[QUOTE=DLax85

So if, the fund fails to meet the hurdle rate what's the benefit from the new VRB plan, especially when it eliminates the High 5 FAE...and replaces it with the average career earnings over every year? Every year, up to 25 years the computed benefit is lower. The VRB plan will entice guys to work more, upgrade earlier, and work longer for an equivalent, and "maybe" a higher benefit.

In Unity,
DLax[/QUOTE]


//Quoted from DLax85

So if, the fund fails to meet the hurdle rate what's the benefit from the new VRB plan, especially when it eliminates the High 5 FAE...and replaces it with the average career earnings over every year? Every year, up to 25 years the computed benefit is lower. The VRB plan will entice guys to work more, upgrade earlier, and work longer for an equivalent, and "maybe" a higher benefit.

//
Exactly that last sentence!! It also creates the likelihood that 50%+1 will be unwilling to have extended negotiations in any future contracts because it negates the values forecast and planned on when every single work day, every single raise (on time), and every single penny matters in the total accumulation of retirement assets. We play directly into the company’s hands and weaken our position in all future negotiations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There are so many variable to the Variable plan! Seriously, not to be pessimistic, but contract language is not our strong point. There is just too much left to chance here.

I’d like to concentrate on simple, tried and true ideas. Of course, increasing the multiplier or FAE are the easy way to go (if have the resolve to see this through). Even a FAE tied to IRS limits ($285k now) would be an improvement and give a minimal cola that wouldn’t necessarily need to be renegotiated.

The FDA is another simple, hard to screw up plan. Tailor it to our needs, $6.000/year. Tie it to FAE of 300K for a 100% benefit, without regard to seat position. There are certainly other methods as well that would work.

Of course, if all else fails, we could hope for significant B fund improvements. Higher percentage and/or cash over cap. Best of both worlds, increase A and B.

The variable plan, despite the union’s efforts, isn’t popular with most of us. Let’s pivot (finally) and focus on simple solutions. I think we could all be on board with that.

 

KISS

A-fund as is

maxed b-plan with cash over cap.

retirement healthcare improvement (since they refuse to keep a-plan growing with growth of income which was as it was intended)

NO PBS, schedules are already bad enuf.

3-4 % raise.

Thats it. My daughter in HS could negotiate that in few weeks. Go into section 6 with a vote...old school.

 

I’m down with this plan.

 

I would pre-vote yes to this.

Pipe

 

I like most of it however a 3-4% raise would put us well behind industry standard. Probably need to double those numbers. To say your daughter in high school could negotiate that is a bit problematic. We can’t make the company agree with us on anything.

 

Ugh ... we already have PBS! It is called the Secondary Line Generator and the yet to be seen PBS software as agreed upon in C2015 which has YET to be fielded.

How many more lines will go to PBS during this round of contract negotiations. What will ALPA try to "fix" and give up more lines for?

Ask Kronan what I'm talking about.

 

Zero additional Reserve Lines will go to it.
Unless you have some secret information that indicates the Company feels they need more flexibility somehow, and sees the need to push to modify the percentage of known R days required in the Bidpack to something less than 80%.

Survey's open. All it would take to go back to the nirvana of Pre-CBA2015 is requiring all known R days be published in the bidpack, return the R day conflict drop to CBA 2011 language (Whole Blocks didn't drop for conflicts), and allow Involuntary Conversions of Reserve Lines.

Involuntary Conversions were rare, but they sucked huge.

And I could certainly be wrong here, but I think more people like having the easier R day drops and the ability to use the View\Add window to improve their lot in life than are upset over the reduction in Reserve Lines.

 

[QUOTE=DLax85;3124963]What current source is forecasting a 6.5% Return on Assets for a balanced fund of 50% stocks/50% /QUOTE]

One of the things FedEx has done great with is realistic expectations of returns on investments. (That’s also something that underwent a regulatory change following the dot.com pension failures)

If you search out the Form 5500 FedEx is required to file, periodically, that information is buried in the back.
FedEx lowered it’s forecasted ROI several years ago, and hasn’t adjusted it yet. Even though another Anti-PSPP poster here pointed out the investment returns on our Trust have been in excess of 7% (didn’t search out the earlier post, so could certainly be wrong here, but lower returns don’t support the easy to improve our Traditional A plan argument so don’t think I am)

Not sure if the attachment of a picture will work or not, but latest form still has 6.5% as the predicted ROI

 

Picture doesn’t seem clear on the iPad.

This is the link, will check to see if it works, but picture is of page 63 or 64’sh


https://www.efast.dol.gov/portal/app...ectPdfDownload