2% pay raise in Oct 2020
08-27-2020, 08:02 AM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
I have been at FDX for 5 years. I didn't start yesterday. I also have a relative and numerous friends who have been around much longer. So yes, I have very good historical perspective.
If you have been here for 5 years, then you were around for the road shows for contract 2015. You have said before that you were not around for contract 2015. Which is it?
Based on your past "information," you have little historical perspective. Most of that information has been shown to be false.
08-27-2020, 12:13 PM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
I am not open to subscribing to the "pancake" method. I simply don't trust the union on this to get it right, and I don't think it is a good idea in the first place.
What good are my pancakes if the stock market crashes the week before I retire?.
What good are my pancakes if the stock market crashes the week before I retire?.
Whatever name you use, they’re not stocks, not a mutual fund, not bonds. Just a ‘notional’ investment in the pension trust fund, which is invested in various ways.
As designed, the value of your notional investment is never less than the value you ‘invested’.
That’s why it’s called ‘a floor’.
If the floors 2%, and you earn $285,000, the value of your pancakes will never be less than $5,700.
If we negotiate a 2.1%, or 2.2%, value would be greater than that.
(For those scoffing at such a small increase, look back in time at the fury some have over similar pension multipliers written in to previous CBAs to offset B plan improvements)
YOS no longer capped.
And it’s still a Pension fund, with all of the same basic protections our current A plan has.
Should stock markets implode, ala the Great Depression, if Pension payments are in jeopardy, FedEx legally obligated to provide the necessary funding.
Or enter bankruptcy and get a judge to agree that suspending pension funding is essential to FedEx surviving.
08-27-2020, 12:32 PM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by kronan
Call them pancakes, call them waffles, call them crepes.
Whatever name you use, they’re not stocks, not a mutual fund, not bonds. Just a ‘notional’ investment in the pension trust fund, which is invested in various ways.
As designed, the value of your notional investment is never less than the value you ‘invested’.
That’s why it’s called ‘a floor’.
If the floors 2%, and you earn $285,000, the value of your pancakes will never be less than $5,700.
If we negotiate a 2.1%, or 2.2%, value would be greater than that.
(For those scoffing at such a small increase, look back in time at the fury some have over similar pension multipliers written in to previous CBAs to offset B plan improvements)
YOS no longer capped.
And it’s still a Pension fund, with all of the same basic protections our current A plan has.
Should stock markets implode, ala the Great Depression, if Pension payments are in jeopardy, FedEx legally obligated to provide the necessary funding.
Or enter bankruptcy and get a judge to agree that suspending pension funding is essential to FedEx surviving.
Whatever name you use, they’re not stocks, not a mutual fund, not bonds. Just a ‘notional’ investment in the pension trust fund, which is invested in various ways.
As designed, the value of your notional investment is never less than the value you ‘invested’.
That’s why it’s called ‘a floor’.
If the floors 2%, and you earn $285,000, the value of your pancakes will never be less than $5,700.
If we negotiate a 2.1%, or 2.2%, value would be greater than that.
(For those scoffing at such a small increase, look back in time at the fury some have over similar pension multipliers written in to previous CBAs to offset B plan improvements)
YOS no longer capped.
And it’s still a Pension fund, with all of the same basic protections our current A plan has.
Should stock markets implode, ala the Great Depression, if Pension payments are in jeopardy, FedEx legally obligated to provide the necessary funding.
Or enter bankruptcy and get a judge to agree that suspending pension funding is essential to FedEx surviving.
What if the line in the sand is a 1% floor, or no floor at all? As you have pointed out, that floor has to be negotiated and isn't required by the VB plan or whatever moniker they decide to use to try to put lipstick on that pig.
We can get more into how much of our A plan would be covered under the PBGC if this new plan is pushed through, but most won't like the answer since only one of the plans can be covered.
08-27-2020, 12:39 PM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by kronan
Call them pancakes, call them waffles, call them crepes.
Whatever name you use, they’re not stocks, not a mutual fund, not bonds. Just a ‘notional’ investment in the pension trust fund, which is invested in various ways.
As designed, the value of your notional investment is never less than the value you ‘invested’.
That’s why it’s called ‘a floor’.
If the floors 2%, and you earn $285,000, the value of your pancakes will never be less than $5,700.
If we negotiate a 2.1%, or 2.2%, value would be greater than that.
(For those scoffing at such a small increase, look back in time at the fury some have over similar pension multipliers written in to previous CBAs to offset B plan improvements)
YOS no longer capped.
And it’s still a Pension fund, with all of the same basic protections our current A plan has.
Should stock markets implode, ala the Great Depression, if Pension payments are in jeopardy, FedEx legally obligated to provide the necessary funding.
Or enter bankruptcy and get a judge to agree that suspending pension funding is essential to FedEx surviving.
Whatever name you use, they’re not stocks, not a mutual fund, not bonds. Just a ‘notional’ investment in the pension trust fund, which is invested in various ways.
As designed, the value of your notional investment is never less than the value you ‘invested’.
That’s why it’s called ‘a floor’.
If the floors 2%, and you earn $285,000, the value of your pancakes will never be less than $5,700.
If we negotiate a 2.1%, or 2.2%, value would be greater than that.
(For those scoffing at such a small increase, look back in time at the fury some have over similar pension multipliers written in to previous CBAs to offset B plan improvements)
YOS no longer capped.
And it’s still a Pension fund, with all of the same basic protections our current A plan has.
Should stock markets implode, ala the Great Depression, if Pension payments are in jeopardy, FedEx legally obligated to provide the necessary funding.
Or enter bankruptcy and get a judge to agree that suspending pension funding is essential to FedEx surviving.
Why reinvent the wheel? Ditch the pancakes and let’s use tried and true pension ideas.
Last edited by golfandfly; 08-27-2020 at 12:49 PM.
08-27-2020, 01:12 PM
#105
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
2% pay raise in Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
All I can hope for is a 100% survey of the crew force. Anything less is unacceptable.
Originally Posted by PolicyWonk
And since you have access to a remarkable amount of information, what is our average lifespan after we retire? And how should that inform our per diem rates? Stated differently, is there any relationship between the number of hours we fly, and our longevity? Should our per diem be based on the price of a meal, or how much we decrease our life span for having exposed ourselves to the increased radiation of the cosmos while at altitude flying to that meal?
I will gain nothing from an increase in retirement benefits or per diem rates or any other proviso in the next contract. But I think the per diem rates should be doubled at a bare minimum. What say you? And why and how do you arrive at your conclusion? If you choose the path of least resistance, we, the rickshaw wallahs will not benefit one iota. But if you increase hourly pay rates, solely, magically, ALPA becomes a beneficiary also. Should we allow ALPA a cut of our per diem so they are encouraged to fight for it at long last? Should we allow them a cut of our retirement so they fight for it at last?
I will gain nothing from an increase in retirement benefits or per diem rates or any other proviso in the next contract. But I think the per diem rates should be doubled at a bare minimum. What say you? And why and how do you arrive at your conclusion? If you choose the path of least resistance, we, the rickshaw wallahs will not benefit one iota. But if you increase hourly pay rates, solely, magically, ALPA becomes a beneficiary also. Should we allow ALPA a cut of our per diem so they are encouraged to fight for it at long last? Should we allow them a cut of our retirement so they fight for it at last?
08-28-2020, 02:38 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by golfandfly
If anyone could botch the contract language, that would be us. Make the floor $150k and you at least have my attention. It’s a ridiculously complex plan. We’ve got a great concept now, let’s just try and improve what we have. Add a cash over cap B fund, and/or a significantly higher percentage. Increased multiplier, higher FAE. Try to tie FAE with IRS limits (now $285k) as a sort of COLA. Look at a flat dollar pension. As I mentioned earlier, we did get some targeted A fund gains in 2006. We’ve really only failed badly in 2015. Make retirement THE cornerstone issue. Very, very focused negotiation.
Why reinvent the wheel? Ditch the pancakes and let’s use tried and true pension ideas.
Why reinvent the wheel? Ditch the pancakes and let’s use tried and true pension ideas.
What FAE is, isn't debatable.
And the IRS limit you're quoting isn't the A plan Pension limit, but rather the DC limit (401 (a)(17) if ya want to geek out)
The Defined Benefit plan limit per IRS\Department of Treasury cannot exceed the lesser of:
1. 100% of your average compensation for 3 consecutive years (at least it's the highest average)
2. $230, 000 for 2020
The Reason our Union pursued ways to reinvent the wheel is a desire to achieve improvement in our Defined Benefits. The actual accounting supports the company's intransigence towards improving our A plan, at all, during the last negotiations where it was THE Only issue SS pounded on the table during his tenure. Restoring our A plan income replacement level to that of 50% for our Intl WB Capts, because FedEx can afford it. We absolutely failed to achieve even a minimal improvement to our A plan, such as you've just suggested. In 2016 the DC limit was $265k, and I'm absolutely positive that the internet would've gone just as crazy if SL had "sold" that as an improvement to our A plan, with at least the prospect that it would increase over time. And the only reason we "know" that, is our Union signed an NDA to obtain the actuarial data and outsourced the validation of the math behind the rumors...and then, hired people to evaluate methods to achieve improving our Pensions.
And one of the components of our pancakes was tying compensation to that very DC limit you've proposed for our Traditional Pension.
As to why Management might be intransigent about improving our Traditional Pension, consider that our Pension Plans booked a $794M accounting loss last quarter. Thankfully, on the way to recovering as the quarter ended. But big swings in the value, along with the possibility of required funding is why pretty much every Pension plan has been terminated in the Private Sector.
Shoot, all you have to do is look at the evolution and eventual elimination of the Pension Plan for our non-contractual FedEx fellow employees over time. Or consider the big deal FedEx made a few years back to offload Pension Obligations in return for Pension assets. (Hint hint, FedEx can absolutely afford to provide Pensions to all of our employees, they just don't want to)
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans...benefit-limits
08-28-2020, 03:52 PM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by kronan
The thing to remember is that it's Not simply Contractual language, but language that meets ERISA standards for Benefit Calculation. And Benefit calculations are, at their core, Math. 9% of definable earnings isn't debatable. Trip rig, or block override, isn't debatable.
What FAE is, isn't debatable.
And the IRS limit you're quoting isn't the A plan Pension limit, but rather the DC limit (401 (a)(17) if ya want to geek out)
The Defined Benefit plan limit per IRS\Department of Treasury cannot exceed the lesser of:
1. 100% of your average compensation for 3 consecutive years (at least it's the highest average)
2. $230, 000 for 2020
The Reason our Union pursued ways to reinvent the wheel is a desire to achieve improvement in our Defined Benefits. The actual accounting supports the company's intransigence towards improving our A plan, at all, during the last negotiations where it was THE Only issue SS pounded on the table during his tenure. Restoring our A plan income replacement level to that of 50% for our Intl WB Capts, because FedEx can afford it. We absolutely failed to achieve even a minimal improvement to our A plan, such as you've just suggested. In 2016 the DC limit was $265k, and I'm absolutely positive that the internet would've gone just as crazy if SL had "sold" that as an improvement to our A plan, with at least the prospect that it would increase over time. And the only reason we "know" that, is our Union signed an NDA to obtain the actuarial data and outsourced the validation of the math behind the rumors...and then, hired people to evaluate methods to achieve improving our Pensions.
And one of the components of our pancakes was tying compensation to that very DC limit you've proposed for our Traditional Pension.
As to why Management might be intransigent about improving our Traditional Pension, consider that our Pension Plans booked a $794M accounting loss last quarter. Thankfully, on the way to recovering as the quarter ended. But big swings in the value, along with the possibility of required funding is why pretty much every Pension plan has been terminated in the Private Sector.
Shoot, all you have to do is look at the evolution and eventual elimination of the Pension Plan for our non-contractual FedEx fellow employees over time. Or consider the big deal FedEx made a few years back to offload Pension Obligations in return for Pension assets. (Hint hint, FedEx can absolutely afford to provide Pensions to all of our employees, they just don't want to)
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans...benefit-limits
What FAE is, isn't debatable.
And the IRS limit you're quoting isn't the A plan Pension limit, but rather the DC limit (401 (a)(17) if ya want to geek out)
The Defined Benefit plan limit per IRS\Department of Treasury cannot exceed the lesser of:
1. 100% of your average compensation for 3 consecutive years (at least it's the highest average)
2. $230, 000 for 2020
The Reason our Union pursued ways to reinvent the wheel is a desire to achieve improvement in our Defined Benefits. The actual accounting supports the company's intransigence towards improving our A plan, at all, during the last negotiations where it was THE Only issue SS pounded on the table during his tenure. Restoring our A plan income replacement level to that of 50% for our Intl WB Capts, because FedEx can afford it. We absolutely failed to achieve even a minimal improvement to our A plan, such as you've just suggested. In 2016 the DC limit was $265k, and I'm absolutely positive that the internet would've gone just as crazy if SL had "sold" that as an improvement to our A plan, with at least the prospect that it would increase over time. And the only reason we "know" that, is our Union signed an NDA to obtain the actuarial data and outsourced the validation of the math behind the rumors...and then, hired people to evaluate methods to achieve improving our Pensions.
And one of the components of our pancakes was tying compensation to that very DC limit you've proposed for our Traditional Pension.
As to why Management might be intransigent about improving our Traditional Pension, consider that our Pension Plans booked a $794M accounting loss last quarter. Thankfully, on the way to recovering as the quarter ended. But big swings in the value, along with the possibility of required funding is why pretty much every Pension plan has been terminated in the Private Sector.
Shoot, all you have to do is look at the evolution and eventual elimination of the Pension Plan for our non-contractual FedEx fellow employees over time. Or consider the big deal FedEx made a few years back to offload Pension Obligations in return for Pension assets. (Hint hint, FedEx can absolutely afford to provide Pensions to all of our employees, they just don't want to)
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans...benefit-limits
I’ve heard the pension is expensive. ALPA know the cost. Honestly, I think we’re worth it. A reasonable A and/or B fund increase. Our largest competitor has pension costs that I’d assume dwarf Fedex. Also, I think we’d be well served to concentrate on the money issues.
08-28-2020, 09:19 PM
#108
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by golfandfly
If anyone could botch the contract language, that would be us. Make the floor $150k and you at least have my attention. It’s a ridiculously complex plan. We’ve got a great concept now, let’s just try and improve what we have. Add a cash over cap B fund, and/or a significantly higher percentage. Increased multiplier, higher FAE. Try to tie FAE with IRS limits (now $285k) as a sort of COLA. Look at a flat dollar pension. As I mentioned earlier, we did get some targeted A fund gains in 2006. We’ve really only failed badly in 2015. Make retirement THE cornerstone issue. Very, very focused negotiation.
Why reinvent the wheel? Ditch the pancakes and let’s use tried and true pension ideas.
Why reinvent the wheel? Ditch the pancakes and let’s use tried and true pension ideas.
As Kronan pointed out I think most of the language and funding levels are regulated like our current plan.
I dont care what direction we go but your arguments talk circles around themselves.
Whats Pancakes? We are earning pancakes in the current plan also arent we?
As for focused I agree. Hey at least we see eye to eye on that. It seems you have tunnel vision on this issue. Im willing to look at numerous ideas. Heck I would be interested in a Flat dollar formula (like UPS) if it was a big enough increase. So is the UPS pension “pancakes”? Is it not a pension? I know it a different calculation and formula so is it junk in your mind?
08-29-2020, 03:02 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Well, the current A plan that you so much love was negotiated by the organization that would negotiate the new one also correct? So if you have no confidence in them negotiating pensions then why are you so certain about our current one?
As Kronan pointed out I think most of the language and funding levels are regulated like our current plan.
I dont care what direction we go but your arguments talk circles around themselves.
Whats Pancakes? We are earning pancakes in the current plan also arent we?
As for focused I agree. Hey at least we see eye to eye on that. It seems you have tunnel vision on this issue. Im willing to look at numerous ideas. Heck I would be interested in a Flat dollar formula (like UPS) if it was a big enough increase. So is the UPS pension “pancakes”? Is it not a pension? I know it a different calculation and formula so is it junk in your mind?
As Kronan pointed out I think most of the language and funding levels are regulated like our current plan.
I dont care what direction we go but your arguments talk circles around themselves.
Whats Pancakes? We are earning pancakes in the current plan also arent we?
As for focused I agree. Hey at least we see eye to eye on that. It seems you have tunnel vision on this issue. Im willing to look at numerous ideas. Heck I would be interested in a Flat dollar formula (like UPS) if it was a big enough increase. So is the UPS pension “pancakes”? Is it not a pension? I know it a different calculation and formula so is it junk in your mind?
Please watch some of the ALPA propaganda videos to educate yourself.
08-29-2020, 04:18 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Well, the current A plan that you so much love was negotiated by the organization that would negotiate the new one also correct? So if you have no confidence in them negotiating pensions then why are you so certain about our current one?
As Kronan pointed out I think most of the language and funding levels are regulated like our current plan.
I dont care what direction we go but your arguments talk circles around themselves.
Whats Pancakes? We are earning pancakes in the current plan also arent we?
As for focused I agree. Hey at least we see eye to eye on that. It seems you have tunnel vision on this issue. Im willing to look at numerous ideas. Heck I would be interested in a Flat dollar formula (like UPS) if it was a big enough increase. So is the UPS pension “pancakes”? Is it not a pension? I know it a different calculation and formula so is it junk in your mind?
As Kronan pointed out I think most of the language and funding levels are regulated like our current plan.
I dont care what direction we go but your arguments talk circles around themselves.
Whats Pancakes? We are earning pancakes in the current plan also arent we?
As for focused I agree. Hey at least we see eye to eye on that. It seems you have tunnel vision on this issue. Im willing to look at numerous ideas. Heck I would be interested in a Flat dollar formula (like UPS) if it was a big enough increase. So is the UPS pension “pancakes”? Is it not a pension? I know it a different calculation and formula so is it junk in your mind?
This post makes absolutely no sense! You really don't know what you are talking about!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
