going to crush your future earning power...its those guys in the next alley. I think they have IRS and SSA on their T-shirts, and they are looking to roll all of us first chance they get.

 

Occupied with other things, so sorry for the delayed response TonyC

Silly me, and here I thought the CBA had a few provisions allowing FedEx to schedule us to exceed 8/24 in certain situations. Almost positive there was some minimal rest FedEx was contractually required to provide us for exceeding 8/24

12.C.6.b A pilot who exceeds 8 ABH in any consecutive 24 hour period shall be scheduled for a rest period of 17 hours prior to performing his next duty as an operating crew member. That rest period may be operationally reduced as necessary, consistent with FAR limitations.

(Any guesses at to the FAR limitations, here they are for easy access.
Normal Rest Requirements Crewmembers must during the 24 consecutive hours preceding the completion of any flight segment have: 121.471
(b). - 9 consecutive hours of rest for less than 8 hours of scheduled flight time.
- 10 consecutive hours of rest for 8 or more but less than 9 hours of scheduled flight time.
- 11 consecutive hours of rest for 9 or more hours of scheduled flight time.

• Reduced Rest Requirement 121.471
(c) - For less than 8 block hours rest may be to reduced to a minimum of 8 hours if the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 10 hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period.
- For 8 block hours but less than 9 block hours rest may be reduced to a minimum of 8 hours if the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 11 hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period.
- For 9 or more block hours rest may be reduced to a minimum of 9 hours if the flight crewmember is given a rest period of at least 12 hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after the commencement of the reduced rest period.)

How many hotel rooms is the company required to provide for hub turns of 2+30 or less? I guess you’re implying that FedEx management will REDUCE the time available to sort the freight. A scheme to game this provision that the vast majority of us think is aimed at Indy (Oakland is a lesser player) With that expectation, I don’t understand why FedEx hasn’t simply reduced the Hub turn times to already eliminate Hotel Hub turn rooms altogether. Haven’t looked at the Paris Sort, how many Hotel Hub turn rooms does the company currently provide there.


International Hotel changed, not GONE as you wrote, but different. Frustrating, and irritating that it now requires FC approval to use w/ the pre-TA limits. But I’m equally sure that inventive pilots will find a way to delay departure\arrive early to mitigate the impact of this change. And what percentage of the crew force qualifies as the “some people supposedly abusing it” that you wrote of.

International Alert Calls. The TA verbiage is changed to reflect the guidance in the FOM. Thought the no alert calls for Canada? Mexico? Caribbean? had been in existence for quite awhile. (Still had a bookmarked version of FOM 52, October 2013 so not quite sure how long that No Alert Call for some destinations has been in effect, but something that predated the TA vote by 2 years surely can’t make the TA concessionary. Don’t know how many people were holding CRS feet to the contractual fire for Alert calls to those destinations, know I sure had the impression they weren’t a player for years. Don’t know how well they’re working either, expect they’re kinda like the BS Wakeup calls you get when your flights towards the beginning of the sort departure window)

Tel Aviv? Domestic limits? Something that impacts a small percentage of pilots makes this a concessionary contract? Haven't looked into it in great deal. Thought it was aimed at the CGN base, what about it makes it concessionary for every Intl flying pilot here?

My bad on combining the B plan bump, still I don’t think an immediate 10% bump when I would have preferred an 11-14% bump doesn’t mean it’s a concessionary pay raise. Well, unless you use Washington DC math. That’s when a 10% raise is actually a 3% pay cut.

Some people think any concession is a concessionary contract. IMO-a concessionary contract is doing the same or more work for less pay. Not simply being paid less than I’d like or hoped to achieve.

 

I knew guys at the old USAir who got away with vast sums and nobody ever came after it after the company faltered. Ah the good old days...a 2% A-plan.[/QUOTE]

The good old days were USAir's and others 3 to 1 Trip-rig! Yes, the big boys were getting 8 hours of pay every 24 hours TAFB.