Tuck

Dlax - first question have you been to a FOCUS meeting? You appear very knowledgable in most areas but also appear like you don't really want the answers to some of your questions - you'd rather just post them to stir the pot. So I think before anyone puts out a huge opinion (not a question) they should say whether they've been to one. I've attended joint council meetings and FOCUS group discussions and read all the FAQs and there IS NO SUBSTITUTE for the FOCUS group meetings.

Dlax - you said

"Under the VB plan they will only be responsible guaranteeing the accrued floor benefit, if we successfully negotiate such a gauruntee"

- uh, no, - they are responsible for paying a % of total pilot salary - that % is to be negotiated but that is how the modeler was built - even if we well exceed the floor every year the CO still must give that same % to a more than likely ever increasing pilot salary


"The VB plan only significantly advantages those who are willing to work 30 or 35 years"

No, again - it's a huge increase for the jr and relatively young new hire. Take a guy who is 35 and just hired - he most likely plans to work 25-30 years - the VBP is a HUGE benefit to him over the current DB plan.


"Additionally, I don't believe the pension will be under the control of the Pilots and the Union. It will be run the same way as our current pension -- by Fedex. We are requesting a union/pilot rep on the management board."

No again - it will absolutely not be run by Fedex - There is no "request" for a union/pilot rep. Where in the world did you hear that?

Star Clipper
"One of the biggest concerns which is yet to be addressed, “ What happens if a guy goes on LTD at 45 but then returns at 55 where under the current A Plan he/she can still get their high 5?” There is no provision for that under the proposed VB Plan"

No, that is not correct. There is no "proposed" VB plan - there is a model and negotiations - the NC has said that current vesting rules for those under 5 YOS will be carried over to the new VBP - they have also said that the same LTD rules will be carried over to the new VBP - Question - did you attend a FOCUS meeting or ask the NC any of these questions?

TonyC

"pilots are encouraged to work while sick in order to preserve their entire sick bank to the last day. The Company takes from us a benefit we've already earned, our sick bank, and offers it back to us in the form of a perk in order to get us to work harder and longer. "

True - guess what, they were encouraged to work while sick even before the Sick Leave buy back program - everything over 686 paid out to your 401k or in cash - that's been in there forever I think?

"Sure, many pilots got the post-60/pre-Medicaid assistance and stayed longer anyway, but plenty of pilots took advantage of it and retired"

I have never heard that and have asked those same questions to former R&I chairs and there is no evidence that there were "plenty" of pilots that used that $25K to retire "early". Sorry - that was a terrible part of the 2006 CBA.

Tony I always get a kick out of when you use the term "union" as some sort of negative thing - like the union screwed us. First I would say we are the union. Second you were a member on that MEC when a lot of this stuff happened. I know you just ran again and I thank you for that - but to think that this union is some sort of foreign evil group is ridiculous and frankly part of the problem. THAT is number one why negotiating big changes like DB have always been near impossible here.

Dlax/Krusty and others - I believe we have two options with retirement - we either go forward with something like the VBP or we wait until 2021 and work on minor improvements to the B fund (or we can look at the VBP again in 2021). What makes you think that we would be able to negotiate a large improvement to the DB plan in 2021 when we couldn't do it in 2006, 2011 or 2015? Please don't use words like "should" get or "can afford it" - those terms are completely irrelevant in collective bargaining. We will get what we can fight for and that's it.

Yes, the company can afford indexing up our DB plan and they can afford an improvement to YOS and we do deserve it and (for Krusty) "should" get that but we won't - I have seen absolutely nothing from anyone or anything that leads me to believe otherwise. So we can spend another 3-4 years trying the same fight- get dragged along by the Company to extend negotiations on and on all the while throwing out terms like "we deserve it, they can afford it" and ultimately end up with virtually nothing....maybe a B fund improvement OR we can try something new.

All that being said, maybe this vehicle isn't the correct one - maybe a better VBP down the road is - I can see that for a lot of people on this thread, the numbers don't appear to be what people were expecting. So I'm for something new - I like this plan but I could maybe think of others in 2021 but do not believe that spending time and money trying to improve the current DB plan is fruitful.

StarClipper

This thing is a true hard sell.

mcdbirdman

The BEST post of this entire thread!! Well done.

DLax85

Brother Tuck -

I have yet to attend a FOCUS meeting. There have been ZERO scheduled the nights I'm hub turning.

I've read all the Retirement FAQs. I know all the questions submitted have not been answered and posted.

Some simple ones...

What's the assumed pilot progression timeline?

What are the historical returns used within the modeler?

The specific equities index, the specific bond index, the assumed asset allocation, and the actual historical returns for each of these.

How do the results change if an investment earnings cap (notionally 10% in the first video) is applied to build the stabilization fund?

Please publish.

Are those valid questions? ...or do you think that's just stirring the pot?

I'm wondering if you understand how the company calculates the amount of money they must set aside to fund a given benefit level at a specific age -- ie. $130K at age 65 for the expected life of a pilot.

They utilize an Expected Return On Assets to estimate growth of their contributions, and a Discount Rate to discount a benefit liability over the expected life of a retiree.

If the VB actually guarantees a "floor benefit based on 2%" accrual, the company will not be assured they can ONLY contribute a fix percentage of salary.

That will only be true without a truly guaranteed floor benefit.

Please read many of my earlier posts.

If the company only has to contribute a fixed percentage of total payroll each year, then that's just like a BIG GROUP B fund --- except each pilot doesn't control their share, like our current B Plan. It's like a B fund, with an annuity payout at the end.

I do think the VB plan is a bad idea for the many reasons I state.

I do think improving our Total Retirement should be the goal (...I don't think anyone would disagree with that). Thus, its a valid question to ask is there a better path?

A way to improve both our current A fund and our B fund?

If so, let's model it.

Look back at my posts during contract negotiations. There was no talk then of indexing the Cap to IRS limits. No one in the union was publicly talking about that. The Caps being discussed were much higher.

When the union said the A fund Cap simply couldn't be raised, I suggested we should vote "No" and look for increases to the B fund up to 12-13%. We should have held out for more than just the two B fund bumps to 8%...then 9%.

I'm now only suggesting an indexed Cap because, its a new idea, and it would only yield a modest 5.7% increase, which I think the union can afford. I don't think we should have to switch to a VB plan and Career Average Earnings to get it. Those two concessions are just too big.

I'm unsure, if during negotiations, I was advocating increased 1% YOS multipliers for 5 more years --- but I believe that's an avenue which should be explored now because most pilots are working 4-5 years longer.

Now back to FOCUS group opportunities.

Can we have one EVERY Wed night in MEM and see how many guys sign up? I'll assume midweek, nights, in our largest hub would be the most convenient for the pilot group. That's the objective, right?

It seemed to me some of the day-turn offerings went unfilled. Hmmm.

Can we have another on-line survey in which everyone can participate (not random phone call poll)?

Is asking specific questions....and asking for alternative options 2 and 3 to be explored an unreasonable request for my 1.9% dues?

We're all owners/customer in our Association, correct?

In Unity and Transparency,

DLax

DLax85

And I think the ability to search old posts is one of the beast features of this message board.

I'd encourage everyone to use it.

DLax85

Tuck -

Here ya go....straight from the MEC Retirement FAQs published Dec 1, 2017

Q. Who will manage the new plan, FedEx, or some other entity?

A. FedEx will be the plan sponsor and plan administrator of the variable plan, as it is now with the Defined Benefit Plan. We envision that trust management and investment management decisions will be made by a joint ALPA-FedEx fiduciary board. Since a Variable Benefit Pension Plan shifts investment risk to the participants, it is important that the new variable plan provide ALPA with joint and equal governance with FedEx. ALPA will not be the plan administrator or plan sponsor of the variable plan. ALPA will not make investment decisions for the trust, but will instead work with FedEx in the selection of professional fund management in order to maximize fund earning potential and manage costs.

Lets hope they post clear and concise responses to ALL the questions submitted --- especially simple, definitive data that's been used in the modeler.

We're entitled to that as members, right?

In Unity,

DLax

Tuck

Totally agree on night hub turn FOCUS.

On alternatives - it’s my belief that the only increases company will agree to are known cash and not a penny in PBO. They’ve said that to the same effect that we’ve said no changes to vacation and no PBS. There has to be an incentive for the Company to change. There is absolutely zero incentive for them to improve the DB plan and increase their PBO - they want to get out of the pension business. This plan offers B fund type contributions from the company that they may be interested in and DB benefits for the pilots - it can be a win-win. Now as to other improvements what are you willing to trade for a 12-13% increase in the B fund? Please don’t think we will get something for nothing - that is not how negotiating works.

What it sounds like is you want to go fight the same battle that we’ve lost every time in 2006, 11 and 15 with slightly different numbers and think it’ll be different this time - well next time as it’ll be in 2021. Give me th scenario where we get something for nothing - what exactly will be our huge (it’ll have to be HUGE) leverage then? Strike?

TonyC

There we go, laying down another way to discredit those with whom you disagree. If we don't attend a FOCUS meeting, we aren't qualified to comment, right? Attendees know better, and we should probably just trust them.

Do you think there will be enough FOCUS meetings for us all to attend, or just to persuade 50% + 1 of the voters? Do the math.



There's that false choice again, the invalid comparison between anything and the current DB plan, unchanged. If our CBA FAE cap is indexed to the IRS limit like the imaginary Variable Benefit Plan is, that same 35-year-old stands to gain the MOST of any other demographic. Take those huge numbers the "modeler" is projecting as the final year's salary (the big green bar on the left labelled "Pay at Retirement") and divide that by 2. That's the Defined Benefit plan we should be aiming for, not a modest improvement to $130,000.


I guess they didn't cover that in the FOCUS meeting. DLax85 already covered this point.


Funny, because I was at one of the first Joint Council Meetings where both of these questions resulted in the Negotiating Committee Chairman and MEC Chairman exchanging puzzled looks and admitting that something would have to be negotiated. I've been at most Joint Council Meetings since and haven't heard a different answer. If you heard them say with certainty that the same vesting rules and LTD rules will be carried over -- let me say that again, your words -- "will be carried over to the new VBP," that would be news. But wait, I thought we only have "a model and negotiations," but you make it sound like these two points are done deals.

So which is it? Does the answer depend on which 15 people are in the FOCUS meeting?


Yes, the camel's nose was allowed in the tent in the first CBA, one of the (many) reasons I opposed that TA. Sick leave is an earned benefit, and pilots should, in my opinion, be able to use it when it's appropriate, or get ALL OF IT back in some form when they don't. The Sick Leave Surplus Program (everything over the 686 hour ceiling at the end of the year goes into the Employer Contribution Unused Sick Leave Account) encourages the pilot to save up the 72 hours he earns on January 1st (notionally, technically it's the first day of the first bid period of the year) for 10 years before he can redeem any benefit, outside of being sick.

Very shortsighted, in my opinion, at least from the perspective of the pilots and the collective bargaining agent. Brilliant productivity gain from the perspective of the employer.

However, you may recall the terms of surrender under which this provision was ratified, and who was dictating them. We didn't exactly have the upper hand in crafting this language.


Fast forward 16-17 years to this last round of negotiations and we had a considerable amount of leverage. The Company needed us to fly so badly that they bought back vacation in every seat in every airplane in every base for 2 years after negotiations concluded, all while hiring as fast as they could. We can't blame this one on THEM -- WE did it to OURSELVES. So, we have the "Fly 'Til You Die or One More Peak" retirement bribe which lets us split that 686 credit hours of previously earned benefit with The Company (where our portion is less than 50%) IF there's any of it left over. Since most people, I believe, don't like to use sick leave, and most of us, I believe, aren't sick enough to use 12 days of sick time every year, most of us have some earned benefit "stored" in that Disability Sick Account. Sure, there are folks who experience events where they use some or all of those hours as Sick Days, but I'll bet the vast majority of pilots with more than a year on property have some hours stuck in the DSA "bank". So, the proverbial tent flap is raised and it's more than the camel's nose peeking inside.

Now, not only are pilots encouraged to work sick so they can redeem some of their earned benefit, they are encouraged to delay retirement in order to do it.

THAT is the point I tried to make, and you must have missed it. The argument is made that it's OK to offer an incentive to delay retirement (the VRB "every dollar, every year counts" scheme) because pilots are already delaying retirement. This is one example of WHY they delay retirement -- because we created an incentive to do so. The logic fails.



You mean to say you've never heard of anyone retiring before their 65th birthday? The VEBA benefited pilots who retired between age 60 and Age 65. Before the Regulated Age change, it meant that pilots could retire at 60 instead of going to the back seat until 65 -- I don't have hard numbers, but I guarantee there were pilots who did. We tend to only complain about the ones who hung around to "reclaim" front seats and those who got the VEBA benefit and worked past 60, but they weren't the only pilots who reached the normal retirement age during that time frame. For plenty of pilots it removed a significant obstacle to retirement, and they did.


I suspect you worded your questions incorrectly. Who said anything about "early"? Age 60 is the Normal Retirement Age. Unless you can show that every pilot who could maintain their medical after 2006 worked until their 65th birthday, you must accept that those who didn't were able to use the VEBA for its intended use.

What we don't like is the fact that retirement was not a condition for receiving the benefit. Thank goodness our CBAs are amendable so we can improve on things we don't like. Except we didn't. Instead of improving it, we dropped it. In doing so, we find ourselves back at square one facing a significant obstacle to retirement at the Normal Retirement Age -- healthcare insurance costs.


Boy, talk about a failure to read and comprehend. I used the word "union" once, and "we" over a dozen times. If you "always" get a kick, you don't get many from me. I go to great lengths to use "we" and "us" when talking about FedEx ALPA, even when it would feel good to make divisive distinctions. I have to swallow a little bile when I type "we voted to ..." when something inside me wants to type "57% of you morons voted to, but not me ..." We voted to give up this, or we got snookered by that ... I didn't, but I include myself in the we because we are all in this together, and it doesn't help anybody when we can't stand together against the only folks on the OTHER side of the Negotiating Table.

In one instance I made the distinction between The Company (of which we are also a part, by the way) and The Association, the two signatories to the CBA, as referenced therein, and followed by citing a commonly heard phrase: "trust the union."

Sounds like the phrase the Negotiating Committee Chairman reverted to in early hub turn meetings about the VRB boondoggle -- "Yes, I'm asking you to trust me."


I'm not sure what you mean by "a lot of this stuff". I was first elected after the 2006 CBA was being implemented, so I can't take credit for any of that apart from my single vote. I remained on the MEC until the second year of the 2011 "Bridge" contract, which I strongly opposed. You may recall -- pardon the pun -- that was a big reason why my participation on the MEC came to an abrupt halt.

I also don't know what you mean by "just ran again." I did run for Block 4 Rep when that election coincided with the ratification period for our current CBA -- over 2 1/2 years ago. My opponent had given up on improving the "A" Plan; I still have not given up. I wouldn't count a 57% ratification votes as a "vote of confidence."

I have never thought of the union as a foreign evil group, nor have I ever articulated that. However, I do know that there are personalities in positions of power in the union organization who have much different priorities, goals, and ethics than most of us line pilots. I think it would be irresponsible to not call them out and hold them accountable. When it's the Negotiating Committee I have a beef with, I've said it. When it's the MEC, I don't have a problem speaking up. It is BECAUSE they are US that I feel obligated to speak frankly, because US reflects on YOU and ME, whether it be in a positive or negative way. Every one of US should be accountable to every other one of US.

And I think you'll find from reading anything I've ever written, whether it was here as TonyC or while using the Block Rep signature line in e-mails or published articles, that I believe that we DO have what it takes to stand up and negotiate big improvements to our CBA. What we have lacked is bold leadership to focus our efforts. Our current MEC Chairman spoke on numerous occasions about how impressed he was with our Informational Picketing efforts, yet didn't trust us enough to do it again when the Negotiating Committee hit a rough spot. The membership was ready to do whatever they were asked to do in order to achieve the gains which we deserved and which The Company could have easily afforded, but the leadership wasn't there.

We'll always bicker and fuss among ourselves and debate details and opinions, but we also know how to work as a team. We just need to be asked.


There's that lie again. Sorry, I shouldn't say "lie", I should use a big word like "disingenuous."
I'm sorry, but I still have to go with lie.

In 2006, the topic of raising the CBA FAE cap ($260,000) because the IRS limit had been raised incrementally every year since our first CBA, and because increased hourly pay rates meant pilots' annual wages were getting closer to that cap. However, because changing the terms of the Defined Benefit Plan would mean re-qualifying the plan, and because so few pilots would even be affected, we (the Negotiating Committee, then the MEC, and then the membership by ratification vote, so we) agreed to The Company's suggestion that we wait until the '"next" CBA negotiations. In other words, we did NOT fight for it.

The "next" CBA negotiations fell during the same time that the FAA was considering changes to Duty and Flight Time Restrictions and Rest Requirements. Because such changes could have effects on our negotiated work rules, we suggested to The Company shortly after negotiations began that we delay meaningful negotiations for 2 years and accept the current workrules in exchange for a couple of "Cost of Living" pay rate increases. (Notice I said "we" again, even though it was a faction of the Negotiating Committee, followed by a majority of the MEC where I was in the minority, and a vote of the membership where I again voted no. Despite being on the losing side of the votes, I own the decision as part of "we".) We never got a chance to discuss retirement, much less fight for it.

Finally, the 2015 CBA. I don't know how much the Negotiating Committee fought for it, but I know the membership wasn't given a chance. Did we ever receive a communication that told us The Company is being intransigent about retirement, so please bring your hat if you own one and grab a picket sign next Sunday afternoon? Sure, there were plenty of chances to drink free beer and eat buffalo wild wings, but were you ever asked to fight?

I can certainly tell you that nobody on the podium at Joint Council Meetings or Hub Turn Meetings has indicated any willingness to fight for it now. When I asked the MEC Chairman how much it would cost to raise the FAE Cap from $260,000 to $280,000, all I got was a lecture about boardroom dynamics and the accusation that I was asking a political question. They're obviously afraid to fight. (They -- the people on the podium -- MEC Chairman, Negotiating Committee Chairman, Block Reps -- not some foreign evil group.)

We did not fight for it in 2006, and we didn't fight for it in 2011, and we didn't put up much of a fight in 2015.

I think a lot of us feel it's worth a fight. I guess we may need leaders with a new perspective.

For today, I'd settle for some good old-fashioned honesty. A growing percentage of our pilots were not here for any of those previous CBA negotiations, and they're liable to believe the claims that we've fought so hard so many times and The Company has said, No, No, No, so we should stop asking and try something different. It's dishonest, and it's irresponsible.

The Negotiating Committee and the MEC delivered a TA that failed miserably. Yes, a 57% ratification vote is a failure for a union. (Huge win for an employer, though.) You can't divide the membership much more than that. Realizing the failure, and further realizing the largest disappointment was the failure to improve the A Plan, they (the Negotiating Committee and the MEC) are trying to pitch a new plan to us (the membership). The fact that they have to resort to misinformation in order to sell it should be a huge red flag.



You may not like that phrase, but WE started it. I mean, We, the MEC, the Negotiating Committee, the Communications Committee, the people most intimately involved in determining and prioritizing objectives and developing the tactics and strategies to achieve them. There's nothing wrong with the phrase so long as we actually act like we believe it. If leaders only pay lip service to it, it does us no good.


I'll close this long post with a repeat of a point I made earlier, and which I have preached for years. We ARE capable of uniting with one purpose to achieve our goals. When we start trusting each one of our brothers and sisters to the same extent that we believe they each one should trust us, we can do anything we set our minds to do. When we have a leader who believes that, we will be a formidable force.






.

MEMA300

No way I’d type all that on my iPhone. Do you guys still carry laptops?

ColCargill

Q: What is the fund manager's incentive to make this fund profitable?

A: There is none. He will simply get paid a percentage of the size of the fund.