FXLAX

They could negotiate it so that those with their high five are exempt from the VBP. But I don’t think they can prevent a member in good standing from voting.


Unless there is some arbitration clause in the contract (like Alaska), there is no arbitration during section six negotiations unless both parties agree to it. And that is usually the last step before being released to a cooling off period. Which typically means that the MEC declines because there is more leverage during a cooling off period than during arbitration.


As opposed to section six negotiations, the parties are not obligated to negotiate. So if either side shoots for the moon, the other side can simply walk away and never look back. Typically, negotiating outside section six (LOAs, and MOUs), its done because each party have mutual interests that don’t require federal law that forces them to negotiate in good faith. So if you were to shoot for the moon during these negotiations, you might as well just save your energy because it wouldn’t go anywhere.

NewOldGuy

LAX, that’s exactly my point. This VB will already weaken our future negotiation stance in future contract negotiations. So if it’s not “the moon”, we shouldn’t even bother. It should be the moon or nothing at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UnusualAttitude

I couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately having spoken to several reps they completely disagree.

-UA

kronan

[/COLOR]Originally Posted by kronan View Post
Quick question. Why on earth would the Union do that?

For the same reason the union sold the last contract with misinformation.

The real answer is they wouldn't. And there was no misinformation last time. SL apparently didn't take any notes on deviation issues, but that's a long way from declaring it misinformation. And all of the other issues in the TA were highlighted by individuals both in the Union, or here. Or are you now arguing that there was NOBODY on APC irked with the TA?


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

It has taken as long as 13 years since I have been here.
13 Years? Really. Guess that means there's another 3 years to go until my Investments recover from the Worst, absolutely worst economic collapse in my life time. Doesn't quite match up with the performance data my IRA, Vanguard, and Quicken are outlining.
Not even the Stock Price for FedEx. Pretty sure I recall something like 50$ a share back in 2008


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

Look at the presentations to see why there is a hurdle rate.
They Go hand in hand. Shared reward in good times.
No impact during the okay times. Potential to drop to the Floor Benefit in the bad times

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?

The PBGC doesn't guarantee what the plan is worth. They guarantee if the plan goes under, that they will assume payments, at a discounted rate usually.

PBGC doesn't guarantee a discounted rate. They provide a maximum benefit. Ranging roughly from 42k-65k (Age 60-65) You seem to be implying that in a market collapse the VB payout would go to 0...which isn't the case, expectations are a 2% floor for Pension benefits

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?

Because the union will convince enough people that their plan is so secure, it doesn't need a floor. Just like they convinced enough people that they knew what lie flat seats and known reserve days meant.

And Yet...that's not in any way shape, or form, what the Union is proposing. And there's been more than one person who's taken the time to add up all the Reserve Days post VTO release and they've found, drum roll please, 80% of Known R days published in the bidpack.
And again, read the grievance on lie flat seats. We essentially lost because we had NO Documentation that supported SL's contention.
One could, and perhaps should, wonder whether he really asked the question or simply dreamed he did...but that's a long way from believing he intentionally "lied" during the ratification period and then convinced ALPA to spend the $$ Grieving the issue rather than fessing up

pinseeker

So why did the union put out a message complaining about the VTO's and the company taking away reserve lines? Are you saying that they are just complaining about what they sent out for ratification and it passed? OK.

The misinformation was that the new pay rates equated to a 3% per year increase since the amenable date. Our current MEC Sec and future block 4 rep both proved that was not true, yet the NC and MEC president kept saying it. Misinformation and a sales job!

FrankTheTank

You want me to trust the Union.. Show me the survey results! What are they hiding and not telling us?

badflaps

PBGC is over rated, while a number of years back, twenty-five years came out to $2334. a month. I hear stories of recent high $5000's but no verification. Plus they are big time in the hole.

Fdxlag2

So if the PBGC guarantees the same payout for both plans doesn’t it follow that the PBGC “premiums” will be the same for both plans?

golfandfly

I am not saying this is true or not, but was recently told that the PBGC would not guarantee both pensions (our current A plan and the variable). This could be complete nonsense, I have absolutely no idea.

Fdxlag2

I think the actual rule is they will pay one pilot for one plan. My only point you can’t pretend the stabilized variable (giant shrimp) plan can save PBGC payments if the payout is the same.