Arbitration
 

We just lost another one.... OUTSTANDING!

We lost the lie flat/FC grievance. So we have that going for us :rolleyes:

When will we learn. Pilots negotiating against $1000 an hour labor attorneys. We lose every time. :mad:

Yep. And the union says that the language is clear that the company was violating the contract. Take a look at grievance 18-01. Now the company has found a way of forcing pilots to pay the administrative costs in the health care accounts that the company is suppose to pay.

Why do we think that we can negotiate a VB plan that the company won't take advantage of?

Good job ALPA, proving law of averages wrong since...

But But we were assured the language did not need a statement like "in no case less than a lay flat seat in first class etc." because they had it all the intent documented. What a arrogant dumba** the N.C. chairman was during that time.

The ALPA dues are more and more seeming a questionable investment.

When ALPA was voted on the property, we were told we would have access to better lawyers to protect us from bad contract language.

My understanding is we are employing the exact same lawyers as were employed by the FPA. So, how many lost arbitrations does it take before we finally get the long promised "better lawyers"? We should fire any attorney that looked over the last contract, as they have clearly proven they are inept.

It is time for professional negotiators. We have been played by the company way too many times.

We were also promised, by ALPA, we would have access to "deep pockets" for negotiating. But our MEC did not want to use this money. Why? I have heard two explanations. 1) Our union is corrupt, and they would have had to show the books to ALPA National and they didn't want to do that. 2) ALPA National would have shut down all other committees except for the NC committee, and the MEC didn't want to do that. If deep pocket money is available, but the union won't use it, exactly why are we affiliated with ALPA?

If "better" lawyers are available, but we are still using the ones who obviously are falling short of the "fix the language" goal. Why aren't they fired?

Now, the MEC, who FUBAR'd the last contract negotiation, wants us to give away our retirement? If we vote for the VB scheme, how many more ways will the company stick it to us? If we vote for the VB scheme, how many more grievances will we lose?

Any member of the NC that is on any kind of job that pays trip removal should be removed from that position immediately. They have not earned it. They should fly the line, like the rest of us, under the rules that they negotiated.

Any attorney that reviewed the 2015 contract should be fired for incompetence.

Incompetence must have consequences!!!:mad::mad::mad:

I didn't get called for the survey, but I am told one of the questions was "do you trust your union". Well, I, for one, would give that answer a big "NO!".

It is way past time for professional negotiators. It is way past time to fire our attorneys and find some that actually can do the job.

MEC, are you listening? I doubt it, but you should.

What happen to "just culture"? Sure seems like a one-way street and a little disingenuous when they dig through the contract to find re-interpretations to save money and score double when they eventually win the arbitration.


circa 2015.... Professionals and a Time for Change | News & Company

... A Just Culture that is Caring, Sustainable, and Forward-looking; Authenticity driven Relationship between Pilots and Pilot Management

The company has announced that they will give some of the income tax savings to the hourly employees and management bonuses.

They have been remarkably silent as to whether any of this windfall will go to the pilots.

Yet every year after peak, we are praised for "going the extra mile".

Praise is worthless. Show me the money.

👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽👆🏽

It’s easier to write your check to ALPA than run ur own union like FPA. Not until more than 47% of us get our head out of our ass and read a contract and realize what we are giving up for a 3-4% raise will things change. SIG SLA was hardly even discussed during the 07-08 contract. That was the equivalent of giving them PBS as far as efficiency gains are concerned. Let’s see 8in24 this last contract.

I honestly don’t care anymore because it doesn’t matter what you think. Get ur medical, pass your checkride, retire and get the eff out of here. No use beating your head against the wall.

A300, you had better care, because they are getting ready to take your retirement.

With the MEC's help!:mad::mad::mad:

Not to mention we have the most restrictive seat movement in the industry coupled with one bid every 18-24 months... terrible.

I’m always in minority. Like I said. Doesn’t matter. Keep ur head down. Do ur time and get the EF out.

The only thing Alpo cares about is your dues money!

This A-plan conversion to VB plan has Alpo National’s thirst for “fees” written all over it.

The contract language is full of holes, ripe for interpretation because, quite frankly, it is a poorly written legal document. Who’s fault is that? Past NC, MEC, and past attorneys they employed to review the language.

Time to vote Alpo off the property! Time to hire a professional pro-union law firm to represent us!

I expect a lot more precision for my money. And keep your grubby hands off my A-plan!!!!

Shack!

Just rename our rubber-stamping MEC, Politburo, and our stern-lecturing (Goodwill!) MEC Chair, Mao, and you have a homegrown Cultural Revolution. Common sense is being turned on its head for the greater glory of seeing your name in Bloomberg and ALPO enshrining you as the father of the new retirement thinking. The only groups to benefit will be the 25/high 5 who are getting nothing toward retirement now, the dufuses who think they can be their own money managers and "beat' the market, Cheiron, and the other ALPO pilot groups, who will gratefully use our poorly spent dues money to achieve a VB. We even have our own APC Kommsomol featuring a cast of SS trained cheerleaders (Albie, Kronan, FDXLAG, etc.) to convince the new joiners, and lazy that this is for the best. It's a mini-series in the making. Follow the money as those who continue to pass concessions and savings across the table to the company, (SL, PM, etc.) walk in the footsteps of their patron saint, PC, to management cubicle commando once the dust settles and no one is paying attention. It just happened with our former Chair of the Training Committee. Expect KB to be helping Management whittle down our remaining benefits with thoughtful pointers on how to give us less for more. MBO's for everybody!

Nice 5th post. I may agree with some of your points. But they are lost on me with the childish name calling. How about you make your argument with facts and leave peoples names out of it...? Albie, Kronan FDXLAG et all may have a differing view than yours, but t least they try and stick to what they may consider as facts AKA an argument without the name calling..:mad:

Gotta say it was kind of funny...

ok....Maybe a little...;)

When was the last time we won an arbitration?

I've been here a while and I would expect that arbitrations would end up about evenly split...you know, since the issue was so close and unclear that we had to go to arbitration.

All I can remember is us getting our axxes handed to us time and time again.

This lie flat/FC beatdown is just another failure.

Spasibo Comrade

The real problem here is that some people, who were against the contract, said, "the lie flat clause is going to do away with first class seats", and the MEC and NC didn't listen, but said, oh no, nothing to worry about here. The MEC and NC were obviously wrong, but they didn't let that stop them from selling a bad CBA.

Kind of like some people saying, "the VB plan is going to destroy our retirement", and then the MEC not listening, again.

I wonder how that is going to work out for us?:rolleyes::mad::mad:

Really,
the VB plan is Math. Actual numbers to be negotiated, but just math.
If the Salary Cap is tied to 401(a)17 limit, or 15yr WB Capt Pay * 1000, it's a number. So, would be kind of hard for the company to say X=Y instead of X=X.

If the Hurdle Rate is 5%, would be hard for the Company to say--no, Our Pension assets only returned 1% for the year. Pension Asset returns are something that's reported to the SEC, so "gamesmanship" not really in play.

If the Floor is 2%, again, kindof hard for the company to say 275*.02 is Anything other than 275*.02.

Again, it's just Math. And similarly, since 2013, our Traditional A plan has decreased in value. It's been a constant 130k, but 2018's 130k will buy less than 2013's 130k.

Arbitration
"Regardless of the class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s
deviation bank shall be credited with the Baseline Fare for the
highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled
deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight."

So, what an Arbitrator decided is that "Regardless" of what that clause says, historical practice, and SL's take...a Lie Flat Business seat fare is the Same as a Discounted FC Fare is the Same as a FC fare.

And, as best I can tell, there is Nothing in the CBA that would Preclude the Company from Scheduling Flights out of Memphis in at least Discounted FC flights as a gesture of goodwill.
The People who argued that the Company still had to Schedule Flights out of Memphis IAW the priority, well, that's an argument in line with those who argue the Company Shouldn't be Allowed to book in Coach and Waitlist for Business\FC.

Deviation Bank decision by the Arbitrator still escapes me. If Lie Flat is 3k, Discounted FC is 5k, Full Fare FC is 7k, and the Flight Isn't 100% Business Class, then how in the world can anyone say 3k is the same as 7k?

The dufuses who think they can beat the market can only do so in their B plan.
The VB plan creates a "notional" account in your name, but the money is a pooled account managed by FedEx. (Technically, the Pro's FedEx hires)
Just as the money in our current A plan is managed by people FedEx has hired. And reported to various Govt entities.

And, if there's a funding shortfall per Govt Rules, then FedEx has to pony up extra bucks to make the Pension fund whole.

If the Market continues to decline, then I'm thinking FedEx might actually decide to enter into Negotiations. FedEx just ponied up some major buckage to increase the funding levels versus existing obligations and gain reduced PBGC Premiums...and I'm sure at some level they're going dang, wish we'd waited until Friday to Invest

Trying to get ALL facts, NOT SALES JOB
 

Please elaborate on this part of your post. I thought that the savings for the company is that it is "like" a DC plan for them financially. In other words, once they contribute the money to the plan it is no longer their risk. If market goes down, so does the benefit. They are responsible for managing the money....but are NOT responsible for the down side. Down turns simply mean we don't get as much. FedEx no longer is required to plus up the fund.

Unless there is some negotiated base value to the benefit, which the union has not elaborated on other than "it can be negotiated". Which is sounds a lot like what was said by the union about the arbitration they just lost! :mad:

NO, NO, NO. The entire premise for the company is they get to "fix" their costs year over year. That is what we are signing up for. In exchange for letting "US" decide the level of risk and maybe increase the return. The company gets to set their level of contribution going forward forever. No increase, no changes. If our VB plan falls below any required level, it's on us. Not them. Thereby the risk is now our risk, not their risk.

You Did see the part about a 2% Floor Right?
What do you think that means?

So, About 19:04 into Greg Readon's Video from our MEC meeting when he says "The Variable Benefit cannot decrease below the Floor Guarantee and the Floor Guarantee formula is 2% times Compensation...."

And then, about 24:48 when he talks about the yearly benefits and indicates that we'd get the Greater of the 2 Values...actual returns or the 2% floor benefit

What do you think That means?

True, all subject to Negotiation. And True, Mgt could come back with a 1% Floor....but why would we even entertain that?

It means that we should have a minimum contribution for any year is 2% of our pensionable income divided by total pilot contributions to determine how many shares (pancakes) we get that year. :confused:

Not a minimum payout during retirement. :cool:

I disagree. It’s a floor accrural Benefit per year. The difference is you earn it each year...never to be replaced by a higher year.

It’s “career average earnings” vs “high 5”.

And any amount over the IRS limit, won’t count — that’s unlike, how current “High 5” is calculated.

Currently, the “High 5” average is capped at $260K - not any particular year

You can use $235K, $240K, $260K, $280K, $285K - that currently yeilds a High 5 average of $260K

Under the new VB, any one year can never exceed the cap

If Caps are the same, for any YOS up to 25 YOS, the VB “career average earnings” accrued benefit will BE LESS than the current A plan High 5

It’s just math

You are just a special kinda wonderful aren't ya.

What happens to our Pension Payouts when a pilot dies? Does the pot get bigger?

Huh?

If the pension assets return 1% per year, they’d just report 1% that year, without any worry or concern

The failure of the pension fund to meet the Hurdle Rate is a RISK THE PILOTS (...and RETIRED PILOTS) take at that point

The previous years $1 in benefits would decrease about 4%

(...though I believe it’s 1.01/1.05 = 96.19....3.81% to be exact)

Have that happen for the first few years of your retirement, and you can dig a nice little whole pretty fast.

I was looking for answers and clarification, not being rude, condescending, or name calling!

F_ It, I'll just vote NO. :rolleyes:

What do you mean you just vote no? I didn’t realize this POS was going to be put out to the crew force for a vote.

Thread drifted into VB vs A Fund! :eek:

How the hell am I supposed to trust alpa on my pension when they can’t even negotiate lie flat seats correctly. Can some defender of alpa please explain that to me! After all I’m not that smart I didn’t go to a service Academy

Language is apparently really important. A lie Flat Seat is not a Flat Bed Seat. If you are booked in a lie flat seat then that language is not applicable. But only if we do not accept a lie flat seat. And once again, before contract 2015 and after contract 2015 the company could legally book you in business in a lie flat seat up until 16 hours.

You are Indeed a Special and Unique Snowflake, hoping for nothing but Rainbows and Puppy Kisses for you.

2% Floor is just that, Pension would be based on a 2% Floor-Individually. Based upon your Individual Earnings, paid out of a Pooled Investment account. Pension calculations based upon a Notional Mutual find type accumulation, Pension paid as the Higher of the Actual returns or the 2% floor.

Our Current Plan is based upon Employer contributions to meet the requirements to pay a 2% Pension, subject to YOS limitations.

The Floor, for the VB plan is Less than the Floor for our Traditional plan for the same timespans. (Unless of course your earnings over the first 25 years could be the equivalent of 260k)

Current Plan the 2% is based upon your a High Five, not to exceed 1.3M in earnings. But you could accumulate that 1.3 by a 3,3,3,2,2 earnings plan. Not at All Realistic with our current Salary Rates...but you could get there with a .73, 1.27, 0, 5.5, 5.5 and 20 years of Disability\Mil service and really only 4 years of Ops Emergencies at FedEx.

What would happen in the VB if you went out on Disability is currently only implied. That you would continue to accumulate $$ at what I Assume would be the years prior earnings, or Average BLG for your current seat.

Mr. Hand, Your a D....
 

My first interaction with you on this thread was when you posted this.

I asked for clarification with this post.

You did not respond to my question. Then I explained how I thought the 2% floor worked, since you mentioned it in your next post in response to Kwri10s, with this post.


But you did respond to my second post about the 2% floor with this post.

Where did I call you a name? Where was I condescending or disrespectful? The confused emoji was to indicate that I'm trying to understand the 2% floor concept. And you respond with condescending remark and a question. :mad:

You never answered my original question about how you stated the company is required to make up a shortfall in the retirement with the proposed VB pension!

Since your a great communicator and clearly understand the unions VB plans. Please also explain the connection between the 2% Floor concept (that you quoted in that post) and what happens to our pension payouts when a pilot dies. I don't get the connection with the 2% floor and the ramifications of a pilots death other than a chance for you to be a D....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9huSs0g67c

Maybe he was trying to distract you with an insult instead of answering your question. Or maybe just having a bad day and being randomly strange.:confused:

Flying Boxes,

the "dufuses" comment was part of a quote\reaction from another poster.

You have implied that the VB Pension payout is determined by our Employer Contributions Divided by the Number of Pilots. It's not. Just as our Current Pension payout has nothing to do with the Number of Pilots.

In Both there is an indirect Connection, in that Should FedEx ever go Bankrupt and the Number of Pilots goes to 0...we'll have a Problem Houston.

In the VB (proposed) just as in our current Traditional Plan, accumulated benefits are determined Solely by your earnings. Not Pilot earnings\# of Pilots. In the case of the VB, there is a 2% floor (proposed). That 2% floor is NOT the equivalent of our Current 2% of our High 5.

In both the VB, and our Traditional Plan, contributions by the Company are made to funds designated Solely for use in Paying our Pensions. Both are guaranteed by the PBGC. Neither are a Pay as You Go system. Both are highly regulated. And Both will have to meet Government mandated Funding levels.

In Both cases, should the Stock market take a 50% hit, the Funding Levels would necessitate additional Contributions by the Company to meet the obligations outlined in the Pensions. In the Case of the VB, that would be the 2% floor.

Which Again, is less than the 2% "Floor" our Current A plan has since our Current A plan is based on high 5 versus the running\annual total the VB plan would have.

The Benefits to the VB plan is that it doesn't Stop at 25. And is not limited to 5 years of 260*.02 Contributions.

Kronan,
Thanks for explaining all topics. Not sure about what you say, but I clearly need to do more research to fully understand this proposed change in plan. Time to review the VB material/videos again.