Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-24-2021, 10:32 PM   #11  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

TonyC,

Great job of advancing the knowledge base of how we got here. One addition, this is anecdotal though, I have a vague recollection of our NC desiring to work on our A plan limit during the TA that resulted in CBA 2006.

What I recall is that the pay rates in the 2006 CBA would not put many people above the FAE cap established in the 1999 CBA. Most of those who would be affected were benefited by the small age/longevity multipliers that were established to offset the time value they could not realize of the small "B" Fund increase. I also recall that at the conclusion of negotiations, The Company's head Labor Relations attorney discussed and acknowledged the need to raise the FAE cap during the "next" CBA negotiations. (And then came the "Bridge to nowhere" CBA.)


Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

You imply that FedEx is $200k to the good by limiting our raises to a slope below 3%, and relate that to less $$ available to put food on the table. But inflation has been running less than 3%, and doing so over the past 22 years. There are various inflation calculators available, but after plugging the $183.37 into several of them, $291.31 was the highest value I found. And that's significantly less than the $341.12 you used as a comparison. And still a sizable gap below the $335.56 of our current pay rate (Shoot, that $291 inflationary value is only slightly greater than current NB pay).

I'm sorry. I did not mean to imply that. I meant to state it as a fact. That is the amount of money that The Company has saved by keeping our pay rates below the 3% slope (for a 15-year, widebody Captain -- the amounts are proportionateey smaller for other seats and year groups).

Now, we can debate whether our pay rates SHOULD have risen at that rate, and that's fine. There are a number of cost of Living indices which use different metrics and different assumptions. In addition to food, there's energy, trasnportation, housing, apparel, health care ... and so on, and those are treated differently by different indices. For example, the index for the elderly is weighted more by increased health care costs.

My point was this -- there is an assumption that is very prevalent that 3% is the norm for pay rate increases. It's not true. We lag behind that. Furthermore, we won't know what the rates will be in the future. They might fall below 3%, or they might exceed 3%. But most importantly, just keeping up with the cost of living is NOT ENOUGH. We deserve more than a COST of living increase. We deserve a better STANDARD of living. Seat progression and longevity raises do not constitute pay raises. We deserve to put better food on the table, better cars in the garages, and better shoes on our kids' feet. (Well, maybe not the shoes. ;-) )


Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

It would be great if we had indexed our A plan to the IRS limits for Defined Benefit Compensation, but we didn't. We didn't in 99, we didn't in 2006, and we absolutely totally failed to do so in 2015.
In fact, the Main emphasis from our Chairman regarding our TA goals in 2013, 14, and for his partial year of service in 2015 sounded a great deal like your proposed simplicity of restoring our combined Retirement Compensation to the 50% + level it once was.

Indexing the FAE Cap would be great, but I'm not even asking for that -- THIS time. Including a cost of living multiplier for the Defined Benefit would be great, too, but I'm not asking for that, either. I realize that getting the FAE cap back to a level that provides a 50% replacement ratio is a big step, and I'd be happy with that first big step. As I've observed before, some will say it's too big of a step, it will cost The Company too much money. I look at it from the other side -- The Company has saved a lot of money by failing to raise the FAE cap all these years. They have the money to fix it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

If the PSPP had gone into effect, it would mean an extra $5800 (minimum) for every 25+ year Pilot with earnings in excess of $290k.

That may be The Company's contribution on behalf of the pilot to the PSPS, but the number of shares/pancakes that buys and how much they will be worth when he retires will remain to be seen -- it can vary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

One difference between the PSPP proposed Benefit formulas compared to the previous tweaks\improvements\complications is that the Benefit is greater for those pilots furthest from retirement whereas in the past if you were "Young" your actual benefit was $0.

I disagree. Every pilot in his first year of service, even while on probation, earns 2% of his eventual High Five Final Average Earnings to be paid upon retirement until he and his spouse die. Under the PSPP, the retirement benefit is based on the eventual value of the share that will be purchased based on how hard he works that year. The way I see it, the pilots with the most to gain by fixing our "A" Plan by raising the FAE cap are the young, junior pilots.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

And you didn't address Why our NC added a bit more complexity to "make whole" a small percentage of our pilots had the PSPP been adopted. We have a small minority of pilots who choose to drop a sizeable percentage of their monthly schedule.

That dynamic wasn't even considered in trying to determine which pilots would fall into the "donut hole." We have pilots whose combination of years of service and age will not permit them to see any benefit from the PSPP, even if they work a full schedule. Those pilots would be "made whole" in some way (not specified) so that they will not be any worse off than if we had never changed to the PSPP. In other words, they will see no harm, but also NO BENEFIT from the change. Or, in OTHER words, they will be left behind -- no improvements. That violates another tenant of negotiations: Nobody gets a pass, and nobody gets left behind.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

Pilot Compensation is the total package. Taxable Pay, B plan contributions, as well as the Promise to Pay Deferred Compensation of our Pension. I hope FastBurner will chime in with a WAG of what it would cost FedEx to improve our Pension to the $230k, but my mental math of an extra $100k per pilot stumbles over all the zero's.
And personally, I don't want all of our next CBAs compensation improvements to be Deferred in a Promise to Pay Pension.

I can divide $100 by 12 ... $8,3333,33 per month. To FedEx, that's pocket change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kronan View Post

What I've told my Reps, and submitted via the online survey that was available to each and every FedEx Pilot, is that I want improved pay, an improved Cash over Cap B plan, and improvements to our A plan-even if the only method of doing so is via a PSPP like Benefit Calculation change.
I also commented that there's nothing particularly sacred about a 2% "contribution\floor"...no reason that 2% couldn't be a 2.1% or 2.2% value. After all, the Cash Benefit Pension plan FedEx recently terminated for our fellow employees used 5% (and 8% for some)

That's all I'm asking, is for everyone to tell their Block Reps what they meant when they said (in the polls and surveys), "Improve the 'A' Plan." For me, it's simple -- increase the FAE cap to twice the IRS limit.

I'm in favor of improving the "B" Plan and Cash over the Cap, too. What scares me is that so many people view that as a fix to the "A" Plan. It is not. 50% Replacement ratio cannot be achieved by "B" Plan changes alone. The "A" Plan MUST provide 50% income replacement. The "B" Plan will address the rising cost of living issue ... for now.



Good discussion.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 03-24-2021, 10:52 PM   #12  
Organizational Learning 
Thread Starter
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColCargill View Post
Tony, thank you for serving the membership and council 26 specifically.

While I realize that you were only explaining the history, you included a point about fairness while discussing multipliers. I have great issue with that and have heard pilots nearing retirement discussing as much. No one deserves special treatment. The sins of past MEC's are in the past and multipliers are simple pandering for votes. Each of us is fairly compensated twice a month for the work we perform. A new contract is simply and agreement for future work and in no way should be an attempt to payoff a select group that thinks they deserve better. We need to move forward together without looking at the last contract with regret.

FLAME AWAY
Sorry, no flames. Just adult conversation

I agree with you that no CBA should be a "payoff" to any select group. However, with such a diverse group of ages and seniority, it's not always possible for every pilot to enjoy the same benefit from a specific improvement to the CBA.

I think of it similarly to how I think of treating my kids. I have seven. They are all different. They have to be treated differently. If I treat them all the same, it would not be fair to all of them. In order for me to treat them all fairly, and appropriately, I have to treat them differently. I have one who was extremely stubborn and sometimes required ... can I say this is a public forum without being accused of child abuse and sent to jail?? ... she sometimes required corporal punishment to within an inch of her life (it's a figure of speech, folks) to get her attention. Her younger sister would wilt if I simply looked at her with a disappointed or cross face. The two of them required different treatment to be fair. If I had tried the disappointed face with the first one, it would have done nothing. If I had used the same corporal punishment on the second it WOULD have been abuse.

Establishing a "B" Fund, as we did in 1998, and increasing the "B" Fund benefit, as we did in 2006, helps pilots with many years left until retirement more than it helps pilots on the eve of retirement. Thus, it doesn't benefit everyone the same. In both of those cases, a different benefit was negotiated to help those who would receive the least benefit from the establishment or improvement of the "B" Fund. Pilots weren't treated equally, but I think it was fair. Nobody got a pass, and nobody got left behind.

I can't say that about every "targeted" benefit we've seen in every CBA. Some were targeted at pilots near retirement, with nothing equivalent for young, junior pilots. Some included an intent to take care of the next "band" of age/years of service pilots in the "next" CBA, and some didn't even try. We don't need to negotiate benefits for select pilots which amount to payoffs for CBA votes.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 03-25-2021, 06:09 PM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
The Walrus's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: Socket Drawer
Posts: 1,753
Default

The IQ of this forum just went up 20 points. Welcome back Tony.
The Walrus is offline  
Old 03-25-2021, 06:24 PM   #14  
Gets Mon-Sun Off
 
TransWorld's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Up Front
Posts: 3,264
Default

I too, would add my welcome back to TonyC.
TransWorld is offline  
Old 03-27-2021, 05:40 PM   #15  
Line Holder
 
BrianH's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2021
Posts: 59
Default

And what about the increased workload we are seeing? Look back at your bidpacks from 1999, 2006, 2011, 2015 and see how much more you are working now. Now how does 3% look?

Tony, great adult conversation. It is time the crewforce matures together.
BrianH is offline  
Old 03-28-2021, 09:13 AM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
busdriver12's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,537
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Walrus View Post
The IQ of this forum just went up 20 points. Welcome back Tony.
Oh, now you’ve done it.😁

Just kidding, glad to see Tony back. We need him.
busdriver12 is offline  
Old 03-28-2021, 08:25 PM   #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
PurpleToolBox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 950
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
I agree with you that no CBA should be a "payoff" to any select group. However, with such a diverse group of ages and seniority, it's not always possible for every pilot to enjoy the same benefit from a specific improvement to the CBA.

Establishing a "B" Fund, as we did in 1998, and increasing the "B" Fund benefit, as we did in 2006, helps pilots with many years left until retirement more than it helps pilots on the eve of retirement. Thus, it doesn't benefit everyone the same. In both of those cases, a different benefit was negotiated to help those who would receive the least benefit from the establishment or improvement of the "B" Fund. Pilots weren't treated equally, but I think it was fair. Nobody got a pass, and nobody got left behind.

I can't say that about every "targeted" benefit we've seen in every CBA. Some were targeted at pilots near retirement, with nothing equivalent for young, junior pilots. Some included an intent to take care of the next "band" of age/years of service pilots in the "next" CBA, and some didn't even try. We don't need to negotiate benefits for select pilots which amount to payoffs for CBA votes.

.
I am going to share you Council 26 Letter and some of your responses to every other pilot I fly with until we have a TA.

Well said! Thanks for serving in our union.
PurpleToolBox is offline  
Old 03-28-2021, 10:23 PM   #18  
Line Holder
 
JB130's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Window Seat
Posts: 97
Default Perfectly, Accurately and Fairly Articulated

TonyC,

Thanks for providing this short history lesson for the folks. Such background is critical to understanding what's at stake for every pilot on the property. I'm especially pleased with your raising the bar of our collective conscience regarding our worth to the company....we absolutely, positively deserve an industry-leading contract and should not be ashamed to ask, expect and negotiate for such. Your ideas on raising the appropriate caps on the A Plan to RESTORE 50% income replacement is spot on. This is where we, as the union rank and file, should direct our representatives to focus our collective efforts.

As TonyC, BrianH and others have urged, you must contact your representative(s) directly to make your opinions known. If you are FOR improvements to the A Plan and against PSPP and think you adequately expressed this in the survey, you are in for an unpleasant surprise. As TonyC alluded, the questions on the survey regarding improvements to our retirement were so (purposely?) vague that the results can easily be manipulated misinterpreted to formulate and advance a contract concept for which there is little popular support. "You said you wanted improvements in retirement so we ordered you a stack of pancakes." You must tell your Rep what you want!

If you don't know who your representative is, start here:

FedEx MEC / LECs

If you are MEM based, representatives represent specific blocks of seniority numbers. If you don't know your seniority number, find it on VIPS. On the FDX ALPA website (link above) click on a Council to reveal the three individual representatives within that Council. Then click on the "Block" link immediately below the representative's photo. This will reveal the seniority block he/she represents. Keep clicking around the various Councils and Representatives until you find the representative for your seniority number. Then, click the handy email link a little lower there to send a message directly to your representative....initiate a respectful dialogue, ask specific questions, politely re-ask or re-phrase if you don't receive specific answers. Through this process, you can convey your thoughts and opinions....but please don't just hurl drive-by, one-sided comments...stay classy!


P.S. If that link does not work, start at alpa.org and click your way through to the FDX MEC section.
JB130 is offline  
Old 03-29-2021, 08:25 AM   #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
FXLAX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,005
Default

The Positive Rate Weekly gives everyone their council and block number.
FXLAX is offline  
Old 03-29-2021, 08:28 AM   #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
BluePAX's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2016
Posts: 290
Default

For what it's worth, I talked to my representative the other day. I suggest everyone do the same, they are normal guys and want your input.

The worst thing we can do is infight and put negotiating positions down on a public forum. FedEx loves to sit back and let us be our own worst enemies. It costs them nothing and benefits them in every way.

If you want real change, call your representative. Also, consider volunteering, even if it's mentoring you will make a huge impact.
BluePAX is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Block representation R57 relay American 89 02-03-2017 06:45 AM
Sept. 2 message from FDX ALPA Baja Cargo 11 09-04-2014 07:44 AM
North Mississippi Flying Club vs. 9E ALPA? Pinchanickled Regional 33 12-17-2010 06:58 PM
Who is more ****ed off at their MEC, MAG / 9E Jetrecruiter Regional 32 10-03-2009 06:47 AM
United MEC message Sir James Major 0 10-06-2005 02:42 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:32 AM.