FedEx and Pension Obligations
05-08-2018, 07:16 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
FedEx and Pension Obligations
Hmmm,
where have we heard FedEx really wants to get out of the Pension business because it's costly.
It's probably not all that expensive...just the Company Playing chess and crying Woe is Me as a negotiation tactic....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ons-to-metlife
where have we heard FedEx really wants to get out of the Pension business because it's costly.
It's probably not all that expensive...just the Company Playing chess and crying Woe is Me as a negotiation tactic....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ons-to-metlife
05-09-2018, 03:25 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Hmm,
According to the article, they want to get out because of high risk due to low interest rates and higher government costs. With the VB plan, the government costs remain the same, the change is in the funding requirement. With the VB plan the company makes a set contribution and we inherit the risk of low rates and returns.
Why would the company be in a hurry to negotiate the VB plan when the union has stated that the VB plan will require higher contributions by the company than they pay now. The union has said that as payroll increases, the contributions would increase. With the A plan, as payroll increases, there is no required change in contributions. As a percentage of payroll, the A plan gets cheaper every year.
According to the article, they want to get out because of high risk due to low interest rates and higher government costs. With the VB plan, the government costs remain the same, the change is in the funding requirement. With the VB plan the company makes a set contribution and we inherit the risk of low rates and returns.
Why would the company be in a hurry to negotiate the VB plan when the union has stated that the VB plan will require higher contributions by the company than they pay now. The union has said that as payroll increases, the contributions would increase. With the A plan, as payroll increases, there is no required change in contributions. As a percentage of payroll, the A plan gets cheaper every year.
05-09-2018, 07:55 AM
#3
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Yes, the company is trying to get out of the investment risks of a defined benefit plan because its expensive. So of course WE should go ahead an voluntarily release them from that investment risk and take it all on ourselves.
Yeah, thats the ticket.
I've been to several of the meetings about this plan and the term I hear the most is "release the company from liability". Why on earth we would voluntarily do such a thing is a complete mystery to me. We can make improvements to the current plan without "releasing the company from the liability" of market risks.
Chuck also said in his farewell speech that Delta wants our contract plus a nickel. Well if true its not due to our pay rates or work rules, its because we still have an A plan defined benefit plan. So why on earth again would we willingly give it away and "release the company from the liability"?
The union leadership has completely given up on any efforts to improve the current plan and have gone full tilt toward this variable plan that had no downside to the 25 year/260K+ crowd but could harm a bunch of the rest of us.
Not only no, but hell no.
Yeah, thats the ticket.
I've been to several of the meetings about this plan and the term I hear the most is "release the company from liability". Why on earth we would voluntarily do such a thing is a complete mystery to me. We can make improvements to the current plan without "releasing the company from the liability" of market risks.
Chuck also said in his farewell speech that Delta wants our contract plus a nickel. Well if true its not due to our pay rates or work rules, its because we still have an A plan defined benefit plan. So why on earth again would we willingly give it away and "release the company from the liability"?
The union leadership has completely given up on any efforts to improve the current plan and have gone full tilt toward this variable plan that had no downside to the 25 year/260K+ crowd but could harm a bunch of the rest of us.
Not only no, but hell no.
05-09-2018, 03:35 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
If the FedEx pilots unify, we would easily get our retirement fixed.
But if we cut each others throats like that during our last contract negotiations, we will get screwed again.
We must get unified.
I heard a great statement this week at work. If I can't trust you enough to have a beer with you while on a layover, how in the hell can I trust you to not do draft, sell back vacation, volunteer, ava, etc.etc.
So many times I've been on layovers and obvious crew members ignore one another and/or ditch one another.
But if we cut each others throats like that during our last contract negotiations, we will get screwed again.
We must get unified.
I heard a great statement this week at work. If I can't trust you enough to have a beer with you while on a layover, how in the hell can I trust you to not do draft, sell back vacation, volunteer, ava, etc.etc.
So many times I've been on layovers and obvious crew members ignore one another and/or ditch one another.
05-09-2018, 04:31 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
If the FedEx pilots unify, we would easily get our retirement fixed.
But if we cut each others throats like that during our last contract negotiations, we will get screwed again.
We must get unified.
I heard a great statement this week at work. If I can't trust you enough to have a beer with you while on a layover, how in the hell can I trust you to not do draft, sell back vacation, volunteer, ava, etc.etc.
So many times I've been on layovers and obvious crew members ignore one another and/or ditch one another.
But if we cut each others throats like that during our last contract negotiations, we will get screwed again.
We must get unified.
I heard a great statement this week at work. If I can't trust you enough to have a beer with you while on a layover, how in the hell can I trust you to not do draft, sell back vacation, volunteer, ava, etc.etc.
So many times I've been on layovers and obvious crew members ignore one another and/or ditch one another.
Plenty of people who would do draft, sell back vacation, volunteer and do ava during negotiations would be happy to have a beer with you.
But others who might be tired, non drinkers, busy, introverted, or just not interested in going out may not do the above things.
It doesn't require trust to have a beer. And not everyone is interested in going out and hitting the bars.
05-10-2018, 05:57 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by busdriver12
That is certainly a faulty analogy. The two issues are completely unrelated.
Plenty of people who would do draft, sell back vacation, volunteer and do ava during negotiations would be happy to have a beer with you.
But others who might be tired, non drinkers, busy, introverted, or just not interested in going out may not do the above things.
It doesn't require trust to have a beer. And not everyone is interested in going out and hitting the bars.
Plenty of people who would do draft, sell back vacation, volunteer and do ava during negotiations would be happy to have a beer with you.
But others who might be tired, non drinkers, busy, introverted, or just not interested in going out may not do the above things.
It doesn't require trust to have a beer. And not everyone is interested in going out and hitting the bars.
Oh, never mind. No need. I forgot. They're millennials.
05-10-2018, 06:12 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by Busboy
So....You just leave a $20 at the front desk to pay for the new hire's beers?
Oh, never mind. No need. I forgot. They're millennials.
Oh, never mind. No need. I forgot. They're millennials.
However, my point is that some people are social and like to go out, some people aren't (both captains and first officers). Some people would rather work out or sleep on a short layover. But regardless, being social has nothing to do with whether you're working against the pilots during negotiations. Zip, zero.
05-10-2018, 08:30 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by busdriver12
I generally make a particular effort to buy dinner/drinks for newhires, even if I'm rather tired.
However, my point is that some people are social and like to go out, some people aren't (both captains and first officers). Some people would rather work out or sleep on a short layover. But regardless, being social has nothing to do with whether you're working against the pilots during negotiations. Zip, zero.
However, my point is that some people are social and like to go out, some people aren't (both captains and first officers). Some people would rather work out or sleep on a short layover. But regardless, being social has nothing to do with whether you're working against the pilots during negotiations. Zip, zero.
No on probation anymore. Not a millennial. Not always looking to drink. But I am in favor of the Jackson being left behind, as long as it can be used for anything that makes me happy. Lol.
🤪
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
05-10-2018, 10:19 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
^^Now that's funny right there. Maybe I should try handing that to my fo's when I'm not hungry and just want to sleep on a short layover instead of hanging out.
But one Jackson isn't gonna buy dinner and a drink or two, maybe we ought to up the ante.
But one Jackson isn't gonna buy dinner and a drink or two, maybe we ought to up the ante.
05-10-2018, 01:18 PM
#10
Fill'er Up Again
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Scarebus Captain
Posts: 1,089
Originally Posted by busdriver12
I generally make a particular effort to buy dinner/drinks for newhires, even if I'm rather tired.
However, my point is that some people are social and like to go out, some people aren't (both captains and first officers). Some people would rather work out or sleep on a short layover. But regardless, being social has nothing to do with whether you're working against the pilots during negotiations. Zip, zero.
However, my point is that some people are social and like to go out, some people aren't (both captains and first officers). Some people would rather work out or sleep on a short layover. But regardless, being social has nothing to do with whether you're working against the pilots during negotiations. Zip, zero.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
