FDX Cost Reduction Actions
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
You keep spraying this mantra of “other ways” with our current plan, but how did that work out the last two bargaining rounds? Are you ready to go down that same path a third time? You are correct the “other way” is to look at plans such as the one proposed. Did you vote yes in 2015?
#22
It's not frozen now.
Honestly, absolutely.
Our worst enemy right now is pilots' defeatest attitudes.
.
Our worst enemy right now is pilots' defeatest attitudes.
.
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
You keep spraying this mantra of “other ways” with our current plan, but how did that work out the last two bargaining rounds? Are you ready to go down that same path a third time? You are correct the “other way” is to look at plans such as the one proposed. Did you vote yes in 2015?
Contrary to popular belief, we did get targeted A fund increases for some in 2006 (multiplier). If you’d spend a minute to read the contract, you’d know that. 28.B.4, if you can find it. So, I guess it worked out for some. Not insanely higher, but some got a $143k retirement vs 130k.
So, it’s possible. How about looking into a flat dollar plan like UPS? Significantly higher B fund (higher percentage and/or cash over cap). Profit sharing? Any of these could add to our retirement without scrapping our A plan.
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
If the group decides to go your path Tony I’m ready, willing and able to stick my foot in the sand in 2021 with you for gains on our current structure. The problem is that history doesn’t serve us well. We can have all the same protections in a different plan with the ability for it to grow in the new proposal. We will find out this next year what the group wants.
#25
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Vote yes? Are you kidding me? I’m on record here for saying this was a crap deal....
Contrary to popular belief, we did get targeted A fund increases for some in 2006 (multiplier). If you’d spend a minute to read the contract, you’d know that. 28.B.4, if you can find it. So, I guess it worked out for some. Not insanely higher, but some got a $143k retirement vs 130k.
So, it’s possible. How about looking into a flat dollar plan like UPS? Significantly higher B fund (higher percentage and/or cash over cap). Profit sharing? Any of these could add to our retirement without scrapping our A plan.
Contrary to popular belief, we did get targeted A fund increases for some in 2006 (multiplier). If you’d spend a minute to read the contract, you’d know that. 28.B.4, if you can find it. So, I guess it worked out for some. Not insanely higher, but some got a $143k retirement vs 130k.
So, it’s possible. How about looking into a flat dollar plan like UPS? Significantly higher B fund (higher percentage and/or cash over cap). Profit sharing? Any of these could add to our retirement without scrapping our A plan.
Yeh only “some” got a bump. That’s the problem with our me me me attitude at this company. I got mine in a side letter, so pound sand to the rest of you attitude. We need to look at something, like this new proposal, that benefits everyone. Oh wait, we have to many private contractors to think of the group as a whole.
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Yeh only “some” got a bump. That’s the problem with our me me me attitude at this company. I got mine in a side letter, so pound sand to the rest of you attitude. We need to look at something, like this new proposal, that benefits everyone. Oh wait, we have to many private contractors to think of the group as a whole.
#27
Yeh only “some” got a bump. That’s the problem with our me me me attitude at this company. I got mine in a side letter, so pound sand to the rest of you attitude. We need to look at something, like this new proposal, that benefits everyone. Oh wait, we have to many private contractors to think of the group as a whole.
If we freeze the A Fund, then some have a risk free 130K plus the VBP. (with is intended to be retro active to those with more than 25 YOS)
While the under 25 have a reduced guarantee A Fund. And get to HOPE it at least matches the current A Fund obligation we were hired under.
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
What makes you think that we are going to get to vote on this next year? Are you sure that the company is willing to give us the "home run" that the MEC says they need in order to send this to the crew force? If the modeler is a "home run," then it doesn't benefit everyone. I would call it a weak ground out to first.
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
All the same protections huh? As I write this, the DOW is less than 50 points from closing down 9% for the year. Yeah, there is still a week to go, but the momentum isn't to the higher side. Given that 9% down and the fact that the VB plan caps earnings at the IRS earnings limits, if this VB plan had been in place years ago and a pilot thought that they were going to retire this year with a $150K retirement when the year started, right now they are looking at a retirement of less than $130K based on the market closing down 9% for the year. Tell us how that is a benefit for everyone.
What makes you think that we are going to get to vote on this next year? Are you sure that the company is willing to give us the "home run" that the MEC says they need in order to send this to the crew force? If the modeler is a "home run," then it doesn't benefit everyone. I would call it a weak ground out to first.
What makes you think that we are going to get to vote on this next year? Are you sure that the company is willing to give us the "home run" that the MEC says they need in order to send this to the crew force? If the modeler is a "home run," then it doesn't benefit everyone. I would call it a weak ground out to first.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post