Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo > FedEx
Retirement Plan Negotiations? >

Retirement Plan Negotiations?

Notices

Retirement Plan Negotiations?

Old 10-31-2018, 08:07 AM
  #101  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 792
Default

Originally Posted by MelT View Post
Its a model based on words and numbers on a piece of paper and the notion of only positive stock market returns in perpetuity created by people trying to sell us some snake oil while getting their cut out of our pie. Its fantasy but Kronan and the rest of the drones in the union have taken it as the holy grail. Meanwhile, giving up completely on simply improving the best retirement plan in the industry with a few simple and proven ideas, ideas which would keep the market risk of the A fund where it belongs, with the company and not the pilots.

Index the benefit, raise the cap, increase the number of years of service, raise the multiplier. Also increase the B fund and add cash over the cap and call it a day. So simple even a caveman could do it.

And I don't give a rat's ass what it costs the company to do any of these. We gave them the 2015 contract on the cheap and they need to start to pay up if they expect people to continue to come here and fly their life away one night at a time.

Shame on the union leadership for selling us out by forwarding the 2015 contract for a vote and for chasing this unicorn of a retirement plan down this rabbit hole for so long.

And shame on Kronan and his ilk for defending a money grab by the over 25 group at the expense of the rest of us.

Age 65, VEBA for a few, lie flats, known reserve days, international hotel in lieu of, real time trip trading to preserve OTP so the wolf pack can run wild, yeah the union is really doing a bang up job of negotiating iron clad improvements so we should definitely let them negotiate away our defined A plan.

What could possibly go wrong? Folks better think about this pretty hard if this POS ever comes to a vote.
Forgot to mention in my previous post, the MEC Chairman blamed many of the current events that feel like losses not on the contract but on the company hiring a consulting firm to find efficiencies in the contract that were always there but the company wasn’t previously exploiting. I thought the MEC Chair was being genuine though I disagree on some levels. Many of the items being exploited are completely exploitable due to language in CBA 2015 that didn’t exist before.

-UA
UnusualAttitude is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 08:09 AM
  #102  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 936
Default

Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude View Post
...They hear us when we say we always get outdone by the company’s experts. They hear us when we say that we should hire outsiders to come in and help. In their opinion that have done just that. From the research I have done I think they have done that.

...
-UA
Did they hire outsiders or one outsider that just happens to be pushing a product?
Fdxlag2 is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 08:21 AM
  #103  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2016
Position: 757
Posts: 146
Default

Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude View Post
Forgot to mention in my previous post, the MEC Chairman blamed many of the current events that feel like losses not on the contract but on the company hiring a consulting firm to find efficiencies in the contract that were always there but the company wasn’t previously exploiting. I thought the MEC Chair was being genuine though I disagree on some levels. Many of the items being exploited are completely exploitable due to language in CBA 2015 that didn’t exist before.

-UA
And what do they think will happen in the future? The company going to just sit back and stop trying to find efficiencies? Talk about naive. How bout we learn from our mistakes and stop repeating them?
MelT is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 08:28 AM
  #104  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 792
Default

Originally Posted by MelT View Post
And what do they think will happen in the future? The company going to just sit back and stop trying to find efficiencies? Talk about naive. How bout we learn from our mistakes and stop repeating them?
I don’t disagree with you. I’m in favor of more thoroughly stress testing our language with legal experts and pilots alike. I think we have failed in that regard to this point.

There was a disconnect between “the company is taking advantage of us” and “we think we can make this retirement deal air tight” and there seems to be animosity if you question why they feel this way. I agree with you there.

-UA
UnusualAttitude is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 08:46 AM
  #105  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,368
Default

I thought one of the goals of the 2015 contract was to "tighten up the language"?

Just another failure by "my" union.

We gave away the store, and the union sold it to us as a good deal.

Just like they are doing right now.

I can't believe the MEC does not understand why we don't trust them.

Once again, here is the modeler preamble:

By clicking “Agree”, you acknowledge the following:
Use of this product is restricted to authorized FedEx Pilots, members of FDX Master Executive Council (MEC) and employees of Air Line Pilots Association. This product is offered as part of the FDX MEC’s ongoing education campaign concerning the variable defined benefit concept under consideration. This product is not offered for the purpose of financial, retirement planning, or legal advice. Various aspects of the variable defined benefit concept are subject to negotiation. Various assumptions have been made for the purpose of making the product operational and not as a representation concerning any final plan design. Estimates shown in this product rely on future demographic and economic experience conforming to the underlying assumptions and methods. To the extent actual experience deviates from the underlying assumptions and methods, or there are any changes in plan provisions or applicable laws, the estimates would vary accordingly. As such, users may not rely on the estimates as their actual retirement benefit.
Cheiron, Inc. owns all intellectual property rights in this product. Use of this product is subject to monitoring. Any unauthorized use of this product, including any attempt to modify, adapt, recreate, duplicate, reproduce, reverse engineer, “unlock,” decompile, combine or disassemble the product, is strictly prohibited. Use of this product does not create any third party rights in any user, and Cheiron assumes no duty or liability to any user. Cheiron disclaims all warranties with respect to the product, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, performance, quality, informational accuracy, and non-infringement. In no event shall Cheiron be liable to any user for any indirect, special, incidental, economic, or consequential loss or injury of any nature arising out of or caused in whole or in part by the use of this product.
AGREE REJECT
Nightflyer is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 09:09 AM
  #106  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Default

Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude View Post
I am still in the camp that if this plan saves the company as much money as some speculate (they did say this solves the company’s accounting issues which to me means saves them money) that we should harness that leverage to address some other parts of the contract. They are very focused on negotiating this as a singular issue.

-UA
So you believe that the union saying that this solves the companies accounting problem means that it save the company money? Why not just ask that question?

I have asked, and the NC told me that this plan is actually more expensive than the current A plan. He also told me that they think that the company will like this because they will always know what they have to put into the plan because it can't be underfunded. In other words, according to PM, the company will never be required to make a large contribution during a down market because the plan can't be underfunded.

I did ask how that would work with the floor guarantee. He didn't follow. So I asked what would happen if the value of the plan fell below the floor guarantee. He said that the company would have to provide money to get it to the floor guarantee.

Now wait, doesn't that contradict what he said about the plan never being underfunded?

It's those exact kind of contradictory statements that result in us losing grievances and the contract not being what the union sells. The union only tells us what they want to believe, not what the language actually says.

Just show some courage and vote "NO." Tell the union and the company that we are willing to fight for the retirement the we deserve, not the one that came off the "sales rack."
pinseeker is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 09:17 AM
  #107  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 792
Default

Originally Posted by pinseeker View Post
So you believe that the union saying that this solves the companies accounting problem means that it save the company money? Why not just ask that question?

I have asked, and the NC told me that this plan is actually more expensive than the current A plan. He also told me that they think that the company will like this because they will always know what they have to put into the plan because it can't be underfunded. In other words, according to PM, the company will never be required to make a large contribution during a down market because the plan can't be underfunded.

I did ask how that would work with the floor guarantee. He didn't follow. So I asked what would happen if the value of the plan fell below the floor guarantee. He said that the company would have to provide money to get it to the floor guarantee.

Now wait, doesn't that contradict what he said about the plan never being underfunded?

It's those exact kind of contradictory statements that result in us losing grievances and the contract not being what the union sells. The union only tells us what they want to believe, not what the language actually says.

Just show some courage and vote "NO." Tell the union and the company that we are willing to fight for the retirement the we deserve, not the one that came off the "sales rack."
That question was asked yesterday and they didn’t indicate the proposed plan was more expensive than the current A plan. They indicated that the timing of costs are different but also said that they could not comment much further due to confidential information needing to be protected.

Furthermore, I agree with you. Loose language is a major issue to me. That’s why I mentioned in an earlier post that we should be stress testing all language and going back to the table when the stress test indicates failure.

-UA
UnusualAttitude is offline  
Old 10-31-2018, 12:08 PM
  #108  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Default

Originally Posted by UnusualAttitude View Post
That question was asked yesterday and they didn’t indicate the proposed plan was more expensive than the current A plan. They indicated that the timing of costs are different but also said that they could not comment much further due to confidential information needing to be protected.

Furthermore, I agree with you. Loose language is a major issue to me. That’s why I mentioned in an earlier post that we should be stress testing all language and going back to the table when the stress test indicates failure.

-UA

Yes, the timing of the costs are different, but that doesn't mean that the VB plan isn't more expensive than the current A plan. Unless they unequivocally said that the VB plan isn't more expensive or cheaper, or even the same cost as the current A plan, they avoided the question.

If you think that the VB plan isn't more costly, then explain how a 5% ROI with the same or lower investment dollars can yield more than the current company average ROI of over 6%. Furthermore, the plan requires the company to contribute a fixed percentage of the pilot payroll every year. If the pilot payroll increases every year, which it does unless there is a reduction in flying, the company contribution increase every year. In 23 years, the contribution would be double what the contribution is today.

It's funny how many things they won't say because it's proprietary information. Did they also mention that FedEx has made greater contributions to the A plan for the last 5 or 6 years than required? That sounds like it is a real hardship for them.

Why are we spending our dues money to solve a problem for the company and then accepting pennies on the dollar in return? The VB plan as proposed by the MEC to the crew force still falls way short of the 50% of final income replacement during retirement that the union said was their goal. When the first contract was signed, the top pay rate was around $200 per hour. If you multiplied that by 1000 hours, you get an income of $200,000. So that retirement of $130,000 was 65% of the highest pay rate. Now they are looking to replace it with something in the 35% range and we take all of the investment risk. No thank you! Get the retirement back up to at least 50% with no risk to us, and then we can talk!
pinseeker is offline  
Old 11-03-2018, 01:13 PM
  #109  
Contract 2021
 
FDX1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777 - Both
Posts: 436
Angry

Originally Posted by FrankTheTank View Post
#2. Has that dude ever flown the line?
Yeah, that "dude" (Retired Marine, fellow FDX pilot and ALPA volunteer) is currently out flying the line as a 777 Captain!

Why do our pilots throw guys like him under the bus? When has it become a sin to actually volunteer to help out and serve our pilots?

Walk a mile in a man's shoes first. Better yet, send me a private message and I'll be happy to share your contact info with him so he can share his flying schedule with you.
FDX1 is offline  
Old 11-03-2018, 01:17 PM
  #110  
Contract 2021
 
FDX1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777 - Both
Posts: 436
Default

Originally Posted by FrankTheTank View Post
Agree 100%.
How about MLB...there's has been in place since 1947!
FDX1 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
pinseeker
FedEx
489
09-02-2018 07:32 AM
FoxHunter
FedEx
10
10-01-2015 12:34 PM
alfaromeo
Major
68
06-29-2012 04:16 AM
Goose17
Cargo
615
02-28-2011 05:14 PM
Denny Crane
Mergers and Acquisitions
15
10-29-2008 12:12 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices