StarClipper

No you said you were willing to listen to them. When I said it was a sales job, you got very defensive.

PicklePausePull

Maybe it's time for a recall of our MEC. If that doesn't work, then perhaps suing ALPA for misrepresentation and malfeasance.

Let's see: DW and his over 60 crowd crawling back into left seats; SS and his mega give back contract in '15; and now CD and his A fund wrecking crew! This will be the third MEC in a row sticking it to the more junior guys so that they can grab more on their way out the door. It's time to fight our MEC, with recalls and lawsuits if need be.

Fdxlag2

Tell your mom you need an English lesson. You are the one who says they should improve our A Plan and not negotiate.

pinseeker

So if they froze the A plan, you would get $130k for life? Unless you have 25 years already, the company makes yearly contributions to the A plan for you.

ColCargill

How stupid does the MEC think we are? The 4:1 ratio is a smoke and mirrors talking point. Four dollars of obligation is NOT $4 of expenses; it is not $4 of payout. They just need to keep that money in the fund to ensure that YOU get paid what you were promised. I think it is just prudent in case there is a serious downturn in the market. Also consider that this money is invested. Under Armour stock was down 20% this year. At the beginning of the year $4 of UAA would be worth a little over $3 today - and that is in a good year for the market. The fund needs to have reserves.

Don't feel sorry for FedEx having to put away $4 to ensure you get your promised benefit. When you kick the bucket at 65.5 they will just the money intended for you to cover a new hire's benefit.

***Dear MEC: Stop wasting our dues negotiating a change we don't want, especially outside Sec 6.***

Fdxlag2

And they make bigger contributions for a new hire through 10 years. And if the pension were uncapped they would make much much much bigger contributions for a new hire through ten years.

The real point is you and I don’t know how they fund our pensions. The union does and we should.

kwri10s

I cannot believe that smart people can listen to something said and not filter the message through how well that person has done in the past with decisions.

CD told us during the last negotiation that HE decided WE would not take money from the ALPA national contingency fund because HE did not like the "austerity" measures that ALPA then demanded of our union. If we took the money then our MEC would only be able to pay/fund those union committees that were necessary for negotiations and scheduling/safety. Without our national money, a number of MEC members said that a lack of contingency funds to continue fighting influenced their decision to vote yes on the TA.

CD then decided that we had to refill our contingency fund as quickly as possible, so HE decided that WE needed a 6-year contract vs the 4-year contract the company offered in order to collect that money. 18 months after we signed the contract, our contingency fund was fully funded. So his strategic execution costs us an additional 2 years on this contract that we didn't need.

CD told us in the TA presentations that the union understands how expensive it would be for the company to increase the A fund since they got an unprecedented look at the books and the negotiating team is well versed in our retirement options. Then 2 years later he told us that NOW they really understand our retirement options and this is the best option. So all the TA decisions were made without really understanding our retirement options.

CD told us that we would explore numerous options. Instead, we are exploring only ONE option. The one option is an option that only one other union has ever implemented and that union was in bankruptcy discussions. Even the union the "inventor" of the Variable Annuity Benefit plan is a trustee for has not implemented this plan. Yet somehow it's the plan the CD led MEC has latched onto as the salvation of our retirement. Which is fully funded and has no need of saving.

The obvious other options to A fund change are: increase the A fund max cap number, or increase the multiplier, or increase the B fund percentage, or have a tiered B fund and A fund combo fund. Plus all the numerous options that I have not bothered to list. Our MEC just chose to take a hard quantifiable look at none of them.

It's pretty obvious to me that being led by CD's decisions is a path with some pretty big potholes. The MEC needs to filter where they are being led and take a much harder look at the big picture. There are lots of paths through the woods, the one they are running down looks dicy and their pathfinder has a history of leading our pilots down other paths that have some pretty big crevices to overcome.

StarClipper

I said they shouldn’t be doing it outside of contract negotiation seeing that a contract was just signed a contract 2 years ago. A contract with no improvement to the retirement and you voted for it.

Fdxlag2

There were certainly improvements to the retirement. You are a liar.

I voted for a contract that has unquestionably the best retirement in the industry. As everyone who says don’t touch my A Plan would agree. It should have been improved in 2006. It should have been improved with either FDA LOA. It should have been improved in 2011. It wasn’t thanks to large voting majorities. We wasted 10 years with no education efforts on part of the union.

pinseeker

First, I never said that they lied, only that what they said later turned out not to be true. A lie implies that they intended to deceive us.

Second, you said that it costs $4:$1 in extra government obligations. The government obligation was that the plan be fully funded. The 4:1 was due to the fact that the company stalled in negotiations which could have raised the limit.

Finally, I have e-mailed my rep several times as well as the LEC. One time I got a "trust us," and the other times, yes times, no response at all. I already know where the 4:1 comes from, do you?