Retirement Website
09-25-2020, 06:35 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
During the TA ratification phase which resulted in our current contract, there were two websites that outlined the pros\cons of the TA. Websites that included links\copies of the communications published by the Yes votes as well as the No votes. (No comms primarily written by DR and AS)
Websites were purpleta and hiddenarrows. Hidden Arrows is the website I think that had a thumbs up \ thumbs down for each change. I counted them at the time and there were slightly more thumbs up than thumbs down.
A private website should be of no concern to anyone. IMO
Websites were purpleta and hiddenarrows. Hidden Arrows is the website I think that had a thumbs up \ thumbs down for each change. I counted them at the time and there were slightly more thumbs up than thumbs down.
A private website should be of no concern to anyone. IMO
09-25-2020, 06:39 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
FastBurner, some general comments in regards to your post.
DOL 5500 links (to refute bankruptcy risk)
The only people who seem to be arguing FedEx is going to go bankrupt are those adamantly opposed to a transition to a PSPP plan. And that Pension Trust covers Every FedEx employee who’s been covered by a Pension. To include those with the Traditional Pension that FedEx “modernized” for the benefit of those employees into the Portable Pension circa 2007 (A Cash balance Pension plan with 5% (or 8%) contributions into a Notional Account with a 4% return). Because it was the right thing to do FOR FedEx Employees and Mgt did so out of the kindness of their hearts.
Until their hearts weren’t so kind and they terminated that plan last year and switched to a straight 401k with an increased employer match.
Every single action FedEx has taken over the past 13 years sure seems to indicate that FedEx views Pensions as costly and wants out of the Pension Business completely. To include Managements proposals during our last Negotiations. The direct offer of a Cash over Cap Big B plan is one I think most of us were all aware of. (Although definitely not all since I’ve read the occasional I’d rather have this at a contribution rate LOWER than FedEx Management had already offered)
I am quite confident that if you go back in time and look at the reports from 2007, year by year, up until the current one (They lag so I think it’s still the 2018 year as the most current???)
Pension Trust funded with no big issues. And year by year, FedEx has been profitable.
FedEx can easily afford to improve our Pension. They just don’t want to. They want to reduce Pension risk to the tune of spending $210 Million dollars just to get retirees off of their books.
General Information-definitely needs since most are unaware.
One comment on the DC limits in reference to the changes in 1994. (BTW-Protection from DC changes already a part of our CBA language for our B fund) Using last years DC numbers just for ease of math. So, 2% of 280k is $5600. IRS changes the DC limit to 140k, huge loss right? I mean that makes it $2800. But what if, we’re aware that the DC limit might be changed by law and include language protecting us from that impact. So, in this hypothetical our notional contribution rate changes to 4%, and we’re still adding a $5600 value into our “notional” mutual fund pension accumulation. (Mutual Fund used only for ease of familiarity, after all, if FedEx returns on Pension Trust funds continues to match the predicted future performance of 6.5% that would only result in a gain of 1.5% on the notional shares, not a true capture of the actual performance of the Trust funds)
Stabilization-
I don’t think Anyone, Anywhere, has said the PSPP is Superior to a Traditional Pension plan. That’s just basic math. A high 5 (or high 3 like the Military’s used to be) will always return a better pension than a variable one given the same compensation limit.
But there’s a reason even the Govt, which can simply print money, has moved away from Traditional Pensions. Changes in Military Pensions, all done out of the kindness of their shriveled little bureaucratic hearts. Or at least that’s their story.
As to Pension plans for Findley / Milliman/ Cheiron. How many employees do they have and what’s the average compensation?
QOL seekers. Adding the 3rd benefit calculation to be one of No Less than what you’d receive under our Current A plan minimizes the impact on remaining an FO for, well, forever. Unless you’re a 777 FO where you compensation can easily exceed that of a NB Capt’s.
And, as a Veteran, you know that Retirement is a protected activity. Mil Leaves of Absence Require the company to fund Pensions as if you’d been working your normal schedule. (Even short term Mil Leave drops for UTA’s still result in B fund contributions for conflicted trips)
https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...n%20Account%20
DOL 5500 links (to refute bankruptcy risk)
The only people who seem to be arguing FedEx is going to go bankrupt are those adamantly opposed to a transition to a PSPP plan. And that Pension Trust covers Every FedEx employee who’s been covered by a Pension. To include those with the Traditional Pension that FedEx “modernized” for the benefit of those employees into the Portable Pension circa 2007 (A Cash balance Pension plan with 5% (or 8%) contributions into a Notional Account with a 4% return). Because it was the right thing to do FOR FedEx Employees and Mgt did so out of the kindness of their hearts.
Until their hearts weren’t so kind and they terminated that plan last year and switched to a straight 401k with an increased employer match.
Every single action FedEx has taken over the past 13 years sure seems to indicate that FedEx views Pensions as costly and wants out of the Pension Business completely. To include Managements proposals during our last Negotiations. The direct offer of a Cash over Cap Big B plan is one I think most of us were all aware of. (Although definitely not all since I’ve read the occasional I’d rather have this at a contribution rate LOWER than FedEx Management had already offered)
I am quite confident that if you go back in time and look at the reports from 2007, year by year, up until the current one (They lag so I think it’s still the 2018 year as the most current???)
Pension Trust funded with no big issues. And year by year, FedEx has been profitable.
FedEx can easily afford to improve our Pension. They just don’t want to. They want to reduce Pension risk to the tune of spending $210 Million dollars just to get retirees off of their books.
General Information-definitely needs since most are unaware.
One comment on the DC limits in reference to the changes in 1994. (BTW-Protection from DC changes already a part of our CBA language for our B fund) Using last years DC numbers just for ease of math. So, 2% of 280k is $5600. IRS changes the DC limit to 140k, huge loss right? I mean that makes it $2800. But what if, we’re aware that the DC limit might be changed by law and include language protecting us from that impact. So, in this hypothetical our notional contribution rate changes to 4%, and we’re still adding a $5600 value into our “notional” mutual fund pension accumulation. (Mutual Fund used only for ease of familiarity, after all, if FedEx returns on Pension Trust funds continues to match the predicted future performance of 6.5% that would only result in a gain of 1.5% on the notional shares, not a true capture of the actual performance of the Trust funds)
Stabilization-
I don’t think Anyone, Anywhere, has said the PSPP is Superior to a Traditional Pension plan. That’s just basic math. A high 5 (or high 3 like the Military’s used to be) will always return a better pension than a variable one given the same compensation limit.
But there’s a reason even the Govt, which can simply print money, has moved away from Traditional Pensions. Changes in Military Pensions, all done out of the kindness of their shriveled little bureaucratic hearts. Or at least that’s their story.
As to Pension plans for Findley / Milliman/ Cheiron. How many employees do they have and what’s the average compensation?
QOL seekers. Adding the 3rd benefit calculation to be one of No Less than what you’d receive under our Current A plan minimizes the impact on remaining an FO for, well, forever. Unless you’re a 777 FO where you compensation can easily exceed that of a NB Capt’s.
And, as a Veteran, you know that Retirement is a protected activity. Mil Leaves of Absence Require the company to fund Pensions as if you’d been working your normal schedule. (Even short term Mil Leave drops for UTA’s still result in B fund contributions for conflicted trips)
https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...n%20Account%20
09-25-2020, 07:34 AM
#33
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by kronan
FastBurner, some general comments in regards to your post.
DOL 5500 links (to refute bankruptcy risk)
The only people who seem to be arguing FedEx is going to go bankrupt are those adamantly opposed to a transition to a PSPP plan. And that Pension Trust covers Every FedEx employee who’s been covered by a Pension. To include those with the Traditional Pension that FedEx “modernized” for the benefit of those employees into the Portable Pension circa 2007 (A Cash balance Pension plan with 5% (or 8%) contributions into a Notional Account with a 4% return). Because it was the right thing to do FOR FedEx Employees and Mgt did so out of the kindness of their hearts.
Until their hearts weren’t so kind and they terminated that plan last year and switched to a straight 401k with an increased employer match.
—— Repeatedly, in videos and podcasts - bankruptcy risk is mentioned with PBGC and insinuates that our plan would be in jeopardy. That’s the reason for those links.
Every single action FedEx has taken over the past 13 years sure seems to indicate that FedEx views Pensions as costly and wants out of the Pension Business completely. To include Managements proposals during our last Negotiations. The direct offer of a Cash over Cap Big B plan is one I think most of us were all aware of. (Although definitely not all since I’ve read the occasional I’d rather have this at a contribution rate LOWER than FedEx Management had already offered)
I am quite confident that if you go back in time and look at the reports from 2007, year by year, up until the current one (They lag so I think it’s still the 2018 year as the most current???)
Pension Trust funded with no big issues. And year by year, FedEx has been profitable.
FedEx can easily afford to improve our Pension. They just don’t want to. They want to reduce Pension risk to the tune of spending $210 Million dollars just to get retirees off of their books.
—— Good points - honestly, the ONLY way to possibly get an increase to A Plan may be through self help. Which would take a long time. We would have to be willing to at least disapprove any TA without the increase. The goal of the site is to educate and provide resources showing the PSPP shouldn’t be our lead or #1 goal. Many other options exist - that you and others have posted before.
General Information-definitely needs since most are unaware.
One comment on the DC limits in reference to the changes in 1994. (BTW-Protection from DC changes already a part of our CBA language for our B fund) Using last years DC numbers just for ease of math. So, 2% of 280k is $5600. IRS changes the DC limit to 140k, huge loss right? I mean that makes it $2800. But what if, we’re aware that the DC limit might be changed by law and include language protecting us from that impact. So, in this hypothetical our notional contribution rate changes to 4%, and we’re still adding a $5600 value into our “notional” mutual fund pension accumulation. (Mutual Fund used only for ease of familiarity, after all, if FedEx returns on Pension Trust funds continues to match the predicted future performance of 6.5% that would only result in a gain of 1.5% on the notional shares, not a true capture of the actual performance of the Trust funds)
—— We could be protected, but if the limits are lowered due to an administration against high earners - that is purely a guess.
Stabilization-
I don’t think Anyone, Anywhere, has said the PSPP is Superior to a Traditional Pension plan. That’s just basic math. A high 5 (or high 3 like the Military’s used to be) will always return a better pension than a variable one given the same compensation limit.
But there’s a reason even the Govt, which can simply print money, has moved away from Traditional Pensions. Changes in Military Pensions, all done out of the kindness of their shriveled little bureaucratic hearts. Or at least that’s their story.
As to Pension plans for Findley / Milliman/ Cheiron. How many employees do they have and what’s the average compensation?
—— The point in providing DOL links to the sellers of variable plans is that their literature say having the DB DC hybrid is good but none actually employ that structure.
QOL seekers. Adding the 3rd benefit calculation to be one of No Less than what you’d receive under our Current A plan minimizes the impact on remaining an FO for, well, forever. Unless you’re a 777 FO where you compensation can easily exceed that of a NB Capt’s.
—— The most credible paragraph from Richard Hudson alludes to a period of market declines that could provide less benefits. I think that is the point - so far, though examples exist, we don’t have a formal “prospectus” - just explanations of how things should work. Obviously, if FedEx guaranteed what we are getting now and promised to pay more - wouldn’t it just be easier to increase A plan? The “getting out of pension business” is a formality since the PSPP would be another DB. But FedEx would not have to manage the new assets, the unnamed new company would take that on and ALL the risk shifts to us. FedEx still has to pay premiums (also mentioned by Hudson). Also - the NO LESS than current has “IFS” such as IF we get 3% in perpetuity, IF our shares are credited at 1,000 hrs per year. I think Cheiron’s modeler (after reviewing the video again) still has many problems and seems to make promises that we won’t know the answer to until retirement.
And, as a Veteran, you know that Retirement is a protected activity. Mil Leaves of Absence Require the company to fund Pensions as if you’d been working your normal schedule. (Even short term Mil Leave drops for UTA’s still result in B fund contributions for conflicted trips)
—— Normal schedule implies 884 BLG - which if Cheiron used that (or even better RLG) in their calculations - along with exact explanations on modeler inputs - to include a period of 4.A.2.b reduced flying - the modeler would have more credibility. The net effect from Jan 1999 to Dec 2016 is a large gain in all equities and a reduced interest rate. Whatever split is used in 1999 (50/50, 60/40, etc) would be drastically different now to produce the same forecasted returns (due to low rates). That would be a much higher ratio of stocks to bonds - as shown in several of Cheiron and Milliman briefs. That risk becomes ours in PSPP and stays with FedEX in A Plan.
https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...n%20Account%20
DOL 5500 links (to refute bankruptcy risk)
The only people who seem to be arguing FedEx is going to go bankrupt are those adamantly opposed to a transition to a PSPP plan. And that Pension Trust covers Every FedEx employee who’s been covered by a Pension. To include those with the Traditional Pension that FedEx “modernized” for the benefit of those employees into the Portable Pension circa 2007 (A Cash balance Pension plan with 5% (or 8%) contributions into a Notional Account with a 4% return). Because it was the right thing to do FOR FedEx Employees and Mgt did so out of the kindness of their hearts.
Until their hearts weren’t so kind and they terminated that plan last year and switched to a straight 401k with an increased employer match.
—— Repeatedly, in videos and podcasts - bankruptcy risk is mentioned with PBGC and insinuates that our plan would be in jeopardy. That’s the reason for those links.
Every single action FedEx has taken over the past 13 years sure seems to indicate that FedEx views Pensions as costly and wants out of the Pension Business completely. To include Managements proposals during our last Negotiations. The direct offer of a Cash over Cap Big B plan is one I think most of us were all aware of. (Although definitely not all since I’ve read the occasional I’d rather have this at a contribution rate LOWER than FedEx Management had already offered)
I am quite confident that if you go back in time and look at the reports from 2007, year by year, up until the current one (They lag so I think it’s still the 2018 year as the most current???)
Pension Trust funded with no big issues. And year by year, FedEx has been profitable.
FedEx can easily afford to improve our Pension. They just don’t want to. They want to reduce Pension risk to the tune of spending $210 Million dollars just to get retirees off of their books.
—— Good points - honestly, the ONLY way to possibly get an increase to A Plan may be through self help. Which would take a long time. We would have to be willing to at least disapprove any TA without the increase. The goal of the site is to educate and provide resources showing the PSPP shouldn’t be our lead or #1 goal. Many other options exist - that you and others have posted before.
General Information-definitely needs since most are unaware.
One comment on the DC limits in reference to the changes in 1994. (BTW-Protection from DC changes already a part of our CBA language for our B fund) Using last years DC numbers just for ease of math. So, 2% of 280k is $5600. IRS changes the DC limit to 140k, huge loss right? I mean that makes it $2800. But what if, we’re aware that the DC limit might be changed by law and include language protecting us from that impact. So, in this hypothetical our notional contribution rate changes to 4%, and we’re still adding a $5600 value into our “notional” mutual fund pension accumulation. (Mutual Fund used only for ease of familiarity, after all, if FedEx returns on Pension Trust funds continues to match the predicted future performance of 6.5% that would only result in a gain of 1.5% on the notional shares, not a true capture of the actual performance of the Trust funds)
—— We could be protected, but if the limits are lowered due to an administration against high earners - that is purely a guess.
Stabilization-
I don’t think Anyone, Anywhere, has said the PSPP is Superior to a Traditional Pension plan. That’s just basic math. A high 5 (or high 3 like the Military’s used to be) will always return a better pension than a variable one given the same compensation limit.
But there’s a reason even the Govt, which can simply print money, has moved away from Traditional Pensions. Changes in Military Pensions, all done out of the kindness of their shriveled little bureaucratic hearts. Or at least that’s their story.
As to Pension plans for Findley / Milliman/ Cheiron. How many employees do they have and what’s the average compensation?
—— The point in providing DOL links to the sellers of variable plans is that their literature say having the DB DC hybrid is good but none actually employ that structure.
QOL seekers. Adding the 3rd benefit calculation to be one of No Less than what you’d receive under our Current A plan minimizes the impact on remaining an FO for, well, forever. Unless you’re a 777 FO where you compensation can easily exceed that of a NB Capt’s.
—— The most credible paragraph from Richard Hudson alludes to a period of market declines that could provide less benefits. I think that is the point - so far, though examples exist, we don’t have a formal “prospectus” - just explanations of how things should work. Obviously, if FedEx guaranteed what we are getting now and promised to pay more - wouldn’t it just be easier to increase A plan? The “getting out of pension business” is a formality since the PSPP would be another DB. But FedEx would not have to manage the new assets, the unnamed new company would take that on and ALL the risk shifts to us. FedEx still has to pay premiums (also mentioned by Hudson). Also - the NO LESS than current has “IFS” such as IF we get 3% in perpetuity, IF our shares are credited at 1,000 hrs per year. I think Cheiron’s modeler (after reviewing the video again) still has many problems and seems to make promises that we won’t know the answer to until retirement.
And, as a Veteran, you know that Retirement is a protected activity. Mil Leaves of Absence Require the company to fund Pensions as if you’d been working your normal schedule. (Even short term Mil Leave drops for UTA’s still result in B fund contributions for conflicted trips)
—— Normal schedule implies 884 BLG - which if Cheiron used that (or even better RLG) in their calculations - along with exact explanations on modeler inputs - to include a period of 4.A.2.b reduced flying - the modeler would have more credibility. The net effect from Jan 1999 to Dec 2016 is a large gain in all equities and a reduced interest rate. Whatever split is used in 1999 (50/50, 60/40, etc) would be drastically different now to produce the same forecasted returns (due to low rates). That would be a much higher ratio of stocks to bonds - as shown in several of Cheiron and Milliman briefs. That risk becomes ours in PSPP and stays with FedEX in A Plan.
https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...n%20Account%20
Cheers
09-25-2020, 08:56 AM
#34
Contract 2021
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777 - Both
Posts: 438
Question for fastburner
Originally Posted by FastBurner
For those desiring to add to their knowledge base regarding proposals to our retirement plan, please consider visiting a website that I put together. The site is private, will require registration, and I will confirm that you are on our current seniority list.
The site includes data, links, union podcasts (with comments added), and many other items that should be considered prior to blanket approval of any new plan proposed by union. The goal is to educate alternative viewpoints with sufficient data and proof to provide talking points with references.
To gain access - send me a PM and I will share how to view site.
Previous post regarding topic: 2% pay raise in Oct 2020
Cheers
The site includes data, links, union podcasts (with comments added), and many other items that should be considered prior to blanket approval of any new plan proposed by union. The goal is to educate alternative viewpoints with sufficient data and proof to provide talking points with references.
To gain access - send me a PM and I will share how to view site.
Previous post regarding topic: 2% pay raise in Oct 2020
Cheers
09-25-2020, 09:00 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,377
That's a good question.
Not commenting particularly to Fastburner, because I am in agreement with him and believe he has excellent points.
My point is that those of us without a military pension, of which I am one, have a great deal more interest in getting as much as we possibly can in retirement from FedEx.
Put me down as being adamantly opposed to any form of the pancake plan.
Not commenting particularly to Fastburner, because I am in agreement with him and believe he has excellent points.
My point is that those of us without a military pension, of which I am one, have a great deal more interest in getting as much as we possibly can in retirement from FedEx.
Put me down as being adamantly opposed to any form of the pancake plan.
09-25-2020, 09:52 AM
#36
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by FDX1
Where or are you in the military and do you currently have or will have a military/federal pension?
Yes, retired, with pension. Will have no more than 17 years if I stay until 65. That would be the group under VB modeler and videos that refer to those that would be left behind (March 2018 video, At roughly 10:55 point, Greg Reardon mentioning a population would come up short). This is understandable due to lack of time for investments to compound.
On the site - I tried to list other groups and their perspectives. Definitely open to inputs that have not been considered.
09-25-2020, 10:45 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
That's a good question.
Not commenting particularly to Fastburner, because I am in agreement with him and believe he has excellent points.
My point is that those of us without a military pension, of which I am one, have a great deal more interest in getting as much as we possibly can in retirement from FedEx.
Put me down as being adamantly opposed to any form of the pancake plan.
Not commenting particularly to Fastburner, because I am in agreement with him and believe he has excellent points.
My point is that those of us without a military pension, of which I am one, have a great deal more interest in getting as much as we possibly can in retirement from FedEx.
Put me down as being adamantly opposed to any form of the pancake plan.
And I agree with you on the pancake plan.
09-25-2020, 01:09 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,377
Originally Posted by golfandfly
I’m not sure why you think those with a military pension don’t have the same interest as you. I have one and increasing the pension is my number one priority in these negotiations.
And I agree with you on the pancake plan.
And I agree with you on the pancake plan.
09-25-2020, 02:06 PM
#39
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by FastBurner
Yes, retired, with pension. Will have no more than 17 years if I stay until 65. That would be the group under VB modeler and videos that refer to those that would be left behind (March 2018 video, At roughly 10:55 point, Greg Reardon mentioning a population would come up short). This is understandable due to lack of time for investments to compound.
On the site - I tried to list other groups and their perspectives. Definitely open to inputs that have not been considered.
On the site - I tried to list other groups and their perspectives. Definitely open to inputs that have not been considered.
Look if your against anything other than the current plan than just say it and don't lie or purposefully leave out important details.
09-25-2020, 11:31 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Hold on... Did they not specifically say your group would be bought up?!!!!! Did they not specifically say it had an end of career look back to protect anyone who would have a higher accrual under the legacy plan? So why did you not mention this point?!!!!!!!! Are you purposefully leaving out details?
Look if your against anything other than the current plan than just say it and don't lie or purposefully leave out important details.
Look if your against anything other than the current plan than just say it and don't lie or purposefully leave out important details.
In reality, all these things of the proposed new retirement plan need to be negotiated. Will they be able to get that look back provision? If they don’t, will they abandon it or will they put it in the TA? None of this is known until the TA is published. There is as much usefulness in arguing about look back as there is in arguing about $400/hr pay rates. Maybe that’s the reason why you ignored my last reply to you?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
