Originally Posted by pinseeker (Post 2700636)

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!

Originally Posted by cp44fla (Post 2702889)

Those numbers don’t make sense. You can’t use an income of 200k to get 130k in retirement. That’s not how it works. Try 100k in retirement.

Originally Posted by cp44fla (Post 2702889)

Those numbers don’t make sense. You can’t use an income of 200k to get 130k in retirement. That’s not how it works. Try 100k in retirement.

Originally Posted by fly2ski (Post 2702933)

No it works, guys were busting their butts flying carryover, selling back vacation and flying draft to get 260k for 5 years. Most did it between 55-60, they looked like hell and didn’t have long happy retirements.

Originally Posted by cp44fla (Post 2703663)

Yeah, I don’t know how it works.
“You get an income of $200,000”
You can’t get a $130,000 retirement from an income of 200k. But I clearly understand you can get 260k from a PAYRATE of $200/hr. But that’s not what you said.

Originally Posted by PeterGriffin (Post 2724454)

Or....simple section 6 negotiations, 3% pay raise each year, increase A plan cap 50k, next contract, 3% pay raise, increase A plan cap 50k, etc, etc...it can be done.

Originally Posted by MEMFO4Ever (Post 2724483)

Sure, sounds simple. :rolleyes:

And the company will get what in return?

Originally Posted by MEMFO4Ever (Post 2724483)

Sure, sounds simple. :rolleyes:

And the company will get what in return?

Originally Posted by Redeyz (Post 2724574)

MEC is not the only one to blame. Membership approved it.

Originally Posted by Sunny1 (Post 2724579)

Just for clarification - The 57% ‘Yes’ voters are to blame along with the MEC for the sales job.

Originally Posted by Redeyz (Post 2724574)

Fall 2015, TA was being debated, Co was short staffed on pilots. If ever we were to draw/checkmate, it was then. Deficiencies in Sec 28 were obvious. TA passed anyway. MEC is not the only one to blame. Membership approved it.



3 yrs removed, Co is not in that situation and we have less leverage than we did in ‘15. What is the catalyst that will bring A Fund (or any Sec 28) improvements ?



There’s much talk of pancakes maybe being up, maybe down. Add A Fund being down every yr w/o fail to the list with death and taxes.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2724662)

The catalyst will be a pilot shortage. It’ll hit cargo airlines before passenger airlines.

Originally Posted by LJ Driver (Post 2724788)

Not an employee of either currently but hoping to join your ranks soon... just curious to know why this may be the case?

Originally Posted by CL300 (Post 2725163)

At job fairs, the wait in line to see DL, UA and AA is six hours long. The line to see UPS and Fedex is 15 minutes.

Most people haven’t realized the best job in aviation could be flying a cargo plane full of rubber dog $hit out of Hong Kong.

Originally Posted by LJ Driver (Post 2724788)

Not an employee of either currently but hoping to join your ranks soon... just curious to know why this may be the case?

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2725241)

Just anecdotal but in the last few years, out of all the regional pilots I’ve talked to, the vast majority (80%) talk about going only to a passenger airline. And like the above poster, the lines are always longer at the passenger airlines compared to the cargo airlines. I contend that the pilot shortage will hit the major passenger airlines last and UPS/FDX before them with ULCCs/ACMI before that and the regionals right now.

Originally Posted by Anthrax (Post 2725174)

You keep telling yourself that, Sparky.

Originally Posted by CL300 (Post 2726477)

The job fair wait lines are the truth. Sheeple gravitate to pax carriers when times are good.

Some of aren’t bitter because we fly boxes. Sorry you are.....

Originally Posted by Anthrax (Post 2726485)

I believe you about the lines, Sparky. I take issue with your smug job satisfaction. Sure, cargo is a good gig, but I would argue by default. We lagged behind until after the collapse, and then patted ourselves on the back for that which was beyond the control of the pilot group, which was bankruptcy. Aren’t we clever. We led the pack for a bit, getting more and more smug, but haven’t had the resolve to fight for any real gains, mostly because IMO the slim majority are ensconced in your smug satisfaction and/or fearful of a prolonged negotiation in which we use our legal tools for substantial gains. I’m not bitter about the job. Just you, Sparky. Just bitter about you.

Originally Posted by CL300 (Post 2726501)

Well then, carry on, bitter man. My apologies for triggering you with my smugness. You have a long, miserable career ahead of you and I feel terrible for those who have to share your workspace.

I’m off to enjoy my cargo plane full of rubber dog sh!t, or your Christmas gifts, whatever is back there, because it beats flying pax, even on the worst day.

Originally Posted by FXLAX (Post 2725241)

Just anecdotal but in the last few years, out of all the regional pilots I’ve talked to, the vast majority (80%) talk about going only to a passenger airline. And like the above poster, the lines are always longer at the passenger airlines compared to the cargo airlines. I contend that the pilot shortage will hit the major passenger airlines last and UPS/FDX before them with ULCCs/ACMI before that and the regionals right now.

Originally Posted by dr k (Post 2702505)

1. About that mlb pension...

Do about 5 minutes of reading in their literature. They do not have a vb plan at all.

Their pensions benefits are composed of a monthly check that is:
85% fixed - identical to our traditional "a fund"
15% variable - able to be invested in mutual funds

reference - http://www.mlb.com/mlb/official_info...sion-print.pdf

there are no pancakes, hurdle rates, stabilization funds, or setting of share prices. It is mlb's problem to perform and does not resemble our vb fund in any way shape or form.

When i heard that a lot of "high wage earners like the mlb have this vb plan", i stuck my chest out real far and went for the bait of being compared to them.

2. I then took a look at the unions who actually have a vb plan that are noted in our vb propaganda and what their monthly pension paychecks are (master mates and pilots of baltimore, new york newspaper guild, hotel and restaurants of boston, and alaska building trades). These guys make hundreds of dollars a month for pensions - not eleven thousand a month. We will be the crown jewel for cheiron or whoever ends up managing our shell of a retirement. And we will be guinea pigs as the first actual high wage earners voluntarily taking pension risk away from their employer.

3. Cheiron is quoted in a dozen articles i read touting the benefits of the vb plan for distressed and struggling pension funds. But it is absolutely insane for us to give away a healthy pension fund. As an aside - i have no problem with them selling us on this product - it is their livelihood. But i do have a problem with us not being properly informed while spending untold sums of money on this research project turned vote.

4. If you want to feel better about the state of our pension and the gains that could be made through actual negotiations, take another 5 minutes and read our irs form 5500. It shows the number of active retired and departed participants, our life expectancies, retirement ages, funds invested in, funding percentages, and any other questions you could possible have. Read it over and see if pancakes and need-to-be-negotiated stabilization funds seem more impressive.

https://www.efast.dol.gov/portal/app...execution=e2s6 - enter "fedex corporation" in plan sponsor. Then scroll down to the pension plan ein - 621721435 pn 002.

The vb plan is fake news. Make our pension great again.
K

Originally Posted by av8rdude (Post 2727690)

Boys and girls, I'm retired and (as far as I know) don't have dog in this fight, but I think giving up even 1¢ of your (and my) A plan is absolutely nuts. Regardless of the market and the fluctuations of company fortunes, you can count on up to 50% of whatever is the current cap on your average income for your highest 5 years. Guaranteed! Don't throw that away! You'd be playing right into the bean counters' hands.

If you think you can do a better job of investing your own retirement money, then max out your contributions to your retirement savings accounts and maybe figure out a way to have more investment flexibility with your B fund money.

But don't give away the goose that lays the golden egg! You should guard that A plan like it was solid gold. In some ways, it is!

Originally Posted by LJ Driver (Post 2733519)

Pure curiosity on my part, and again, I don’t work for any airline yet: Delta has a dam good 401k and profit sharing program, probably the best in the business for that kind of setup. I think most of you (myself also) view an A Plan pension as even better since it’s a guaranteed income for life (for the most part pending company health). Delta injects 16% into their B Plan, plus pays another 10-15% of pay from profits, my question is this: what % of B Plan contribution would the hardline A Plan advocates want to make the switch? Obviously the further from retirement the more relevant your situation, but I’m curious if the company could actually ever offer a B Plan to legitimately replace the A Plan, and what would it look like?

Originally Posted by SeeDub (Post 2733575)

Does Delta have cash over cap for their B plan?

Originally Posted by FrankTheTank (Post 2787637)

Just got meeting notice. And wow, they now call their scheme, ‘Pilot's Stabilized Pension Plan’. But hey, the aren’t gonna sell this. Also it says update which implies they are negotiating this disaster.. TonyC, first order of business is kill this and improve A plan...PLEASE

Looked in thesaurus and Stabilized is not the same as Variable.

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/stabilized