2% pay raise in Oct 2020
09-04-2020, 04:27 PM
#252
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by kronan
I think if anyone had said changing the Earnings Cap to $285k was a huge win and cost the company a ginormous amount of $$$, they'd have been laughed off of this forum.
So, Dr K. Let's assume that the PSPP was considered, adopted, and approved 5 years ago...with a delayed implementation-so first retirees hit the street in Dec 31st of 2018.
The nitty gritty that we know of the PSPP is that it requires an annual contribution into our newly split off Pilot Only Retirement Trust fund. Let's assume a 1% salary contribution for this example. Let's assume 200 pilots retire each year 2018-2020. Let's assume the stock market loses 30% each year.
Pilot payroll is in the 1.2B range, so that's a lot of zeros there 1,200,000,000
1% of that is $12,000,000
2018 the DC limit was $275,000
So at 200 per, that's $1,100,000 of pension payout (assuming a 2% floor)
So, at year end we wind up with $10,900,000 minus 30% is $7,630,000
Plus $12,000,000 gets us to $19,630,000
DC limit was $280,000 so that's $1,120,000.
Year 1 folks would draw $1,100,000
So that puts our Trust at $17,410,000 minus 30% = $12,187,000
Plus $12,000,000 gets us to $24,187,000
DC Limit this year is $285,000 so that's $1,140,00
Year 1 folks another $1,100,000
Year 2 folks another $1,200,000
That puts our Trust at $20,827,000 minus 30% = $14,578,000
Rinse and repeat.
Hopefully it's a no brainer that year after year after year after year of 30% losses is going to eventually cause some liquidity issues in our Pension.
But how likely is that?
Or better yet, how likely is FedEx to survive an economic implosion like that. Painful for me to imagine how deep the furloughs would actually go.
So, Dr K. Let's assume that the PSPP was considered, adopted, and approved 5 years ago...with a delayed implementation-so first retirees hit the street in Dec 31st of 2018.
The nitty gritty that we know of the PSPP is that it requires an annual contribution into our newly split off Pilot Only Retirement Trust fund. Let's assume a 1% salary contribution for this example. Let's assume 200 pilots retire each year 2018-2020. Let's assume the stock market loses 30% each year.
Pilot payroll is in the 1.2B range, so that's a lot of zeros there 1,200,000,000
1% of that is $12,000,000
2018 the DC limit was $275,000
So at 200 per, that's $1,100,000 of pension payout (assuming a 2% floor)
So, at year end we wind up with $10,900,000 minus 30% is $7,630,000
Plus $12,000,000 gets us to $19,630,000
DC limit was $280,000 so that's $1,120,000.
Year 1 folks would draw $1,100,000
So that puts our Trust at $17,410,000 minus 30% = $12,187,000
Plus $12,000,000 gets us to $24,187,000
DC Limit this year is $285,000 so that's $1,140,00
Year 1 folks another $1,100,000
Year 2 folks another $1,200,000
That puts our Trust at $20,827,000 minus 30% = $14,578,000
Rinse and repeat.
Hopefully it's a no brainer that year after year after year after year of 30% losses is going to eventually cause some liquidity issues in our Pension.
But how likely is that?
Or better yet, how likely is FedEx to survive an economic implosion like that. Painful for me to imagine how deep the furloughs would actually go.
Now moving on to a more important subject. Who is going to vote for Biden with me? hahahaha
Last edited by Noworkallplay; 09-04-2020 at 04:45 PM.
09-04-2020, 04:42 PM
#253
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 163
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Couldn't agree more. If this dooms day scenario that some portray happens our current A plan is toast and a bunch of us are hitting the streets. No A plan is bullet proof. Don't let the hard data actually lead your decision making, instead let emotion do the talking. You know what the best investors always say? Those who are emotional about investing always end up the looser. Always let the data lead the way.
Now moving on to a more important subject. Who is going to vote for Biden with me? hahahaha
Now moving on to a more important subject. Who is going to vote for Biden with me? hahahaha
09-04-2020, 04:44 PM
#254
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by BusBoy88
Looser? You sure that's what they say about emotional investors? You're entitled to your opinion, but anyone who would take financial advice from someone with your spelling and grammar would be crazy.
So are you voting for Biden or not?
09-04-2020, 04:53 PM
#255
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 95
if you are a good steward of union dues you will consider a doomsday scenario.
HEY NOWORKALPA PLEASE ADRESS -
One result of this infantile fight and lack of real answers to important questions about risk and security is the postponement of other important discussions, such as the merits of changing the A plan to a purely productivity-based pension (VB/PSPP) versus one that is predominately based on longevity (current A plan).
For example, if a pilot takes the first upgrade and busts his behind or is awarded the 777 during indoc, it is possible to make high-5 type numbers (260k+) very quickly. Let's say in year 6, the pilot's spouse gets sick and the pilot spends 2 years taking care of her until she passes away and 3 years getting their kids back on their feet. During those 5 years the pilot drops or gives away most of his flying and does the minimum to stay current because that is what is best for him and his family. Now at year 11, the pilot has worked full schedules for 6 years and almost no schedule for 5 years. The results of this example are important and demonstrate one consequence of the new proposed pseudo-A plan.
In our current A plan, the pilot could go back to work when his family is ready and there will be absolutely no repercussions on the payout of his A plan at retirement and for the rest of his life. It is longevity-based for the most part, requiring only 5 years of heavy lifting. His B plan, which is purely productivity-based on flying credit hours, will suffer from those 5 years of very little paid at 9% by the company. The beauty of this diversified retirement system is that he will not suffer financially for his decision to take care of his family for the rest of his life and have to slave to make up for those 5 years.
In the proposed VB/PSPP plan where "every hour counts", the pilot will experience 5 years of almost buying 0 notional shares. Out of his 25 year career, this will result in only 20/25 years purchasing notional shares. Now, if I understand the VB/PSPP plan correctly, he will have ROUGHLY 80% of his pension due to those lost years, if the market has suffered and we are saved by a floor that somehow holds up to the court challenges, with give him .8 x 130 = 104k for his productivity-based A fund plus 80% of the B fund he could have earned if he had decided not to leave for those personal reasons.
This example demonstrates the pitfalls of 2 purely productivity-based systems. Having a traditional pension and a 401k style fund both supplied by one's employer is a golden setup, even more so after the current events taking place in our country and industry specifically. I know that if I work high 5 style for 5 years and then drop every other trip for the rest of my career (for the sake of argument), I can retire with a pension valued at several million dollars. There is no way I am giving that up for the promise of only breaking even while having lifetime consequences for dropping trips for any reason.
We haven't even scratched the surface of deferring our CURRENT pension for a few years to let it grow as though we were still working. That could yield payouts way more than 130k per year but is not talked about as a benefit of our current plan. I don't remember reading anything about deferment options with the VB/PSPP plan, are they available? My guess is not because "every hour counts" means not flying doesn't count. I could be wrong...
Couple all of these facts with the risk and regulatory issues that have yet to been addressed and the fake news about the prevalence of the plan in our country, and one can see why there are such important questions like cui bono and the absolute lack of trust in anything produced about the scheme. Please see past the extra $500/month or whatever it comes out to be a best and study all of the consequences if the plan goes right and all of the pitfalls if the plan goes wrong. Dr K.
HEY NOWORKALPA PLEASE ADRESS -
One result of this infantile fight and lack of real answers to important questions about risk and security is the postponement of other important discussions, such as the merits of changing the A plan to a purely productivity-based pension (VB/PSPP) versus one that is predominately based on longevity (current A plan).
For example, if a pilot takes the first upgrade and busts his behind or is awarded the 777 during indoc, it is possible to make high-5 type numbers (260k+) very quickly. Let's say in year 6, the pilot's spouse gets sick and the pilot spends 2 years taking care of her until she passes away and 3 years getting their kids back on their feet. During those 5 years the pilot drops or gives away most of his flying and does the minimum to stay current because that is what is best for him and his family. Now at year 11, the pilot has worked full schedules for 6 years and almost no schedule for 5 years. The results of this example are important and demonstrate one consequence of the new proposed pseudo-A plan.
In our current A plan, the pilot could go back to work when his family is ready and there will be absolutely no repercussions on the payout of his A plan at retirement and for the rest of his life. It is longevity-based for the most part, requiring only 5 years of heavy lifting. His B plan, which is purely productivity-based on flying credit hours, will suffer from those 5 years of very little paid at 9% by the company. The beauty of this diversified retirement system is that he will not suffer financially for his decision to take care of his family for the rest of his life and have to slave to make up for those 5 years.
In the proposed VB/PSPP plan where "every hour counts", the pilot will experience 5 years of almost buying 0 notional shares. Out of his 25 year career, this will result in only 20/25 years purchasing notional shares. Now, if I understand the VB/PSPP plan correctly, he will have ROUGHLY 80% of his pension due to those lost years, if the market has suffered and we are saved by a floor that somehow holds up to the court challenges, with give him .8 x 130 = 104k for his productivity-based A fund plus 80% of the B fund he could have earned if he had decided not to leave for those personal reasons.
This example demonstrates the pitfalls of 2 purely productivity-based systems. Having a traditional pension and a 401k style fund both supplied by one's employer is a golden setup, even more so after the current events taking place in our country and industry specifically. I know that if I work high 5 style for 5 years and then drop every other trip for the rest of my career (for the sake of argument), I can retire with a pension valued at several million dollars. There is no way I am giving that up for the promise of only breaking even while having lifetime consequences for dropping trips for any reason.
We haven't even scratched the surface of deferring our CURRENT pension for a few years to let it grow as though we were still working. That could yield payouts way more than 130k per year but is not talked about as a benefit of our current plan. I don't remember reading anything about deferment options with the VB/PSPP plan, are they available? My guess is not because "every hour counts" means not flying doesn't count. I could be wrong...
Couple all of these facts with the risk and regulatory issues that have yet to been addressed and the fake news about the prevalence of the plan in our country, and one can see why there are such important questions like cui bono and the absolute lack of trust in anything produced about the scheme. Please see past the extra $500/month or whatever it comes out to be a best and study all of the consequences if the plan goes right and all of the pitfalls if the plan goes wrong. Dr K.
09-04-2020, 05:00 PM
#256
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 95
Kronan - I don’t consider a 285k cap a victory if I have to earn 285k for the rest of my career lest my pension suffer. I would much prefer only having to earn 260k for 5 years vice 25 years to maximize it and have the option to earn more if I wanted. You are shackling me to max productivity which is not why many of us left our previous jobs.
still waiting for your response here Kronan...
there is a large difference between having money in the fund and being fully funded per actuarial liabilities. this scheme does not do that at all, as a matter of fact the benefit of variable plans is that they do not have to fund based on actuarial science because the employer has no risk and the employee takes on all the risk. there is no guaranteed payout to meet. your example shows that the fund does in fact have money in it, but will never meet the actuarially derived funding requirements of the present value of future retiree liabilities. that is why variable funds never pay variable pbgc premiums, because they are never underfunded because they have no definite future liabilities. the savings account stabilization fund does nothing to change that. it's like we are trying to have our cake of a fully funded traditional pension fund with only the crumbs required to fund a variable plan. we cannot have both. if the plan ever terminated we would get pennies when the pbgc took over your example versus the 65k i believe we would get now. but i do thank you for taking the time to put an example forward and being constructive. what do you think about about this argument?
also do you care to answer my example above and concerns about taking 5 years of work off due to family issues and earning 0 notional shares for five years and its effect on your retirement? Thank you. Dr K
still waiting for your response here Kronan...
there is a large difference between having money in the fund and being fully funded per actuarial liabilities. this scheme does not do that at all, as a matter of fact the benefit of variable plans is that they do not have to fund based on actuarial science because the employer has no risk and the employee takes on all the risk. there is no guaranteed payout to meet. your example shows that the fund does in fact have money in it, but will never meet the actuarially derived funding requirements of the present value of future retiree liabilities. that is why variable funds never pay variable pbgc premiums, because they are never underfunded because they have no definite future liabilities. the savings account stabilization fund does nothing to change that. it's like we are trying to have our cake of a fully funded traditional pension fund with only the crumbs required to fund a variable plan. we cannot have both. if the plan ever terminated we would get pennies when the pbgc took over your example versus the 65k i believe we would get now. but i do thank you for taking the time to put an example forward and being constructive. what do you think about about this argument?
also do you care to answer my example above and concerns about taking 5 years of work off due to family issues and earning 0 notional shares for five years and its effect on your retirement? Thank you. Dr K
09-04-2020, 05:24 PM
#257
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by DR K
if you are a good steward of union dues you will consider a doomsday scenario.
HEY NOWORKALPA PLEASE ADRESS -
One result of this infantile fight and lack of real answers to important questions about risk and security is the postponement of other important discussions, such as the merits of changing the A plan to a purely productivity-based pension (VB/PSPP) versus one that is predominately based on longevity (current A plan).
For example, if a pilot takes the first upgrade and busts his behind or is awarded the 777 during indoc, it is possible to make high-5 type numbers (260k+) very quickly. Let's say in year 6, the pilot's spouse gets sick and the pilot spends 2 years taking care of her until she passes away and 3 years getting their kids back on their feet. During those 5 years the pilot drops or gives away most of his flying and does the minimum to stay current because that is what is best for him and his family. Now at year 11, the pilot has worked full schedules for 6 years and almost no schedule for 5 years. The results of this example are important and demonstrate one consequence of the new proposed pseudo-A plan.
In our current A plan, the pilot could go back to work when his family is ready and there will be absolutely no repercussions on the payout of his A plan at retirement and for the rest of his life. It is longevity-based for the most part, requiring only 5 years of heavy lifting. His B plan, which is purely productivity-based on flying credit hours, will suffer from those 5 years of very little paid at 9% by the company. The beauty of this diversified retirement system is that he will not suffer financially for his decision to take care of his family for the rest of his life and have to slave to make up for those 5 years.
In the proposed VB/PSPP plan where "every hour counts", the pilot will experience 5 years of almost buying 0 notional shares. Out of his 25 year career, this will result in only 20/25 years purchasing notional shares. Now, if I understand the VB/PSPP plan correctly, he will have ROUGHLY 80% of his pension due to those lost years, if the market has suffered and we are saved by a floor that somehow holds up to the court challenges, with give him .8 x 130 = 104k for his productivity-based A fund plus 80% of the B fund he could have earned if he had decided not to leave for those personal reasons.
This example demonstrates the pitfalls of 2 purely productivity-based systems. Having a traditional pension and a 401k style fund both supplied by one's employer is a golden setup, even more so after the current events taking place in our country and industry specifically. I know that if I work high 5 style for 5 years and then drop every other trip for the rest of my career (for the sake of argument), I can retire with a pension valued at several million dollars. There is no way I am giving that up for the promise of only breaking even while having lifetime consequences for dropping trips for any reason.
We haven't even scratched the surface of deferring our CURRENT pension for a few years to let it grow as though we were still working. That could yield payouts way more than 130k per year but is not talked about as a benefit of our current plan. I don't remember reading anything about deferment options with the VB/PSPP plan, are they available? My guess is not because "every hour counts" means not flying doesn't count. I could be wrong...
Couple all of these facts with the risk and regulatory issues that have yet to been addressed and the fake news about the prevalence of the plan in our country, and one can see why there are such important questions like cui bono and the absolute lack of trust in anything produced about the scheme. Please see past the extra $500/month or whatever it comes out to be a best and study all of the consequences if the plan goes right and all of the pitfalls if the plan goes wrong. Dr K.
HEY NOWORKALPA PLEASE ADRESS -
One result of this infantile fight and lack of real answers to important questions about risk and security is the postponement of other important discussions, such as the merits of changing the A plan to a purely productivity-based pension (VB/PSPP) versus one that is predominately based on longevity (current A plan).
For example, if a pilot takes the first upgrade and busts his behind or is awarded the 777 during indoc, it is possible to make high-5 type numbers (260k+) very quickly. Let's say in year 6, the pilot's spouse gets sick and the pilot spends 2 years taking care of her until she passes away and 3 years getting their kids back on their feet. During those 5 years the pilot drops or gives away most of his flying and does the minimum to stay current because that is what is best for him and his family. Now at year 11, the pilot has worked full schedules for 6 years and almost no schedule for 5 years. The results of this example are important and demonstrate one consequence of the new proposed pseudo-A plan.
In our current A plan, the pilot could go back to work when his family is ready and there will be absolutely no repercussions on the payout of his A plan at retirement and for the rest of his life. It is longevity-based for the most part, requiring only 5 years of heavy lifting. His B plan, which is purely productivity-based on flying credit hours, will suffer from those 5 years of very little paid at 9% by the company. The beauty of this diversified retirement system is that he will not suffer financially for his decision to take care of his family for the rest of his life and have to slave to make up for those 5 years.
In the proposed VB/PSPP plan where "every hour counts", the pilot will experience 5 years of almost buying 0 notional shares. Out of his 25 year career, this will result in only 20/25 years purchasing notional shares. Now, if I understand the VB/PSPP plan correctly, he will have ROUGHLY 80% of his pension due to those lost years, if the market has suffered and we are saved by a floor that somehow holds up to the court challenges, with give him .8 x 130 = 104k for his productivity-based A fund plus 80% of the B fund he could have earned if he had decided not to leave for those personal reasons.
This example demonstrates the pitfalls of 2 purely productivity-based systems. Having a traditional pension and a 401k style fund both supplied by one's employer is a golden setup, even more so after the current events taking place in our country and industry specifically. I know that if I work high 5 style for 5 years and then drop every other trip for the rest of my career (for the sake of argument), I can retire with a pension valued at several million dollars. There is no way I am giving that up for the promise of only breaking even while having lifetime consequences for dropping trips for any reason.
We haven't even scratched the surface of deferring our CURRENT pension for a few years to let it grow as though we were still working. That could yield payouts way more than 130k per year but is not talked about as a benefit of our current plan. I don't remember reading anything about deferment options with the VB/PSPP plan, are they available? My guess is not because "every hour counts" means not flying doesn't count. I could be wrong...
Couple all of these facts with the risk and regulatory issues that have yet to been addressed and the fake news about the prevalence of the plan in our country, and one can see why there are such important questions like cui bono and the absolute lack of trust in anything produced about the scheme. Please see past the extra $500/month or whatever it comes out to be a best and study all of the consequences if the plan goes right and all of the pitfalls if the plan goes wrong. Dr K.
Now answer my question. Are you voting for Biden or what?
09-04-2020, 05:35 PM
#258
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
And whos fault is it that they don't understand it? Themselves. If you choose not to read prior to bidding that's on you. Plus, they can send and email away, or a phone call and I bet ALPA would answer any questions. Let me guess the next excuse is "its to hard to understand lawyer language" or "well I seen something on Jetflyers" or "well my buddy told me". A portion of this pilot group is so apathetic its honestly embarrassing. And that lack of self responsibility is laughable especially when it comes from the none millennial crowd who dogs the millennial who wants everything handed to them. Time for this group to step up and be big boys and girls. Stop making excuses....... If we continue down this "make excuses" path we are doomed in 2021.
09-04-2020, 05:40 PM
#259
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by golfandfly
Do you have to argue every single post here? You’ve worked here a few years and you’ve insulted practically everyone at this company. How did a turd like you make it through the hiring process?
Are you voting for Biden or what?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
