Originally Posted by Raptor

I'm not convinced the IRS earning cap rising at 2.5% a year is fully realistic either. That rise is tied to the social security CPI index. Congress has tinkered with that SS index in the past to try to slow down the approaching date of SS insolvency and to slow down SS payout increases. What happens if that index is tinkered with further, then the model based on the IRS earning cap rising at 2.5% a year may not happen?

Also, Congress has talked about reducing the amount we can save in a 401(k). They have talked about eliminating ROTH too. They are constantly searching for ways to pare down the debt. Remember when the medicare tax had a fixed dollar amount that it would be based on. And, when we hit that amount, we stopped having medicare taxes taken out. Then remember that they added an additional medicare tax for high earners? You see that additional tax in your paychecks today! What else may change that we haven't foreseen that FedEx knows about that's coming on the horizon due to their legislative "in"?

We are fortunate to command fairly high salaries. But, that also means we are targets to help fund the guvment and pay down the debt. We don't make enough and have the lobby to protect the high middle class like the very rich do. This last tax cut is an example. I will possibly pay more under this tax cut. At the very least, I won't see a big percentage cut like many earners above and below me will. ALPA stated that regulatory risk was an issue with this variable benefit plan. What we model and expect could be changed dramatically at the stroke of a pen--and it might be republican or democrat who does it to us.

Who's the more powerful lobby--airline pilots or FedEx? I can see FedEx playing chess with us, giving us a VB plan that will barely pass, then lobbying for some seemingly minor change that will make us worse off and save them a bundle. They changed the payout date from January 1st to December 31st to avoid paying the B plan to retiring pilots which also increases their tax burden. They have much more of the big data and legislative power on their side. Think about it: many I've talked to who voted for the 2015 CBA out of fear if it didn't pass, or it was the best we could do, or because the union presented it to us so it must be OK, now tell me that wouldn't vote for it in hindsight. How many of us will say that with a variable benefit plan a couple of years after the LOA which hasn't been negotiated yet passes?

You can earn more in retirement (or your spouse outliving you) than perhaps you earned during your active career. Modest increases just aren't worth the risk. I also agree that what I see is an improvement, but has many, many issues in the modeler. Questions abound: Hurdle rate, how stabilization may work and why the cap isn't in the modeler that funds the stabilization fund, IRS 2.5% steady increase, phantom 3% pilot pay increase that isn't historic, likelihood of the market dynamics being multi-decade changed to lower returns if some of the pundits are correct. Many questions out there. Maybe I'll be surprised and exicted with the final result? Probably not based on my historical experience with FDA LOAs and CBAs. Most everything we do has been incremental. A change in retirement can't be incremental--it must be a significant increase!

I can't see supporting a VB plan for a modest increase due to the above, let alone what others have been posting about. Give me a hell-yes increase and that will overcome whatever shenanigans the company has up its sleeve. A modest or mediocre increase and I just feel we'll end up worse off. I just don't think we have EVER out negotiated the company or EVER put in place iron clad language. Why should I expect this time ALPA will get it right either?

I am worried as I think there's been so much effort put into this, it seems incomprehensible it won't be put into an LOA. If it is, it will probably pass. My only hope is that for once, the deal is better than what we are seeing right now (but that would be negotiating up from our "openers") and the language is better than what we've put out in the past. Crossing my fingers.

Originally Posted by golfandfly

Absolutely 4K/year isn’t worth the risk of changing plans. Seriously, who in their right mind would take on risk for that amount?

So what if it takes some extra time to get the contract we deserve?

I’d certainly be willing to look at other options if we just can’t make A fund improvement. A flat dollar plan? Add profit sharing? Significant B fund increase?

This VB plan isn’t it for me.

Originally Posted by kronan

Pinseeker,

you really are a special kind of wonderful aren't you?

Am I on Camera? I keep waiting for Allen Funt to pop out.

Here's an offer. 50$ to your Favorite Charity if you are correct, that the Traditional Plan with the Same YOS and Same FAE Floating Earnings cap is Inferior to the VB's 2% floor.

YOU supply 26 years of projected Salary and projected IRS Caps. I will enter them into a Spreadsheet. And Again, my Expectation that the Traditional High 5 will return a greater Pension.
Make the Upgrade as Aggressive as you want. WB FO as a newhire, NB Capt Year 2, WB Capt year 4. Whatever Numbers You want to Supply, I will be Happy to Input.


Nice Catch on the salary. Turns out there's a big difference between .03 & .03%
Not that I expect you to Understand the difference.


1 $75,000 $1,500 $1,500
2 $145,990 $2,920 $4,420
3 $158,010 $3,160 $7,580
4 $166,300 $3,326 $10,906
5 $169,970 $3,399 $14,305
6 $173,730 $3,475 $17,780
7 $177,540 $3,551 $21,331
8 $181,450 $3,629 $24,960
9 $215,170 $4,303 $29,263
10 $221,190 $4,424 $33,687
11 $227,826 $4,557 $38,244
12 $234,660 $4,693 $42,937
13 $241,700 $4,834 $47,771
14 $248,951 $4,979 $52,750
15 $275,000 $5,500 $58,250
16 $275,000 $5,500 $63,750
17 $275,000 $5,500 $69,250
18 $275,000 $5,500 $74,750
19 $275,000 $5,500 $80,250
20 $275,000 $5,500 $85,750
21 $275,000 $5,500 $91,250
22 $275,000 $5,500 $96,750
23 $275,000 $5,500 $102,250
24 $275,000 $5,500 $107,750
25 $275,000 $5,500 $113,250
26 $275,000 $5,500 $118,750


As a Reminder, Traditional was $143,000

Originally Posted by kronan

160k for a new hire is cheaper than our current.

Originally Posted by pinseeker

Finally, yes, $160K has less value 25 years from now, but so does $130K. Last time I checked, $160K was more than $130K. So, how is $160K guaranteed 25 years from now cheaper than $130K 25 years from now regardless of market performance?

Originally Posted by pinseeker

Open your position by trying to insult those who disagree with you, I guess that's all one can do if their numbers don't add up.

Originally Posted by pinseeker

Your statement, my question.

Still waiting for you to tell me how that funding works out. I would really like to know how the company can put less money into our retirement, yet still guarantee $160K.

Originally Posted by kronan

I know Math is Hard. Economics Even harder. Future Value of Money, whoa-that's a biggie.

The VB is a Year by Year accumulation.
Traditional is calculated, and governed very differently actuarially.

The PBGC Premiums...treated differently as well.

Since it's simply unfathomable to you,
perhaps consider, is our W-2 Salary the Cost of a Pilot to FedEx?

Or is it
W-2+B fund Contributions+Insurance (health, LTD,& Life)