American DC plan or FedEx A plan DC plan mix
10-16-2018 | 11:52 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
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?
.
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?
.
I was told that funding the pension was a huge burden for the company. Honestly, I’m not concerned what their obligations are, I just wanted to know the cost to increase the pension a nominal amount. I would have been a “yes” voter for an increase to $150k. It could be through a higher multiplier (my preference) or an increase of the FAE to 300k. I have to say, I thought that was a very reasonable expectation.
Anyway, I guess the company just has to draw the line in the sand and we give up. Ridiculous...
10-17-2018 | 11:05 AM
#33
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
From: 757 Capt
Good Post TonyC
Glad to see you back posting.
I want you to retire whenever you want to retire.
A increase to 280 results in less of an increase than switching to the VB does for me in 2 years.
I think we'd both agree that the company could've afforded an increase to 280 three years ago. But even with the multiple flight cancellations each week, they were either incredibly intransigent about making any change or SL was the adult Biff from Back to the Future.
I mean that's only an 8% increase, something that will be even more affordable to the company in CBA 202X.
As you approach retirement, health-QOL-etc, I would still suggest you wait until 62, or at least wait to start collecting your Pension at 62.
It's my perception that you've been a Capt for quite awhile, so certainly your savings would support retiring at 60, but retiring at 60 has a huge impact on what PBGC will pay if FedEx happens to totally collapse in 25 or 30 years.
Should be something we all take into consideration
Glad to see you back posting.
I want you to retire whenever you want to retire.
A increase to 280 results in less of an increase than switching to the VB does for me in 2 years.
I think we'd both agree that the company could've afforded an increase to 280 three years ago. But even with the multiple flight cancellations each week, they were either incredibly intransigent about making any change or SL was the adult Biff from Back to the Future.
I mean that's only an 8% increase, something that will be even more affordable to the company in CBA 202X.
As you approach retirement, health-QOL-etc, I would still suggest you wait until 62, or at least wait to start collecting your Pension at 62.
It's my perception that you've been a Capt for quite awhile, so certainly your savings would support retiring at 60, but retiring at 60 has a huge impact on what PBGC will pay if FedEx happens to totally collapse in 25 or 30 years.
Should be something we all take into consideration
10-17-2018 | 02:49 PM
#34
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 21
From: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Good Post TonyC
Glad to see you back posting.
I want you to retire whenever you want to retire.
A increase to 280 results in less of an increase than switching to the VB does for me in 2 years.
I think we'd both agree that the company could've afforded an increase to 280 three years ago. But even with the multiple flight cancellations each week, they were either incredibly intransigent about making any change or SL was the adult Biff from Back to the Future.
I mean that's only an 8% increase, something that will be even more affordable to the company in CBA 202X.
As you approach retirement, health-QOL-etc, I would still suggest you wait until 62, or at least wait to start collecting your Pension at 62.
It's my perception that you've been a Capt for quite awhile, so certainly your savings would support retiring at 60, but retiring at 60 has a huge impact on what PBGC will pay if FedEx happens to totally collapse in 25 or 30 years.
Should be something we all take into consideration
Glad to see you back posting.
I want you to retire whenever you want to retire.
A increase to 280 results in less of an increase than switching to the VB does for me in 2 years.
I think we'd both agree that the company could've afforded an increase to 280 three years ago. But even with the multiple flight cancellations each week, they were either incredibly intransigent about making any change or SL was the adult Biff from Back to the Future.
I mean that's only an 8% increase, something that will be even more affordable to the company in CBA 202X.
As you approach retirement, health-QOL-etc, I would still suggest you wait until 62, or at least wait to start collecting your Pension at 62.
It's my perception that you've been a Capt for quite awhile, so certainly your savings would support retiring at 60, but retiring at 60 has a huge impact on what PBGC will pay if FedEx happens to totally collapse in 25 or 30 years.
Should be something we all take into consideration
10-19-2018 | 11:44 AM
#35
Thread Starter
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,424
Likes: 0
From: 757 Capt
Attributable only do to the Extra $$ in excess of the cap, and Extra YOS.
When I plug in the numbers, I assume I'm 2 years older than I am in anticipation of a future transition date.
FWIW-
A plan value is essentially 5200$ a year (up to 25)
VB Max yearly value (2018) is 5500$ (DC limit times .02)
Next year's VB value would go up, an as yet undetermined value. Social Security and a whole slew of other benefits gaining 2.8% in 2019, so assuming a slightly lower increase of 2.5% puts the DC limit at 281.88..for a VB yearly value of 5638.
So, those earning the DC limit without 25 YOS gain 300$ year 1, then 438 year 2 and so on.
Those who already have 25 YOS would gain the 5.5.
And yes, that assumes the 2% floor is negotiated in.
10-19-2018 | 12:10 PM
#36
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 21
From: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Using only the Floor, no rosey numbers at all, it's an extra 16k for me.
Attributable only do to the Extra $$ in excess of the cap, and Extra YOS.
When I plug in the numbers, I assume I'm 2 years older than I am in anticipation of a future transition date.
FWIW-
A plan value is essentially 5200$ a year (up to 25)
VB Max yearly value (2018) is 5500$ (DC limit times .02)
Next year's VB value would go up, an as yet undetermined value. Social Security and a whole slew of other benefits gaining 2.8% in 2019, so assuming a slightly lower increase of 2.5% puts the DC limit at 281.88..for a VB yearly value of 5638.
So, those earning the DC limit without 25 YOS gain 300$ year 1, then 438 year 2 and so on.
Those who already have 25 YOS would gain the 5.5.
And yes, that assumes the 2% floor is negotiated in.
Attributable only do to the Extra $$ in excess of the cap, and Extra YOS.
When I plug in the numbers, I assume I'm 2 years older than I am in anticipation of a future transition date.
FWIW-
A plan value is essentially 5200$ a year (up to 25)
VB Max yearly value (2018) is 5500$ (DC limit times .02)
Next year's VB value would go up, an as yet undetermined value. Social Security and a whole slew of other benefits gaining 2.8% in 2019, so assuming a slightly lower increase of 2.5% puts the DC limit at 281.88..for a VB yearly value of 5638.
So, those earning the DC limit without 25 YOS gain 300$ year 1, then 438 year 2 and so on.
Those who already have 25 YOS would gain the 5.5.
And yes, that assumes the 2% floor is negotiated in.
10-19-2018 | 12:28 PM
#37
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,480
Likes: 20
From: Crewmember
All along, I have said this is a scam to get the guys with their high 5 and over 25 extra money on the way out the door.
They will be locked in, and the guys junior to them will absorb all the risk.
This is precisely the two-tiered retirement system the union said they didn't want to entertain during the last negotiations, so why is it ok now?
Because the "I've got mine and want more" crowed is pushing for it and they are in control.
If you don't have 25 years on the property, you should be an automatic no vote, because you are going to get screwed while they profit from your screwing.
Hmm... sort of reminds me of age 65?
Hmm...sort of reminds me of the 25K VEBA BS!
They keep saying it is "my" union, but they keep giving away "my" share of the pie to someone else!
If this passes, and I hope it does not, this will fracture the union permanently, right before we go into contract negotiations.
Pretty stupid if you ask me.
They will be locked in, and the guys junior to them will absorb all the risk.
This is precisely the two-tiered retirement system the union said they didn't want to entertain during the last negotiations, so why is it ok now?
Because the "I've got mine and want more" crowed is pushing for it and they are in control.
If you don't have 25 years on the property, you should be an automatic no vote, because you are going to get screwed while they profit from your screwing.
Hmm... sort of reminds me of age 65?
Hmm...sort of reminds me of the 25K VEBA BS!
They keep saying it is "my" union, but they keep giving away "my" share of the pie to someone else!
If this passes, and I hope it does not, this will fracture the union permanently, right before we go into contract negotiations.
Pretty stupid if you ask me.
10-19-2018 | 02:19 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Likes: 0
All along, I have said this is a scam to get the guys with their high 5 and over 25 extra money on the way out the door.
They will be locked in, and the guys junior to them will absorb all the risk.
This is precisely the two-tiered retirement system the union said they didn't want to entertain during the last negotiations, so why is it ok now?
Because the "I've got mine and want more" crowed is pushing for it and they are in control.
If you don't have 25 years on the property, you should be an automatic no vote, because you are going to get screwed while they profit from your screwing.
Hmm... sort of reminds me of age 65?
Hmm...sort of reminds me of the 25K VEBA BS!
They keep saying it is "my" union, but they keep giving away "my" share of the pie to someone else!
If this passes, and I hope it does not, this will fracture the union permanently, right before we go into contract negotiations.
Pretty stupid if you ask me.
They will be locked in, and the guys junior to them will absorb all the risk.
This is precisely the two-tiered retirement system the union said they didn't want to entertain during the last negotiations, so why is it ok now?
Because the "I've got mine and want more" crowed is pushing for it and they are in control.
If you don't have 25 years on the property, you should be an automatic no vote, because you are going to get screwed while they profit from your screwing.
Hmm... sort of reminds me of age 65?
Hmm...sort of reminds me of the 25K VEBA BS!
They keep saying it is "my" union, but they keep giving away "my" share of the pie to someone else!
If this passes, and I hope it does not, this will fracture the union permanently, right before we go into contract negotiations.
Pretty stupid if you ask me.
10-19-2018 | 02:27 PM
#39
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,211
Likes: 21
From: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Is there any way we can legally stop these guys. Even if it means lawyering up from the outside. If this thing passes, we will all regret not trying to stop them.
I’ve been told that if the Union and ALPA thinks it’s in the best interest of the crew force, they can pass it even if they don’t have the vote. I’m not sure how true that is. Can someone please confirm whether there is any truth to that.
I’ve been told that if the Union and ALPA thinks it’s in the best interest of the crew force, they can pass it even if they don’t have the vote. I’m not sure how true that is. Can someone please confirm whether there is any truth to that.
10-19-2018 | 07:28 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Part of the process for a change where our retirement is not based on just reaching a max cap sometime, but instead is based on each persons individual portion annually. Each pilot will get a pancake based on their percentage of the total earnings. So maximizing our pay becomes paramount. If you are a school house IP and earn $300 then you get twice as many pancakes as an FO making $150. A widebody CA flying draft and makeup if they make $450 then they get three time the pancakes. So before any implementation we must have a complete bump and flush bid to allow for all FOs that want to bid Capt to bump those junior to them that are holding Capt. Figure it will take at least two years to completely retrain everyone on their new seats.
Also there would need to be at least two years to allow those that could achieve the current max cap to push it up and hit the cap. Really that should be five years to allow people to hit the cap. There are a lot of guys with hundreds and even thousands of MU hours that certainly can use those hours to push up the high 5. With all the whoring out for flying, I'd say all bets are off for any additional hiring. Another unexpected consequence.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
