TonyC

You make it sound like raising the FAE Cap is ridiculous and has zero chance of passing, comparing it to a 30% increase it pay rates.

I just pointed out that the people who created the story that the FAE cap can never be raised are the very same people who had supposedly been trying to do that very thing during negotiations of the 2015 CBA. Do you remember any of them coming to the membership in 2013, when the 2011 CBA became amendable, and telling us they had discovered we cannot raise the FAE Cap so we're going to give up or try something else? No? Do you remember hearing that in 2014, or did they continue to assure us that our positions were reasonable, affordable, and we deserved them? No. It was only after they failed to achieve that goal did they change the story. Suddenly what was affordable, reasonable, and deserved was now unachievable and unreasonable.






.

TonyC

"The Company has been very firm in saying they will not improve our DB plan" is not an opinion, unless you want to argue about what firm means.

"... the PSPP, in theory, can provide a "win" to the Company ..." is an opinion, obviously not shared by The Company. In a period of serious across the board cost cutting, they rejected the concept.

"We spent at least 18 months during the 2015 CBA passing language that would call for an improvement to the DB plan ..." The last version of that language we proposed was a joke, and indicated the MEC and NC had no resolve to improve the Defined Benefit plan.






.

TonyC

Legend? Maybe you should talk to Chimenti about it. Or, you could talk to the current Block 3 Representative who was a member of the Negotiating Committee, present, and witness to the conversation. "Get you next time" is a gross mischaracterization of the conversation, as it was much more specific and involved.

Now, you can argue that anything not in writing is worthless, and you'd have a point. But the whole point here is that they did NOT say "No." That's the lie that has been spread far and wide by those who failed to negotiate it in 2015.






.
​​​​​​​

TonyC

I still think you misunderstand. The donut hole refers not to a specific list of people, or even a list of people who meet specific age and longevity criteria. There is no way of knowing exactly who will be in the donut hole because it refers to a specific outcome of transitioning from one plan, one paradigm, one method of accruing retirement benefits, to another plan, a new paradigm, a completely different method of accruing retirement benefits. It is true that pilots in certain circumstances of age and longevity are more likely to wind up in that circumstance, but it is impossible to predict how those people will bid for seats, monthly schedules, or vacation, or how the stock market will treat the variable benefit fund from year to year. It is therefore impossible to exactly predict whether those pilots will benefit from the change, or whether they will be harmed.

The "Make Whole" concept (although never discussed in detail) was only to ensure that no pilot will be harmed by switching plans, but it does not guarantee any pilot will benefit. Thus, some will do better than $130k per year (still, far short of 50% income replacement) while some will be left behind. Sadly, if we agree to any plan where pilots get less than 50% income replacement from their pension for 25 years of service, we'll all be left behind.






.
​​​​​​​

TonyC

The comparison here is not just hourly rates.

Under our current system, every pilot every year earns 2% of his HIGH FIVE Final Average Earnings in retirement. Using the chart Kronan posted earlier, a pilot hired at Age 35 and earning $73,530 in his first year would accrue a retirement credit of 2% of his High Five Final Average Earnings. Then, according to the chart's projection of "Pay at Retirement" of $713,853, we might estimate a "High Five" of $700,000, so the retirement accrual would be $14,000.

Well, actually, that's the way it SHOULD be, but I left out one small detail. The formula is correct -- 2% of High Five per year -- but there's that nasty little caveat, the CBA limit on the High Five. Fix the FAE cap and the above will be true. Leave it as is, and the annual retirement accrual is limited to $5,200.

That same pilot under the Variable Benefit Plan would accrue a contribution of 2% (that's the number they used in the example, but it can be negotiated, right?) of his annual income, up to the IRS Defined Contribution limits. So, the Company would buy him $1,470.60 worth of pancakes.

Five years later, the pilot working under our current plan will still be accruing the same retirement benefit every year, regardless of the size of his W-2 any year. Each year he'll add 2% of his High 5. Whether he's a super-senior narrow-body FO, or a junior narrow-body Captain, or a very junior wide-body FO or bottom of the list wide-body Captain, his retirement benefit is the same. His only concern is when and how to earn his High Five. Other than those years, he can work as little or as much as he wants, and he gets another 2% x Years of Service credit. Take home pay is important to many, but it's not the most important to many, and certainly not all that matters.

Unless we switch to a Variable Benefit Plan where we get pancakes purchased with a percentage of our annual income. Want more pancakes? Work harder. Want more pancakes? Upgrade at 100% and get a crashpad. Want more pancakes? Work longer. Want more pancakes? Delay retirement.

Quality of life at FedEx? Differences in system form is one reason, but it's not the only one. The way we accrue our retirement benefit is another, and it is not insignificant.






.

TonyC

And that's a good place to be.

Tell me how you've never done something that others said could not be done.

I never said it would be easy. It will require commitment, resolve, and ... the tough part ... leaders willing to fight for it.






.

TonyC

Aww, bless your heart. When that girl broke up with you saying it wasn't you, it was her, you really believed her, didn't you?



​​​​​​The Company's actuaries looked at it and asked questions, that's all.

And there you go again with that lie that The Company has never even given a thought to raising the DB plan. The lie that The Company has never even considered an improvement to the DB plan. Why are people so tied in to that lie? It's because it's foundational to the devotion, worship even of the idea that we have to replace it with something else. That foundation is sitting on quicksand.






.

TonyC

The better question is how many came in as Block Reps opposed to the Variable Benefit Plan and changed their minds when they got the secret briefs? I only know of one who changed his mind.

We can't talk about Block Rep elections without acknowledging the interference of people who are more intent on maintaining the balance of power at the table than honestly representing their constituents. Witness the last election when a dozen people, some present Reps, some past Reps, most not even in the same Local Council as the election, published a letter supporting the candidate who opposed a candidate who favors improving our "A" Plan. When their hand-picked candidate for another Block published his final campaign message, the Microsoft Word "Track Changes" annotations on the page betrayed the fact there were several people involved as "puppet masters." Many of those same people published a letter during the election a year prior smearing and condemning "their" candidate's opponent. When I ran for Block Rep, I wrote my own letters and I personally sent a Text Message to every member of the Council. The other candidate had a small army of people sending text messages and making phone calls because he was not opposed to the Variable Benefit Plan. The percentage of VBP supporters at the table is not a function of superior arguments, superior intellects, or even secret briefings as much as it is a function of what I call sleazy politics. I realize a lot of people won't like that, but you asked for my read of the room. I believe there are a few decent members with honest intentions, but unfortunately they are outnumbered.


That's a sad note to end this post on, but like my signature line says ...


Maybe this will brighten the mood: If you've watched the videos, there are no magic secrets that will change your mind.






.

TonyC

It is not stated as an opinion -- it is stated as a fact, and if you don't believe it, you're stupid.



I've never said it would be easy.

It will absolutely be hard. It will take determination, commitment, resolve -- and competent, devoted leadership.

I've said it's not impossible. I've said it's achievable. I've never said it would be easy. That is a strawman argument. Throw something up there that can easily be contradicted, and attribute it to me. Weak argument. And false.


Nope. Not in 2006. Not in 2011. Once in the endgame in 2015 with laughable terms that telegraphed we weren't serious.


Not my opinion. Those are facts.


In 2014 it was true that we had earned it and they could afford it. As I have already discussed, that never means The Company will just hand it over out of the kindness of their hearts. It has to be negotiated. But you're confused if you think there was a narrative then that The Company had established a long history of saying No to improving the "A" Plan. That's because no such history of saying "No" existed. They only said No in 2015.


I've never said that, any of it, either. Another straw man.

Let me make this crystal clear. When it come to consummating a contract, it doesn't matter who the R&I Committee Chairman is, or who the Negotiating Committee Chairman is. It doesn't matter who the MEC Chairman is. It doesn't matter how smart any of them are. It doesn't matter where any of them stand. The ONLY thing that matters is where this crewforce stands. And to be successful, the only place to stand is behind the Negotiating Committee.

My fear is that if the Negotiating Committee is trying to negotiate a pancake plan, few pilots will stand behind them.


If you have not heard it said that The Company will never raise the FAE Cap, you haven't been paying close attention.


It comes down to what we as a crew force believe and what we are willing to fight for. It is clear that the proponents of the VBP want us to believe it is impossible to raise the FAE Cap, so our only choice is to do nothing or find an alternative. Their strongest argument at that point is that the alternative is better than doing nothing. Then they try to convince us that anything better than or equal to $130K per year is adequate.


Why should we spend time on it? It's simple -- everyone can multiply 3 numbers

Why should we spend time on it? It helps everyone -- nobody is left behind

Why should we spend time on it? Everyone can support it

Who can argue with a picket sign that reads, 23 YEARS IS TOO LONG

It wasn't achievable in the past because the only time we seriously tired to negotiate it we had a dysfunctional MEC, a MEC Chairman who couldn't be bothered to see the task to the end, and a Negotiating Committee composed exclusively of SIG PSIT alumni used to hearing No from The Company and having to publish bid period packages anyway.

It involves first dispelling the myth that it is impossible, then convincing the MEC that we want it, and then showing The Company our resolve. The Company has never been convinced to bargain because of our superior intellects or smart proposals. The only bargain when they see the resolve of the crewforce.

The Strategic Air Command did not command the fear of the USSR by dropping bombs and firing missiles at them. The motto "Peace is Our Profession" was backed up by demonstrating that they had not only the ability to annihilate the enemy, but the will to do it. That's what we have to do. We must show our resolve and the willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve our goal. The goal is to never have to use the weapon, and if we convince them we are both willing and able, we will never have to demonstrate it.






.

MEMA300

If you want to know what will happen to pension if we arent careful just look at the bidpacks. ALPA has no business selling this pancake plan. Max B-plan Cash over cap with some small tweaks to the A-plan...KISS.

Btw, why is no one discussing these “article 8 charges”.