Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > > >
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-14-2018, 09:30 AM   #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 210
Default Retirement Plan Negotiations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwri10s View Post
Can a proposal be made that would only allow members to vote on any proposed change to the retirement plan, outside of normal section 6 negotiations, if the member has not already maximized their retirement under the current plan?



In other words if you already have your 25 YOS and max cap of $260, then you cannot vote on any change outside normal section 6. It seems we have pilots that cannot in any way be negatively affected by any change, able to vote on a process that might have significant adverse affect on those that do not already have their 25 YOS and $260 cap.



In effect we are allowing a "B scale" retirement vote if those that are already "whole" can vote to make others less than "whole".

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thrust Hold View Post
From what I've been told this is being done outside of Section 6, so that we aren't subject to any Status Quo type Arbitration should there be any. Pensions are no longer Status Quo and could compromise our position.



Don't shoot the messenger. Just what I was told when I inquired.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy View Post
I agree. Not sure why we’re even negotiating? This thing is supposed to be so “wonderful” for us both. We’re outside of section six. I don’t think we should be pursuing it at all, but if we are it shouldn’t be “negotiated”. We should be submitting a “shoot for the moon proposal” and the company can either take it or leave it! Then hopefully our union would still allow us to have an input at some point.
To be clear, I don’t believe we should be pursuing this at all, but if we are, there should be ZERO negotiating required.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.
FXLAX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 09:37 AM   #22  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2016
Position: B767 FO
Posts: 164
Default

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
NewOldGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 09:53 AM   #23  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: B767
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewOldGuy View Post
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
I couldn’t agree with you more. Unfortunately having spoken to several reps they completely disagree.

-UA
UnusualAttitude is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 12:12 PM   #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
kronan's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 1,960
Default

[/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
kronan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 01:16 PM   #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post
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.
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!
pinseeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 01:21 PM   #26  
Fill'er Up Again
 
FrankTheTank's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: Scarebus Captain
Posts: 823
Default

You want me to trust the Union.. Show me the survey results! What are they hiding and not telling us?
FrankTheTank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 01:56 PM   #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 4,441
Default

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.
badflaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 02:21 PM   #28  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post
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?
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?
Fdxlag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 02:52 PM   #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fdxlag2 View Post
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?
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.
golfandfly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2018, 03:08 PM   #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 810
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by golfandfly View Post
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.
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.
Fdxlag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New MEC Sales Video pinseeker FedEx 489 09-02-2018 07:32 AM
Special Executive Retirement Plan FoxHunter FedEx 10 10-01-2015 12:34 PM
Response to Captain Tucker alfaromeo Major 68 06-29-2012 04:16 AM
FedEx TA reached Goose17 Cargo 615 02-28-2011 05:14 PM
Northwest Retirement Plan Question Denny Crane Mergers and Acquisitions 15 10-29-2008 12:12 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:25 AM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1