New MEC Sales Video
01-25-2018, 04:31 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by TonyC
Currently, a pilot can earn an average of $260,000 for any five years, and next to nothing for the other 20, and receive the full $130,000 annual benefit in retirement.
The scheme will encourage pilots to work harder, and longer, because every dollar earned will increase the number of retirement shares you can earn. (I'm sure the junior guys will love what that will do to seat progression.) There will be no such thing as getting your high five early and then taking it easy in the later years. .
The scheme will encourage pilots to work harder, and longer, because every dollar earned will increase the number of retirement shares you can earn. (I'm sure the junior guys will love what that will do to seat progression.) There will be no such thing as getting your high five early and then taking it easy in the later years. .
It's unbelievable that an ALPA MEC would continually endorse and even seek out such self-destructive changes to our current CBA.
Having one's career curtailed due to license denying illness is obviously a huge deal. We do our best to plan for that contingency via disability insurance, loss of license insurance, etc. Being able to count on a full A-plan (or close to full) should anyone be faced with this situation late in their career isn't something to just throw away.
On top of that, consistently embracing man-power negative measures is absolutely irresponsible. We already incentivized max work and no sick-leave usage during the last 48 months of a pilot's career in CBA 2015.
Now on top of that, we're going to force anyone currently in "the in-between" who wants to get something close to what they already expect to have under the current A-plan to work until age 65.
My rep already acknowledged this in an email.... and I quote:
This plan will entice more pilots to fly beyond 60, as it will not have a years of service or salary cap. So yes, pilot behavior will change, but you will not be required to stay beyond 60 to see benefits in the new plan.
YGBSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
01-25-2018, 05:10 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by Adlerdriver
These two factors right here are HUGE!!
It's unbelievable that an ALPA MEC would continually endorse and even seek out such self-destructive changes to our current CBA.
Having one's career curtailed due to license denying illness is obviously a huge deal. We do our best to plan for that contingency via disability insurance, loss of license insurance, etc. Being able to count on a full A-plan (or close to full) should anyone be faced with this situation late in their career isn't something to just throw away.
On top of that, consistently embracing man-power negative measures is absolutely irresponsible. We already incentivized max work and no sick-leave usage during the last 48 months of a pilot's career in CBA 2015.
Now on top of that, we're going to force anyone currently in "the in-between" who wants to get something close to what they already expect to have under the current A-plan to work until age 65.
My rep already acknowledged this in an email.... and I quote:
This plan will entice more pilots to fly beyond 60, as it will not have a years of service or salary cap. So yes, pilot behavior will change, but you will not be required to stay beyond 60 to see benefits in the new plan.
YGBSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's unbelievable that an ALPA MEC would continually endorse and even seek out such self-destructive changes to our current CBA.
Having one's career curtailed due to license denying illness is obviously a huge deal. We do our best to plan for that contingency via disability insurance, loss of license insurance, etc. Being able to count on a full A-plan (or close to full) should anyone be faced with this situation late in their career isn't something to just throw away.
On top of that, consistently embracing man-power negative measures is absolutely irresponsible. We already incentivized max work and no sick-leave usage during the last 48 months of a pilot's career in CBA 2015.
Now on top of that, we're going to force anyone currently in "the in-between" who wants to get something close to what they already expect to have under the current A-plan to work until age 65.
My rep already acknowledged this in an email.... and I quote:
This plan will entice more pilots to fly beyond 60, as it will not have a years of service or salary cap. So yes, pilot behavior will change, but you will not be required to stay beyond 60 to see benefits in the new plan.
YGBSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
All you have to do is look at the 45 year old example from the video. At age 60, all you see is a 3% increase. You want more...you have to work longer.
So...3%. Again, I was in my mid 40s when I was hired (as are a lot of our newhires). You want me to get onboard for a plan that may pay out 3% more...but I accept all of the risk?
Come on guys. It would be one thing if we as pilots were fighting "the establishment" who were trying to force some new retirement scheme down our throats. No, we are fighting our own...fellow pilots.
01-25-2018, 06:10 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Fetal in the hub
Posts: 406
This notion that it cannot hurt to listen is absurd.
It most certainly can be harmful to those disengaged souls who need to be told what is best, because "they're not experts".
Listening to this "information campaign" lends it a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. I did not ask for this course of action. In Fact it cannot be understated how heavily the presence of a defined benefit plan weighted making Fedex my preferred employer.
Can we recall these people?? How about a vote of no confidence?! Can we circulate a petition requesting that they cease and desist?
Surely our only alternative cannot be watching the trainwreck and grousing about it on an online message board.
It most certainly can be harmful to those disengaged souls who need to be told what is best, because "they're not experts".
Listening to this "information campaign" lends it a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. I did not ask for this course of action. In Fact it cannot be understated how heavily the presence of a defined benefit plan weighted making Fedex my preferred employer.
Can we recall these people?? How about a vote of no confidence?! Can we circulate a petition requesting that they cease and desist?
Surely our only alternative cannot be watching the trainwreck and grousing about it on an online message board.
01-25-2018, 06:29 PM
#14
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by mempurpleflyer
Sure, if you get hired when you are 25, or work until you are 65, the potential for a bigger payout is there. Duh...its called compounding. That's what the B Plan is for.
The potential for a bigger payout (comparing the proposed VB plan to the current DEFINED Benefit plan) in their examples comes largely from using the IRS limits as the Salary Cap and having NO Years of Service Cap.
.
01-25-2018, 07:59 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 390
I'll say it again, this has to be ALPA National trying to push this agenda. It has us working more hours for more years. ALPA gets their cut, and has to be on the management oversight (wink). It is crazy to just say, nope it is too hard to improve it, so let's just create some brand new, unproven device where you take all of the risk. Then, we'll **** away more of your money by creating a white board video, a few other YouTube videos, and then dump your A Plan. Sign me up!!! So about that recall...
01-25-2018, 11:30 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: MD-11
Posts: 395
Originally Posted by angry tanker
I'll say it again, this has to be ALPA National trying to push this agenda. It has us working more hours for more years. ALPA gets their cut, and has to be on the management oversight (wink). It is crazy to just say, nope it is too hard to improve it, so let's just create some brand new, unproven device where you take all of the risk. Then, we'll **** away more of your money by creating a white board video, a few other YouTube videos, and then dump your A Plan. Sign me up!!! So about that recall...
Before these jerks destroy my A plan, something I never asked them to do in the first place, I'd like to recall every stinking one of these creeps. Otherwise, we go the legal route and file lawsuits for misrepresentation, malfeasance, and fraud! In the meantime, how about a petition seeking to remove ALPA as our representative body. Never have I witnessed a group of such incompetent boobs as our current reps!!
01-26-2018, 03:13 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by TonyC
This isn't an apples to apples comparison, not even apples to oranges. It's more like apples to banana spiders. The percentages apply to different concepts, so you cannot compare them.
Currently, a pilot can earn an average of $260,000 for any five years, and next to nothing for the other 20, and receive the full $130,000 annual benefit in retirement.
In the proposed plan, the one they kept calling the "New Plan" yesterday as if it were a done deal, the percentage that counts is the market performance number in a particular year multiplied by the pilot's W-2 earnings in that same year. That earns him "shares" in a virtual mutual fund, the value of such shares being determined when that pilot retires. The next year, the process repeats. The more you work, the more shares you get. The worse the market, the more shares you get. Add up all the shares from all the years, and that's what you end up with. When markets are good, the share values go up, and when markets are bad, the share values go down -- even the shares which you "earned" during good years. But the only year that counts to determine your actual retirement benefit is the year the pilot retires. Choose your retirement date wisely. If you retire in a good year, all of your shares are more valuable, but if you retire in a bad year, all of your shares are less valuable.
The scheme will encourage pilots to work harder, and longer, because every dollar earned will increase the number of retirement shares you can earn. (I'm sure the junior guys will love what that will do to seat progression.) There will be no such thing as getting your high five early and then taking it easy in the later years.
.
Currently, a pilot can earn an average of $260,000 for any five years, and next to nothing for the other 20, and receive the full $130,000 annual benefit in retirement.
In the proposed plan, the one they kept calling the "New Plan" yesterday as if it were a done deal, the percentage that counts is the market performance number in a particular year multiplied by the pilot's W-2 earnings in that same year. That earns him "shares" in a virtual mutual fund, the value of such shares being determined when that pilot retires. The next year, the process repeats. The more you work, the more shares you get. The worse the market, the more shares you get. Add up all the shares from all the years, and that's what you end up with. When markets are good, the share values go up, and when markets are bad, the share values go down -- even the shares which you "earned" during good years. But the only year that counts to determine your actual retirement benefit is the year the pilot retires. Choose your retirement date wisely. If you retire in a good year, all of your shares are more valuable, but if you retire in a bad year, all of your shares are less valuable.
The scheme will encourage pilots to work harder, and longer, because every dollar earned will increase the number of retirement shares you can earn. (I'm sure the junior guys will love what that will do to seat progression.) There will be no such thing as getting your high five early and then taking it easy in the later years.
.
I totally agree with your apples to banana spider comparison. I was simply trying to point out that they picked numbers that make their plan look better. Like you said earlier, how much does it cost to increase the cap? If the cap were 50% of final hourly pay rate times 1000, then their 35 year old retiring at age 60 would get $303K versus the $171K per year with the new plan. That is a 44% decrease below what you would get with the original intent of retiring with 50% of your pay.
The MEC has shown that they are going to push hard to sell us this plan and only show numbers that are favorable to their goals.
01-26-2018, 03:58 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Fetal in the hub
Posts: 406
This company just received a 43% reduction in its tax burden so WTH are we voluntarily conceding increases to our DB plan? Whatever numbers the union reps were shown are meaningless when you factor in the tax savings.
The situation has changed. There's no reason to consider this at all anymore!!
The situation has changed. There's no reason to consider this at all anymore!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
