StarClipper

Now the Union is complaining about the way in which the company is building secondary lines and not enough RSV lines. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What did they expect? Good faith from the company? Talking about what the company promised they wouldn’t do. That’s is hilarious.
Once again they trust the company to do something without putting it in Black & White.

kronan

Lie flat seats.
We lost the grievance because there was no documentation that a conversation regarding Deviation bank class of service ever occurred. Contrary to our NC's statements that he recalled that coming up, and status quo would continue for those who chose to deviate to a higher class of service. Boggles my mind that following that debacle he still pursued Union Service

Flying boxes.

No retro is my expectation.
Exactly How someone over 25 YOS would gain retroactive benefits for a VB plan that wasn't in existance escapes me. EG...how can you earn Pension benefits on a new plan for work you did in 2015-16-17-18, etc just because you have over 25 YOS.

I think, PM either misheard you, or you misunderstood him.
A transition to the VB is just that a transition. And just because someone has 25 YOS already doesn't mean that they would accrue no additional benefits.

As to Why I think a modifcation to the A plan would not be retroactive.

Here's some hypotheticals. Using TonyC's suggested minimum for A plan improvements...and then using 3% going forward. (Personally, since it's looking like this coming years COLA calculations will be about 2.8%, I'm thinking CBA202X is going to need to be more in the 4% range)
2020 WB is 335
So, god willing and a desire for FedEx to get a contract as quickly as some of the Pax carriers have recently (unlikely IMO)
2021 WB 345
2022 WB 355
2023 WB 366
2024 WB 377
2025WB 388

Unless I'm mistaken, our big bucks brethren are already above that.
So, a Retroactive Pension for those folks would be (more or less)
173k
178k
183k
189k
194k

or increases of 33%, 37, 41, 45, 50.

Or Another rough way of looking at it is our pension fund goes from 100% funded for Pilot obligations to 67%, 63, 59, 55, 50

Quite Confident that FedEx can Afford to pony up the extra bucks. Willing to, different conversation.

Just as I can "afford" to buy my soon to be 16 yr old daughter a new jeep to drive to\from HS...but I am disinclined to acquiesce
:-)

pinseeker

What about the new SLG? The union just came out and stated that it is screwed up. They blame the company, I blame poor negotiations and contract language that the MEC sold. I'm not interested in any of their "fixes" until they show that they can deliver what they sell.

golfandfly

Exactly. I don’t blame the company for exploiting our contract. We’re a cost center, and as long as we dutifully move the freight, they’ll keep doing it. I was in the AOC a few weeks ago and looked at a poster that was recognizing people for doing great work. One guy saved millions off our backs increasing crew efficiency.

Our job is to negotiate a strong worded contract. We fail over and over again. Excuse me if I don’t trust them to negotiate an iron clad retirement plan. A very, very complex plan at that.

Still waiting for block reps to get back with me, I think it’s 3 weeks now.

Flying Boxes

Kronan,
There was absolutely no confusion as PM was "Explaning" the VBP. There has been no "Education" material anywhere talking about improvements to A Fund. ONLY FREEZING IT!

Alpa proposal is Freezing the A Fund, and switching to the VBP with retro for those over 25 YOS! No talk or "Education" of improving the A Fund or extension to YOS. WE have been unsuccessful at any A Fund improvements. The only A Fund discussion was freezing the A Fund and preferring to soft freeze vs hard freeze.

Alpa intends to implement the Variable Benefit Plan Retro actively for those who already have 25 YOS. THIS IS FROM A FACE TO FACE DISCUSSION WITH PM! NOT MY MISINTERPRETATION OR FANTASY ISSUE.

ASK PM, YOUR REPS, ETC!!

Not intending this discussion to focus on Retro. Intending to highlight that Alpa has NOT been forthcoming with ALL their plan. SO THEY HAVE APPROVED NEGOTIATING WITH FEDEX BASED ON A POLL/SURVEY DATA THAT DID NOT INCLUDE A COMPLETE "EDUCATION ON THE VBP THEY ARE NEGOTIATING". I guess we have to approve the LOA to know whats in it!

Soon we will add this VBP LOA to our list of incredibly stupid giveaways!

kronan

Flying Boxes,

you are, quite frankly, delusional.

And forgetful.
Our Union spent most of 2016 researching and validating what Mgt's position on the A plan was during negotiations. I could wish that the research had been done in 2012 as we prepared to enter negotiations in 2013, but it wasn't. Instead it was a constant drumbeat of the Company can afford it, and we need to return our 777 Intl Capts income replacement ratio to something closer to the intended 50%.

Our Union has said increasing the Traditional A plan is expensive, and it is unlikely that mgt would agree to improvements because of the associated expenses.

And I'm sorry, but there is no friggin way that anyone with 25+ YOS is earning retro VB benefits. Not happening. IF the VB comes to pass, calculations aren't going to go. hmm, Tony C hit 25 years in 2015, so let's credit him with
265,000 *2% for 2016 and 270,000 *2% for 2017, and 275,000 *2% for 2018 or an Instantaneous Annual Pension benefit of 16.2k in addition to his existing 130k.

Instead, what will happen, is Tony C would accumulate an additional VB benefit for every year beyond it's transition date. IOW=Tony C would have his 130k and the additional ballpark 5.6k he would earn in 2019.

Apologies to TonyC for assuming he's in the 25 year ball park.

Adding YOS to our existing A plan improves the benefits 5.2k a year. But I thought there was an Already insane amount of disapproval over the Total Elimination of a YOS Cap in the VB proposal

pinseeker

Can you point us to the link on the union website which shows the results of their A plan research and the validation of the companies position that they can't afford to increase the A plan? All I can find is VB plan propaganda. Maybe it's hidden with all of the reserve lines that you said didn't go away.

BLOB

Are you in block 7. That dude won’t respond.

Flying Boxes

Kronan,
You are, quite frankly, delusional.

You keep trying to purposfully misdirect my comments on the VBP to an A Fund issue. Please provide your source to back up your no retro claim!

The union refuses to publish what it's intentions are, but claim we support it based on misdirection and vague questions interrupted the way they want! PM stated the VBP is intended to be retro. This again was from a direct face to face question, and I was not the only pilot there!

I quoted the FedEx Alpa Negotiating Committee Chairman as my source.

Please state your source (Needs to be PM, he is the NC Chair) or you are just stating opinion!

TonyC

My apologies for being so long to respond to this post. It's been a busy month.

At least that's what the MEC told us they were going to do. Have you seen any tangible results of that "researching and validating"? For example, do you know what it would cost to raise the CBA FAE cap (the "High 5 Cap") from $260,000 to, say, $280,000? If we seek to raise the cap, we should know how much it would cost, right? Because, when The Company responds with "That would cost too much," we should know if they're telling the truth, or bluffing, or just flat out lying to us, right?

In 2015, we've been told The Company said just that -- it's too expensive. All we could do is take their word for it, and give up trying to negotiate any improvement to our A Plan.

But do we really know any more now? Go ahead. Ask your Block Rep how much it would cost to raise the FAE Cap. I've asked, numerous times. I asked the Negotiating Committee Chairman at a Joint Council Meeting, and the MEC Chairman cut me off and accused me of asking a political question. He witnessed the fights in the MEC conference room during the last CBA negotiations, and he doesn't (didn't) want to go down that road again. In other words, he didn't even WANT to improve our current A Plan. That doesn't sound like legitimate results of an honest effort to "research and validate" management's position that improving the A Plan would be too expensive.

How expensive is too expensive? Are we talking about the difference between First Class and Lie Flat seats in Business, or the whopping $25 credit you can get for cancelling a $250 hotel room? If there was research and validation, give us some details.



I agree, the research should have been done a long time ago. It was not done then, and I'm not convinced it has been done YET. If it has been, why haven't we been educated with details? I'm not asking for the same level of details that have been published about a hypothetical Variable Retirement Benefit, I'm talking about simple numbers for an actual plan that exists today -- our A Plan.

If you walk in to an automobile dealership and want to know the price of the shiny new car on the showroom floor, you expect to learn how much it costs. You may get some salesman evasion like "The monthly payment is ..." or "We've got some great discounts" before you get to the total price, but they're not going to say, "You can't have this, it's too expensive." Any evasive answers are motivated by a desire to keep you interested in the purchase, not to discourage you from buying, or refusing to sell to you.

So, why do we get the same answer ("It's too expensive, The Company will never agree") now that we got then? Research and validation?

No, what we got was the MEC Chairman reading a book that led us down a rabbit hole called the Variable Benefit Plan. That's where hundreds of thousands of our dues dollars have gone. (And The Company must be mightily impressed by our ability to toss dues dollars down that rabbit hole.)



Yeah, well TonyC wishes he has 25 years. Maybe he'd be bidding better trips by now.

In fact, I won't have 25 years when I reach my 60th birthday. Even when working beyond Age 65 was only an option for Flight Engineers, I would have been satisfied to retire at Age 60 with my years of service times 2 percent times my "High Five" ... IF ... IF the FAE Cap had risen over the years commensurate with Average Earnings. The FAE Cap was never intended to remain static at $260,000 any more than our hourly rates were intended to remain static at 1998 rates.

Since the FAE Cap has NOT been raised, the only option I have to achieve the same retirement income (replacement ratio) is to increase my Years of Service by working beyond Age 60.

Want me to retire at age 60? Simple. Raise the FAE Cap.


And here's the beauty of the thing. When you raise the FAE Cap, EVERYBODY benefits. No donut hole of people we have to cut special deals for because they would be hurt otherwise. Raise the cap, and those who already have 25 years of service will have an increased retirement benefit. (OK, maybe there is one pilot whose "High 5" is exactly $260,000 and they would have to improve that figure first. It's far more likely that High 5's are already well above $260K.) Junior guys will benefit because their "Guaranteed for life" benefit will be increased from $130,000 to the higher amount. Nobody's future would be dependent on how long they could participate in a new "Defined Contribution and Hope for a Good Stock Market" scheme.


So, since we've completed the "2016 research and validate exercise", let me ask this simple question, again.


How much would it cost to raise the FAE Cap by $20,000?





.