Hey, where's the like button?:)

Thanks for the Fix pinseeker

Newoldguy,

the Money is NEVER in our hands, until the Pension checks are cut.

Whether it's our current A plan or the VB plan. The Company is the sponsor and the $$ just isn't in our hands until after retirement. The Only retirement money that's in our hands is the B plan.

The VB plan is a Pension plan. Covered by ERISA and PBGC.

In the event of a long, or dramatic market down turn, FedEx is still obligated to meet Pension obligations. Barring bankruptcy, and even in Bankruptcy it Still takes Govt agreement to terminate a Pension plan.

I understand that but what you fail to understand is that with the new program the VB plan becomes the bank account for “guaranteeing” the floor. Currently FEdex is the guarantor. In other words if Fedex doesn’t get the returns on the investment it hopes for, they have to make it whole to guarantee the current A plan payouts. Under the new program if the VB doesn’t get the returns on investments it needs to pay the floor Fedex doesn’t put more money in, the Money comes from within the VB plan to pay the floor guarantee. That’s what makes it a pyramid scheme. That’s what is attractive to Fedex is it becomes a fixed cost for them. That’s just one of the things that should be a red flag for us. Because if the market downturns, say for 5 years and doesn’t return enough to pay those guarantees, it comes from the fund capital. Which in turn lowers the re-investment capital (in an already down turned market) which reduces compounding gains putting the growth and guarantees at risk at some future point even though Fedex and the PBGC remain compliant. But you can’t get money from a fund which has exhausted itself. I believe (and this is only one of the many faults with this plan) you fail to see the Forrest for the trees in this case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly what are the “insurance fees” that the PBGC collects on this plan vs what are the fees they collect on our current plan? That will tell you how much the PBGC guarantee really means.

Quick question Kronan. Since all of this still needs to be negotiated, what happens if the company refuses to accept a floor guarantee and the union sends this for ratification and it passes?

Under the VB plan, the company wouldn't have any defined benefit obligations in the event of a long or dramatic market down turn. Wouldn't we, the pilot group suffer all of the losses under that scenario?

Quick question. Why on earth would the Union do that?

2nd Question. How long does it take investments to snap back from the typical downturn?

3rd Question. Assuming there's No Floor....why would there be a hurdle rate?

4th Question. You seem to be implying that there's no Bottom to the value of the notional shares the VB plan creates. But if there's no Bottom, exactly what does the PBGC guarantee? And why should FedEx pay premiums if the PBGC insurance is worthless?

5th Question. If I believe the Internet rumors of "Not a Single Person I've talked to is Pro VB plan"...how on Earth would something that anecdotally 90% of FedEx pilots are opposed to with a 2% floor, pass without a floor?

The answers are above. You never answered my question.

Because as we've seen before this pilot union places a greater emphasis on achieving any resolution than on an outcome favored by most of our pilot group.

The answer is it depends and you surely know that. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

Because that's a way to convince interested parties that this is a "good deal" and then everyone is left wondering what the @#$ happened?!

True or False there's never been a VB plan that has had to exercise the guarantees offered by the PGBC?

Because a large percentage of this membership relies heavily on the recommendations of elected leadership and most are unwilling to, demand/expect more by leveraging their negotiating position to achieve it.

I am against this plan. I think the entire thing is a fools errand. It would have been an entirely different matter if the company had come forth and said we would like to propose an alternative to the A-plan and its would look like XYZ. But instead we've gone to them cap in hand with a proposal that we're arguing is going to be "mutually beneficial" for all parties and no downside risk to the pilot group.

If its too good to be true it probably is.

I bet the company won’t find any loopholes in this greatest thing since cannned beer retirement. I mean they’ve been pretty honest on iron clad provisions in the current contract.