VB-Consolidation
03-27-2018, 10:50 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
VB-Consolidation
Responses and Reasons to Vote No (not doing the multi-quote thing, so feel free to slam me as a salesman who misquoted you)
Assumptions have to be negotiated. This alone,should kill the VB plan...
Got me there, everything in the VB has to be negotiated...as does CBA 202X, and so, so many things. Guess we should stick with CBA 2015 instead of negotiating.
Cap rate\stabilization fund wasn't included so models Pension results more "rosy"
This is just me, but I don't know that I want to forgo excess returns to make the bad years better. And, wouldn't a Cap rate decrease the models returns in the Good Years while Improving the Bad years?
IF I was doing my Utmost to "sell" the VB plan, personally I wouldn't have assumed simply meeting the Hurdle rate for the 7-12 years modeled beyond 2016 real world returns. I would've assumed the Historic returns, or even FedEx's 6.5% predicted returns on our existing Pension funds. OR, even Better, I would've Started the Real World returns in 93 just after the Recession ended and ran it through 2017. (93-99 were some great return years. Just off the top of the noggin, 2000-02 had the odd 25-30%+ loss as did the downturn in 2008)
ALPA even states they "Do not control" the investments and "having a seat at the table" is not good enough for me
Well, again just me, but I don't Want ALPA to have control of the investments. I'm not convinced I even want ALPA to have a seat at the table. A seat at the table means another Dedicated worker likely on Flight Pay loss keeping track of what's going on in real time. Anything else is just as valuable as the Govt Reports and SEC reports filed. And, again just me, but I think FedEx has done a great\realistic job of managing our Pension. One of the things that took out our Brethren's Pensions during the 2000 era was the simple fact that Companies were allowed to Declare their expected returns on Pension assets without requiring much of a reality check. So...if you're predicting your Pension will return 10-12% like it has been over the past few years (96-1999)...well then your Pension is Overfunded and doesn't require any Contributions. Until, the bottom drops out of the market and even worse, so does your business as Business Travel is severely curtailed due to the worsening economy.
The VB would unfairly compensate people who work more. Unless our Pension outcomes are EQUAL, it's not something I can support
Hmmm, you Do Realize that B Fund Contributions currently unfairly compensate people who work more, don't you? For the Young Fledgling 777 Aviator who manages to fill his Calendar with R days, could be quite a bit more. As a Wag, say an extra 6-8k a year. And the Longer that $$ is allowed to tick away, the bigger the disparity is. I run 2 scenarios for my kids. One of which I say I need 30 days of work out of you, I'll pay you 1000$ a day or start your salary at .01 and double it each day...which do you want?
And the other has to do with IRAs. Save 2k from Age 16-20, increasing total amounts with later starts-Shirley you've seen the examples. Both of which indicate the Power of Compounding is underestimated.
And, just me, but I don't think of Retirement as a Zero Sum game. Just because someone who works every darn day they can, who sells back 40% of their Vacation every year, would wind up with a better Retirement than ma...well, I just don't care.
In fact, I kinda feel sorry for people like that. No matter How Much they Earn and Work, it's Never enough.
As for me, I enjoy my time off. It's one of the main bennies of switching from being a full time Military pilot to FedEx. Yes, I am on the road more than I was. But when I was a Mil guy most of the time I was working 0630-1730 w/the odd 1 weekend a month and multiple weeks gone every year. Now, when I'm home I'm home.
And, as a Salesman I sure must suck. On Several Occasions I've said a Floating Earnings Cap to our Traditional Pension would be Superior to the VB plan, certainly over 25 YOS. Not looking back but think I came up with a Superior to the tune of 60k a year. Didn't compare the benefit at 30 YOS, so thinking the VB would make up some ground there. Because Sorry, 100% Confident FedEx will Not Increase earnings and YOS simultaneously.
One of the things I find intriguing is the Potential Payouts on the VB, all subject to Negotiations of course. 3 scenarios have been mentioned: Continue to Float with the market; annuity at the accumulated value; lump sum payout.
In General, not a big fan of the lump sum payout simply because it's usually a 70-80% value of an annuity cost. EG if it would cost 1M to provide an annuity for a certain Pension level Mgt gives you 750k to take you off the books.
But I know some people want All the Money in their Hands\Control and there's certainly some value in that line of thought
Assumptions have to be negotiated. This alone,should kill the VB plan...
Got me there, everything in the VB has to be negotiated...as does CBA 202X, and so, so many things. Guess we should stick with CBA 2015 instead of negotiating.
Cap rate\stabilization fund wasn't included so models Pension results more "rosy"
This is just me, but I don't know that I want to forgo excess returns to make the bad years better. And, wouldn't a Cap rate decrease the models returns in the Good Years while Improving the Bad years?
IF I was doing my Utmost to "sell" the VB plan, personally I wouldn't have assumed simply meeting the Hurdle rate for the 7-12 years modeled beyond 2016 real world returns. I would've assumed the Historic returns, or even FedEx's 6.5% predicted returns on our existing Pension funds. OR, even Better, I would've Started the Real World returns in 93 just after the Recession ended and ran it through 2017. (93-99 were some great return years. Just off the top of the noggin, 2000-02 had the odd 25-30%+ loss as did the downturn in 2008)
ALPA even states they "Do not control" the investments and "having a seat at the table" is not good enough for me
Well, again just me, but I don't Want ALPA to have control of the investments. I'm not convinced I even want ALPA to have a seat at the table. A seat at the table means another Dedicated worker likely on Flight Pay loss keeping track of what's going on in real time. Anything else is just as valuable as the Govt Reports and SEC reports filed. And, again just me, but I think FedEx has done a great\realistic job of managing our Pension. One of the things that took out our Brethren's Pensions during the 2000 era was the simple fact that Companies were allowed to Declare their expected returns on Pension assets without requiring much of a reality check. So...if you're predicting your Pension will return 10-12% like it has been over the past few years (96-1999)...well then your Pension is Overfunded and doesn't require any Contributions. Until, the bottom drops out of the market and even worse, so does your business as Business Travel is severely curtailed due to the worsening economy.
The VB would unfairly compensate people who work more. Unless our Pension outcomes are EQUAL, it's not something I can support
Hmmm, you Do Realize that B Fund Contributions currently unfairly compensate people who work more, don't you? For the Young Fledgling 777 Aviator who manages to fill his Calendar with R days, could be quite a bit more. As a Wag, say an extra 6-8k a year. And the Longer that $$ is allowed to tick away, the bigger the disparity is. I run 2 scenarios for my kids. One of which I say I need 30 days of work out of you, I'll pay you 1000$ a day or start your salary at .01 and double it each day...which do you want?
And the other has to do with IRAs. Save 2k from Age 16-20, increasing total amounts with later starts-Shirley you've seen the examples. Both of which indicate the Power of Compounding is underestimated.
And, just me, but I don't think of Retirement as a Zero Sum game. Just because someone who works every darn day they can, who sells back 40% of their Vacation every year, would wind up with a better Retirement than ma...well, I just don't care.
In fact, I kinda feel sorry for people like that. No matter How Much they Earn and Work, it's Never enough.
As for me, I enjoy my time off. It's one of the main bennies of switching from being a full time Military pilot to FedEx. Yes, I am on the road more than I was. But when I was a Mil guy most of the time I was working 0630-1730 w/the odd 1 weekend a month and multiple weeks gone every year. Now, when I'm home I'm home.
And, as a Salesman I sure must suck. On Several Occasions I've said a Floating Earnings Cap to our Traditional Pension would be Superior to the VB plan, certainly over 25 YOS. Not looking back but think I came up with a Superior to the tune of 60k a year. Didn't compare the benefit at 30 YOS, so thinking the VB would make up some ground there. Because Sorry, 100% Confident FedEx will Not Increase earnings and YOS simultaneously.
One of the things I find intriguing is the Potential Payouts on the VB, all subject to Negotiations of course. 3 scenarios have been mentioned: Continue to Float with the market; annuity at the accumulated value; lump sum payout.
In General, not a big fan of the lump sum payout simply because it's usually a 70-80% value of an annuity cost. EG if it would cost 1M to provide an annuity for a certain Pension level Mgt gives you 750k to take you off the books.
But I know some people want All the Money in their Hands\Control and there's certainly some value in that line of thought
03-27-2018, 02:49 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by kronan
Responses and Reasons to Vote No (not doing the multi-quote thing, so feel free to slam me as a salesman who misquoted you)
Assumptions have to be negotiated. This alone,should kill the VB plan...
Got me there, everything in the VB has to be negotiated...as does CBA 202X, and so, so many things. Guess we should stick with CBA 2015 instead of negotiating.
Cap rate\stabilization fund wasn't included so models Pension results more "rosy"
This is just me, but I don't know that I want to forgo excess returns to make the bad years better. And, wouldn't a Cap rate decrease the models returns in the Good Years while Improving the Bad years?
IF I was doing my Utmost to "sell" the VB plan, personally I wouldn't have assumed simply meeting the Hurdle rate for the 7-12 years modeled beyond 2016 real world returns. I would've assumed the Historic returns, or even FedEx's 6.5% predicted returns on our existing Pension funds. OR, even Better, I would've Started the Real World returns in 93 just after the Recession ended and ran it through 2017. (93-99 were some great return years. Just off the top of the noggin, 2000-02 had the odd 25-30%+ loss as did the downturn in 2008)
ALPA even states they "Do not control" the investments and "having a seat at the table" is not good enough for me
Well, again just me, but I don't Want ALPA to have control of the investments. I'm not convinced I even want ALPA to have a seat at the table. A seat at the table means another Dedicated worker likely on Flight Pay loss keeping track of what's going on in real time. Anything else is just as valuable as the Govt Reports and SEC reports filed. And, again just me, but I think FedEx has done a great\realistic job of managing our Pension. One of the things that took out our Brethren's Pensions during the 2000 era was the simple fact that Companies were allowed to Declare their expected returns on Pension assets without requiring much of a reality check. So...if you're predicting your Pension will return 10-12% like it has been over the past few years (96-1999)...well then your Pension is Overfunded and doesn't require any Contributions. Until, the bottom drops out of the market and even worse, so does your business as Business Travel is severely curtailed due to the worsening economy.
The VB would unfairly compensate people who work more. Unless our Pension outcomes are EQUAL, it's not something I can support
Hmmm, you Do Realize that B Fund Contributions currently unfairly compensate people who work more, don't you? For the Young Fledgling 777 Aviator who manages to fill his Calendar with R days, could be quite a bit more. As a Wag, say an extra 6-8k a year. And the Longer that $$ is allowed to tick away, the bigger the disparity is. I run 2 scenarios for my kids. One of which I say I need 30 days of work out of you, I'll pay you 1000$ a day or start your salary at .01 and double it each day...which do you want?
And the other has to do with IRAs. Save 2k from Age 16-20, increasing total amounts with later starts-Shirley you've seen the examples. Both of which indicate the Power of Compounding is underestimated.
And, just me, but I don't think of Retirement as a Zero Sum game. Just because someone who works every darn day they can, who sells back 40% of their Vacation every year, would wind up with a better Retirement than ma...well, I just don't care.
In fact, I kinda feel sorry for people like that. No matter How Much they Earn and Work, it's Never enough.
As for me, I enjoy my time off. It's one of the main bennies of switching from being a full time Military pilot to FedEx. Yes, I am on the road more than I was. But when I was a Mil guy most of the time I was working 0630-1730 w/the odd 1 weekend a month and multiple weeks gone every year. Now, when I'm home I'm home.
And, as a Salesman I sure must suck. On Several Occasions I've said a Floating Earnings Cap to our Traditional Pension would be Superior to the VB plan, certainly over 25 YOS. Not looking back but think I came up with a Superior to the tune of 60k a year. Didn't compare the benefit at 30 YOS, so thinking the VB would make up some ground there. Because Sorry, 100% Confident FedEx will Not Increase earnings and YOS simultaneously.
One of the things I find intriguing is the Potential Payouts on the VB, all subject to Negotiations of course. 3 scenarios have been mentioned: Continue to Float with the market; annuity at the accumulated value; lump sum payout.
In General, not a big fan of the lump sum payout simply because it's usually a 70-80% value of an annuity cost. EG if it would cost 1M to provide an annuity for a certain Pension level Mgt gives you 750k to take you off the books.
But I know some people want All the Money in their Hands\Control and there's certainly some value in that line of thought
Assumptions have to be negotiated. This alone,should kill the VB plan...
Got me there, everything in the VB has to be negotiated...as does CBA 202X, and so, so many things. Guess we should stick with CBA 2015 instead of negotiating.
Cap rate\stabilization fund wasn't included so models Pension results more "rosy"
This is just me, but I don't know that I want to forgo excess returns to make the bad years better. And, wouldn't a Cap rate decrease the models returns in the Good Years while Improving the Bad years?
IF I was doing my Utmost to "sell" the VB plan, personally I wouldn't have assumed simply meeting the Hurdle rate for the 7-12 years modeled beyond 2016 real world returns. I would've assumed the Historic returns, or even FedEx's 6.5% predicted returns on our existing Pension funds. OR, even Better, I would've Started the Real World returns in 93 just after the Recession ended and ran it through 2017. (93-99 were some great return years. Just off the top of the noggin, 2000-02 had the odd 25-30%+ loss as did the downturn in 2008)
ALPA even states they "Do not control" the investments and "having a seat at the table" is not good enough for me
Well, again just me, but I don't Want ALPA to have control of the investments. I'm not convinced I even want ALPA to have a seat at the table. A seat at the table means another Dedicated worker likely on Flight Pay loss keeping track of what's going on in real time. Anything else is just as valuable as the Govt Reports and SEC reports filed. And, again just me, but I think FedEx has done a great\realistic job of managing our Pension. One of the things that took out our Brethren's Pensions during the 2000 era was the simple fact that Companies were allowed to Declare their expected returns on Pension assets without requiring much of a reality check. So...if you're predicting your Pension will return 10-12% like it has been over the past few years (96-1999)...well then your Pension is Overfunded and doesn't require any Contributions. Until, the bottom drops out of the market and even worse, so does your business as Business Travel is severely curtailed due to the worsening economy.
The VB would unfairly compensate people who work more. Unless our Pension outcomes are EQUAL, it's not something I can support
Hmmm, you Do Realize that B Fund Contributions currently unfairly compensate people who work more, don't you? For the Young Fledgling 777 Aviator who manages to fill his Calendar with R days, could be quite a bit more. As a Wag, say an extra 6-8k a year. And the Longer that $$ is allowed to tick away, the bigger the disparity is. I run 2 scenarios for my kids. One of which I say I need 30 days of work out of you, I'll pay you 1000$ a day or start your salary at .01 and double it each day...which do you want?
And the other has to do with IRAs. Save 2k from Age 16-20, increasing total amounts with later starts-Shirley you've seen the examples. Both of which indicate the Power of Compounding is underestimated.
And, just me, but I don't think of Retirement as a Zero Sum game. Just because someone who works every darn day they can, who sells back 40% of their Vacation every year, would wind up with a better Retirement than ma...well, I just don't care.
In fact, I kinda feel sorry for people like that. No matter How Much they Earn and Work, it's Never enough.
As for me, I enjoy my time off. It's one of the main bennies of switching from being a full time Military pilot to FedEx. Yes, I am on the road more than I was. But when I was a Mil guy most of the time I was working 0630-1730 w/the odd 1 weekend a month and multiple weeks gone every year. Now, when I'm home I'm home.
And, as a Salesman I sure must suck. On Several Occasions I've said a Floating Earnings Cap to our Traditional Pension would be Superior to the VB plan, certainly over 25 YOS. Not looking back but think I came up with a Superior to the tune of 60k a year. Didn't compare the benefit at 30 YOS, so thinking the VB would make up some ground there. Because Sorry, 100% Confident FedEx will Not Increase earnings and YOS simultaneously.
One of the things I find intriguing is the Potential Payouts on the VB, all subject to Negotiations of course. 3 scenarios have been mentioned: Continue to Float with the market; annuity at the accumulated value; lump sum payout.
In General, not a big fan of the lump sum payout simply because it's usually a 70-80% value of an annuity cost. EG if it would cost 1M to provide an annuity for a certain Pension level Mgt gives you 750k to take you off the books.
But I know some people want All the Money in their Hands\Control and there's certainly some value in that line of thought
1. I don’t trust the union to negotiate a good deal for us. I have every reason to believe they’ll put together another shoddy document that the company exploits. And we aren’t talking lie flat seats here.
2. I don’t want to give another incentive for anyone to stay past 25 years. The best QOL comes with seniority. Why give another reason for someone to stay past 25 years and 60?
3. This plan gives excess advantage to certain seniority segments (over 25 years, pilots hired very young). Why would a 15 year guy want to risk freezing his pension for a chance at a very small monetary gain?
4. It’s ridiculous to give away an excellent benefit. Are we just stupid? Other pilots would love to have our pension. Why don’t we just work to improve what we have. Keep pushing to improve our A and B plan. Higher 401k contributions? Profit sharing? But just leave my pension alone!
03-27-2018, 03:28 PM
#3
Fill'er Up Again
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Scarebus Captain
Posts: 1,089
Originally Posted by golfandfly
My reasons for a no vote:
1. I don’t trust the union to negotiate a good deal for us. I have every reason to believe they’ll put together another shoddy document that the company exploits. And we aren’t talking lie flat seats here.
2. I don’t want to give another incentive for anyone to stay past 25 years. The best QOL comes with seniority. Why give another reason for someone to stay past 25 years and 60?
3. This plan gives excess advantage to certain seniority segments (over 25 years, pilots hired very young). Why would a 15 year guy want to risk freezing his pension for a chance at a very small monetary gain?
4. It’s ridiculous to give away an excellent benefit. Are we just stupid? Other pilots would love to have our pension. Why don’t we just work to improve what we have. Keep pushing to improve our A and B plan. Higher 401k contributions? Profit sharing? But just leave my pension alone!
1. I don’t trust the union to negotiate a good deal for us. I have every reason to believe they’ll put together another shoddy document that the company exploits. And we aren’t talking lie flat seats here.
2. I don’t want to give another incentive for anyone to stay past 25 years. The best QOL comes with seniority. Why give another reason for someone to stay past 25 years and 60?
3. This plan gives excess advantage to certain seniority segments (over 25 years, pilots hired very young). Why would a 15 year guy want to risk freezing his pension for a chance at a very small monetary gain?
4. It’s ridiculous to give away an excellent benefit. Are we just stupid? Other pilots would love to have our pension. Why don’t we just work to improve what we have. Keep pushing to improve our A and B plan. Higher 401k contributions? Profit sharing? But just leave my pension alone!
03-27-2018, 03:31 PM
#4
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 49
Concerns regarding VB
(1) Are they going to “Freeze” the A plan in the transition to new VB plan? This would adversely affect a good number of people.
(2) What is the legal standard of a Letter of Agreement vs the Contract? Is that something we should worry about?
(3) Incentives to earn more serves only certain segments of the pilot force. I remember 4A2B.....some pilots got their pay cut by 35%....others were able to bid carryover (up to 80 hours) and never really were affected. My point being that there will be unintended consequences of opening up an all you can grab clause to pilots.
(2) What is the legal standard of a Letter of Agreement vs the Contract? Is that something we should worry about?
(3) Incentives to earn more serves only certain segments of the pilot force. I remember 4A2B.....some pilots got their pay cut by 35%....others were able to bid carryover (up to 80 hours) and never really were affected. My point being that there will be unintended consequences of opening up an all you can grab clause to pilots.
03-28-2018, 10:38 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
golfandfly's reasons +2
With emphasis in particular upon #1. Why would we negotiate something so complicated the union has to "educate us" in stages? The company will find holes large enough to drive a truck through. History has shown us that they are experts at this, and the arbitrators will be owned and paid by them, not us.
I know it has to be frustrating for those who will be retiring under the current contract, with no improvement to retirement. However, though some might profit from this, the majority stand to lose too much. I haven't talked to a single person in support of this proposal.
With emphasis in particular upon #1. Why would we negotiate something so complicated the union has to "educate us" in stages? The company will find holes large enough to drive a truck through. History has shown us that they are experts at this, and the arbitrators will be owned and paid by them, not us.
I know it has to be frustrating for those who will be retiring under the current contract, with no improvement to retirement. However, though some might profit from this, the majority stand to lose too much. I haven't talked to a single person in support of this proposal.
03-28-2018, 11:34 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Am I worried about the Language, well, No. Might be if it was a Pension plan we created. But the Hybrid, Variable Plan is something already in existence.
Why in Stages? Well, as much as I would like to respect the overwhelming Intellect of my fellow Pilots...how many times have you read something along the lines of I was hired in 99 and my Pay rate won't be anywhere close to the models? That there is no floor? That we don't know the assumptions that went into the model? That we Know the Assumptions, but they don't mean anything since we don't know what they will really be because they all have to be negotiated.
Am I worried about the Assumption that we would tie it to Code limitations. Well, No. Nor am I worried about the Govt changing the Code limitations since we Already have Language protecting our Current A plan and B plan should the Code change (28.E.2 for the B plan)
Am I worried about Mil folks on Long Term Military leave? Well, No. For those who don't know, FedEx currently pays B plan contributions as if you had worked. Contribution made after your return from Mil Leave, so it's not as if you're made "whole" since there's no potential returns there. Just a simple 8 or 9% of your hypothetical earnings. And, Again, the VB is a Pension Plan. So, the hypothetical mutual fund aligned with your career earnings would have a similar adjustment.
Just as it would for those on LTD, Pension Plan. Not a B plan or 401k Match where FedEx's contributions Stop. (Doesn't necessarily have to, I've read statements indicating Delta's continue for those on LTD. Not sure how, maybe it's something like our non-qualified plan)
Am I worried that the VB will create an Incentive for People to work to Age 65? Well-No. For those inclined to do so I think the 1.5M to 1.3M in additional Salary combined with the ability to defer using B Plan, 401k, and IRA money is likely outweighs the odd 6'sh K of added benefits to the Pension. (1.5M to 1.3M based on final Pay rates in our existing CBA and 900 hours of Work)
Let's see, again, the VB doesn't return the same value as a Floating Earnings Cap does for our Traditional A plan. IMO-there is Absolutely NO incentive for Mgt to entertain improving our A plan now. So, that leaves it to our next Negotiations Period.
Assuming a simple 10% increase, rounded up, gets me into the 370k if the Cap is tied to WB Capt (roughly a 42% increase from current) or 319k (roughly a 23% increase)
The Transition to this new earnings Cap is again, subject to negotiation. The Best thing for Us would be the Ability to use current FAE for those 1 or 2 years into their over 260k Earnings Sprint to max out FAE. What I think might happen would be a look back of earnings Capped at 260k each year for the transition.
So, assuming 260*4+ (370 or 320) gets you to a Pension of 141 \ 136. Something that will only improve each year until you get to the 185 \ 160. Certainly better than what we have now.
Only downside, is, well. Our NC indicated that Mgt was particularly intransigent on spending the $$ to improve our Traditional A plan, same guy, as has been repeatedly pointed out said that Management was going to provide the Highest Deviation Bank possible on an Intl Flight, the Flat Bed Seats verbiage applying only to the Scheduled flights. Which, we all know now he was wrong about. And some indicate that he was Equally Wrong about Mgt's Willingness to Spend arguably much more $$ than they do on Deviation tickets to improve the A plan.
But, let's assume that all it'll take during our next CBA is a New NC and the line in the Sand will be brushed away, quickly.
If Negotiations go as they have in the Past, we will hit our 2 year anniversary in Oct 2023 and likely be voting on a TA summer of 2024, that would result in the new Pension limits beginning Jan 1, 2025.
Busdriver12-since it's Obvious No One supports this proposal even our NC folks will surely abandon it soon
;-)
Why in Stages? Well, as much as I would like to respect the overwhelming Intellect of my fellow Pilots...how many times have you read something along the lines of I was hired in 99 and my Pay rate won't be anywhere close to the models? That there is no floor? That we don't know the assumptions that went into the model? That we Know the Assumptions, but they don't mean anything since we don't know what they will really be because they all have to be negotiated.
Am I worried about the Assumption that we would tie it to Code limitations. Well, No. Nor am I worried about the Govt changing the Code limitations since we Already have Language protecting our Current A plan and B plan should the Code change (28.E.2 for the B plan)
Am I worried about Mil folks on Long Term Military leave? Well, No. For those who don't know, FedEx currently pays B plan contributions as if you had worked. Contribution made after your return from Mil Leave, so it's not as if you're made "whole" since there's no potential returns there. Just a simple 8 or 9% of your hypothetical earnings. And, Again, the VB is a Pension Plan. So, the hypothetical mutual fund aligned with your career earnings would have a similar adjustment.
Just as it would for those on LTD, Pension Plan. Not a B plan or 401k Match where FedEx's contributions Stop. (Doesn't necessarily have to, I've read statements indicating Delta's continue for those on LTD. Not sure how, maybe it's something like our non-qualified plan)
Am I worried that the VB will create an Incentive for People to work to Age 65? Well-No. For those inclined to do so I think the 1.5M to 1.3M in additional Salary combined with the ability to defer using B Plan, 401k, and IRA money is likely outweighs the odd 6'sh K of added benefits to the Pension. (1.5M to 1.3M based on final Pay rates in our existing CBA and 900 hours of Work)
Let's see, again, the VB doesn't return the same value as a Floating Earnings Cap does for our Traditional A plan. IMO-there is Absolutely NO incentive for Mgt to entertain improving our A plan now. So, that leaves it to our next Negotiations Period.
Assuming a simple 10% increase, rounded up, gets me into the 370k if the Cap is tied to WB Capt (roughly a 42% increase from current) or 319k (roughly a 23% increase)
The Transition to this new earnings Cap is again, subject to negotiation. The Best thing for Us would be the Ability to use current FAE for those 1 or 2 years into their over 260k Earnings Sprint to max out FAE. What I think might happen would be a look back of earnings Capped at 260k each year for the transition.
So, assuming 260*4+ (370 or 320) gets you to a Pension of 141 \ 136. Something that will only improve each year until you get to the 185 \ 160. Certainly better than what we have now.
Only downside, is, well. Our NC indicated that Mgt was particularly intransigent on spending the $$ to improve our Traditional A plan, same guy, as has been repeatedly pointed out said that Management was going to provide the Highest Deviation Bank possible on an Intl Flight, the Flat Bed Seats verbiage applying only to the Scheduled flights. Which, we all know now he was wrong about. And some indicate that he was Equally Wrong about Mgt's Willingness to Spend arguably much more $$ than they do on Deviation tickets to improve the A plan.
But, let's assume that all it'll take during our next CBA is a New NC and the line in the Sand will be brushed away, quickly.
If Negotiations go as they have in the Past, we will hit our 2 year anniversary in Oct 2023 and likely be voting on a TA summer of 2024, that would result in the new Pension limits beginning Jan 1, 2025.
Busdriver12-since it's Obvious No One supports this proposal even our NC folks will surely abandon it soon
;-)
03-28-2018, 12:40 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by kronan
Am I worried about the Language, well, No. Might be if it was a Pension plan we created. But the Hybrid, Variable Plan is something already in existence.
Why in Stages? Well, as much as I would like to respect the overwhelming Intellect of my fellow Pilots...how many times have you read something along the lines of I was hired in 99 and my Pay rate won't be anywhere close to the models? That there is no floor? That we don't know the assumptions that went into the model? That we Know the Assumptions, but they don't mean anything since we don't know what they will really be because they all have to be negotiated.
Am I worried about the Assumption that we would tie it to Code limitations. Well, No. Nor am I worried about the Govt changing the Code limitations since we Already have Language protecting our Current A plan and B plan should the Code change (28.E.2 for the B plan)
Am I worried about Mil folks on Long Term Military leave? Well, No. For those who don't know, FedEx currently pays B plan contributions as if you had worked. Contribution made after your return from Mil Leave, so it's not as if you're made "whole" since there's no potential returns there. Just a simple 8 or 9% of your hypothetical earnings. And, Again, the VB is a Pension Plan. So, the hypothetical mutual fund aligned with your career earnings would have a similar adjustment.
Just as it would for those on LTD, Pension Plan. Not a B plan or 401k Match where FedEx's contributions Stop. (Doesn't necessarily have to, I've read statements indicating Delta's continue for those on LTD. Not sure how, maybe it's something like our non-qualified plan)
Am I worried that the VB will create an Incentive for People to work to Age 65? Well-No. For those inclined to do so I think the 1.5M to 1.3M in additional Salary combined with the ability to defer using B Plan, 401k, and IRA money is likely outweighs the odd 6'sh K of added benefits to the Pension. (1.5M to 1.3M based on final Pay rates in our existing CBA and 900 hours of Work)
Let's see, again, the VB doesn't return the same value as a Floating Earnings Cap does for our Traditional A plan. IMO-there is Absolutely NO incentive for Mgt to entertain improving our A plan now. So, that leaves it to our next Negotiations Period.
Assuming a simple 10% increase, rounded up, gets me into the 370k if the Cap is tied to WB Capt (roughly a 42% increase from current) or 319k (roughly a 23% increase)
The Transition to this new earnings Cap is again, subject to negotiation. The Best thing for Us would be the Ability to use current FAE for those 1 or 2 years into their over 260k Earnings Sprint to max out FAE. What I think might happen would be a look back of earnings Capped at 260k each year for the transition.
So, assuming 260*4+ (370 or 320) gets you to a Pension of 141 \ 136. Something that will only improve each year until you get to the 185 \ 160. Certainly better than what we have now.
Only downside, is, well. Our NC indicated that Mgt was particularly intransigent on spending the $$ to improve our Traditional A plan, same guy, as has been repeatedly pointed out said that Management was going to provide the Highest Deviation Bank possible on an Intl Flight, the Flat Bed Seats verbiage applying only to the Scheduled flights. Which, we all know now he was wrong about. And some indicate that he was Equally Wrong about Mgt's Willingness to Spend arguably much more $$ than they do on Deviation tickets to improve the A plan.
But, let's assume that all it'll take during our next CBA is a New NC and the line in the Sand will be brushed away, quickly.
If Negotiations go as they have in the Past, we will hit our 2 year anniversary in Oct 2023 and likely be voting on a TA summer of 2024, that would result in the new Pension limits beginning Jan 1, 2025.
Busdriver12-since it's Obvious No One supports this proposal even our NC folks will surely abandon it soon
;-)
Why in Stages? Well, as much as I would like to respect the overwhelming Intellect of my fellow Pilots...how many times have you read something along the lines of I was hired in 99 and my Pay rate won't be anywhere close to the models? That there is no floor? That we don't know the assumptions that went into the model? That we Know the Assumptions, but they don't mean anything since we don't know what they will really be because they all have to be negotiated.
Am I worried about the Assumption that we would tie it to Code limitations. Well, No. Nor am I worried about the Govt changing the Code limitations since we Already have Language protecting our Current A plan and B plan should the Code change (28.E.2 for the B plan)
Am I worried about Mil folks on Long Term Military leave? Well, No. For those who don't know, FedEx currently pays B plan contributions as if you had worked. Contribution made after your return from Mil Leave, so it's not as if you're made "whole" since there's no potential returns there. Just a simple 8 or 9% of your hypothetical earnings. And, Again, the VB is a Pension Plan. So, the hypothetical mutual fund aligned with your career earnings would have a similar adjustment.
Just as it would for those on LTD, Pension Plan. Not a B plan or 401k Match where FedEx's contributions Stop. (Doesn't necessarily have to, I've read statements indicating Delta's continue for those on LTD. Not sure how, maybe it's something like our non-qualified plan)
Am I worried that the VB will create an Incentive for People to work to Age 65? Well-No. For those inclined to do so I think the 1.5M to 1.3M in additional Salary combined with the ability to defer using B Plan, 401k, and IRA money is likely outweighs the odd 6'sh K of added benefits to the Pension. (1.5M to 1.3M based on final Pay rates in our existing CBA and 900 hours of Work)
Let's see, again, the VB doesn't return the same value as a Floating Earnings Cap does for our Traditional A plan. IMO-there is Absolutely NO incentive for Mgt to entertain improving our A plan now. So, that leaves it to our next Negotiations Period.
Assuming a simple 10% increase, rounded up, gets me into the 370k if the Cap is tied to WB Capt (roughly a 42% increase from current) or 319k (roughly a 23% increase)
The Transition to this new earnings Cap is again, subject to negotiation. The Best thing for Us would be the Ability to use current FAE for those 1 or 2 years into their over 260k Earnings Sprint to max out FAE. What I think might happen would be a look back of earnings Capped at 260k each year for the transition.
So, assuming 260*4+ (370 or 320) gets you to a Pension of 141 \ 136. Something that will only improve each year until you get to the 185 \ 160. Certainly better than what we have now.
Only downside, is, well. Our NC indicated that Mgt was particularly intransigent on spending the $$ to improve our Traditional A plan, same guy, as has been repeatedly pointed out said that Management was going to provide the Highest Deviation Bank possible on an Intl Flight, the Flat Bed Seats verbiage applying only to the Scheduled flights. Which, we all know now he was wrong about. And some indicate that he was Equally Wrong about Mgt's Willingness to Spend arguably much more $$ than they do on Deviation tickets to improve the A plan.
But, let's assume that all it'll take during our next CBA is a New NC and the line in the Sand will be brushed away, quickly.
If Negotiations go as they have in the Past, we will hit our 2 year anniversary in Oct 2023 and likely be voting on a TA summer of 2024, that would result in the new Pension limits beginning Jan 1, 2025.
Busdriver12-since it's Obvious No One supports this proposal even our NC folks will surely abandon it soon
;-)
I can’t possibly believe that anyone doesn’t think the company will exploit this scheme? The complexities of this deal are way beyond our expertise. And if you trust the likes of Blitzstein and Cheiron, you deserve to be taken to the bank. The guys are making a lot of money off us now. They have absolutely nothing to lose.
Everyone else would be ecstatic to have our pension. Why we are voluntarily giving it up is pure bafoonery.
03-28-2018, 12:52 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,273
Originally Posted by golfandfly
Everyone else would be ecstatic to have our pension. Why we are voluntarily giving it up is pure bafoonery.
Return of Pensions?
03-28-2018, 01:49 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by Sluggo_63
I wouldn’t be so sure of that...
Return of Pensions?
Return of Pensions?
I’d have no problem giving people a choice between a better B fund or our current pension plan (A and B). Of course, it would be to the company’s benefit for people to leave the A fund, so they’d have to provide us something in return.
If it pays out, it’s a wonderful thing to have money coming in every month. If I was a new hire and young, I’d certainly consider going to a high B fund. You’d have to put pen to paper and figure out what works for you.
This VB plan is just a ridiculously stupid idea.
03-28-2018, 03:26 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2017
Posts: 100
No matter how you slice this, it is just wrong to change the rules mid game. People have made life decisions based on the A Plan they currently have...with all its benefits and limitations. To suddenly freeze that benefit and FORCE them into another plan that can't guarantee them at least the same benefit is criminal in my opinion.
We all make different decisions when it comes to retirement planning. In addition to our FedEx retirement, some invest in real estate, some in the stock market, some in a side business. People make these decisions based on what they currently have and their tolerance to take on additional risk. Our union wants to change the rules of the game mid-way through.
Still blows my mind that we are trying to do this to ourselves. This isn't the company's idea...we are not being forced into it because the company is not doing well...fellow pilots are leading this charge.
We all make different decisions when it comes to retirement planning. In addition to our FedEx retirement, some invest in real estate, some in the stock market, some in a side business. People make these decisions based on what they currently have and their tolerance to take on additional risk. Our union wants to change the rules of the game mid-way through.
Still blows my mind that we are trying to do this to ourselves. This isn't the company's idea...we are not being forced into it because the company is not doing well...fellow pilots are leading this charge.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
