Pot, meet Kettle.

TonyC
"FEDEX CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN, which covers 200,205 participants. I'm sure you'll agree that the vast majority of those participants don't have the same Defined Benefit Plan that we pilots have."

All of whom have a Defined Benefit.
A portion of those 200k participants were covered by a Traditional Pension Plan until FedEx Froze the Traditional Pension Plan in 2008 and created the Portable Pension Plan.

A plan that, according to you, isn't a Defined Benefit Plan, because it's a Pension Plan that accumulates year by year, with the Pension Benefit being a Fixed percentage of Pensionable Earnings "deposited" into a notional account.
A Plan where no current FedEx employee could possibly make a prediction of what their eventual Pension will be since it accumulates year by year, pancake by pancake. And yet, I'm quite sure our fellow FedEx employees are making predictions. That FedEx's HR department made predictions.

For the relative newhires, the Modeler was based on a typical upgrade progression. Certainly wasn't as customizable as some would've wanted it to be, but there are limitations to what you can easily build into any program. And you didn't have to assume stock market returns. That's certainly not what I input into The Modeler. (Nor is it what I input when I run predictions on NetBenefits. Personally I input a higher inflation number and a lower return than the historic norm)

Here's one thing we agree on, I was also of the opinion that the Modeler assumed unrealistic salary rate increases. IMO-a 3% yearly raise is insufficient for future raises. When asked what the minimum acceptable raise was over the duration of our next CBA, I expressed a desire for 4% raises. But that was then, and this is now, considering the current economic environment...I'm hoping we shoot more say, three 4% raises and one 5% one.

And NO, there was no input to The Modeler to assume a QOL 70% workload until somewhen in your future career.

That somewhen in the future when you suddenly begin working your arse off after finally upgrading to WB Capt after a 20 year NB Career. (An Upgrade that might or might not actually happen)

But isn't working your arse off one of the Huge complaints against a PSPP style plan? That it incentivizes people to work more?

So, instead of an Average High 5 the way we have now. Shouldn't one of our goals be to smooth out that High 5 by eliminating any years above that Salary Cap. So, to get to whatever the new $260k cap is....to avoid incentivizing people working a lot, let's say make it 3 years of actually hitting whatever the cap is.
So, using the current DB limit. 3 years of hitting $460k. Not just one year of $280 averaged with two years of $550

So you are saying we should pay more now for our cars to get adjusted to the costs of future cars? I got nothing...........

Hey TonyC, thank you for all your dedication and words. Nothing you have said or will say can bridge the communication divide. Everyone, including myself, feels like they have to get in the last word. and, possibly, a lot of last words. Perhaps we should all just post, I am a proud pancake pusher or I am a wholehearted waffle lover. 'nuff said.

First, they said that the modeler used a typical upgrade to predict future earnings, but wouldn't tell us what that typical upgrade was. It also did not allow you to choose staying senior, or upgrading at the first possible chance, so that was just a guess.

Second, the modeler used the IRS DC earnings limit for the maximum that you could have qualified earnings for a year. Cheiron overestimated the IRS limit increase. They only got 2018, the year of the modeler, and 2019 correct. They overestimated 2020 and 2021, which will probably continue as an error in the future, so anyone who was making close to the IRS limit at that time probably got a result that is higher than you would actually get.

Third, who ever stated that QOL means only working 70% of your schedule. Maybe QOL means staying senior and only working 100% of what you bid, little if no carry-over, no extra, and taking all of your vacation instead of selling it back.

Finally, why does the high 5 mean that you have to work your arse off to get 50% of your final earnings? Who ever said that if the DB plan matched the IRS limit that you had to make $460K and max out your retirement potential. Maybe a current WB captain who valued QOL would be happy making 50% of $350K.

There are many assumptions made concerning what is included in the PSPP, and almost all of those items have to be negotiated.

Pardon my interruption. My recollection of the modeler was this. It used very conservative historical upgrade times. It used BLG as its income assumption if you wanted to. It had the ability use current pay rates (2018) and not assume any pay raises over your entire career if you wanted to play unrealistic conservative.

Of course a modeler makes assumptions...... That’s why it’s called a modeler...... Once you have hard data, then that modeler becomes more accurate, but it still has to make certain assumptions about market returns, etc. I bet those “assumptions” are on the very conservative side due to the nature of financial modelers. Remember FedEx current “models” a return on our current A plan funds found in the 10k report. They also allow you to play dooms day scenes if you want to. Assumptions have to be made to make an educated decision on anything in life. That’s called life in general and any financial advisor will use assumptions in retirement planning.

So if you are a min BLG guy you can model that. If you do extra you can model that. Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. If our system currently doesn’t incentives people to work extra then why are so many working extra? Why are so many bragging about W2’s. Same at every airline. Some will work hard and some won’t. That’s human behavior in every career field.

I think I will put some trust in the professionals hands. I have the next stock pick that will make you a multi millionaire. Just ask me I’m a pilot.......

Hahahaha. I needed a good laugh!

And every financial advisor will tell you to never get rid of an A plan!

Here go learn more about your professionals.
https://cheiron.us/cheironHome/

So this is the claim to fame? Would you invest you’re retirement based on this garbage…. Not a chance!
https://cheiron.us/cheironHome/content/case-study/unite-here

Bernie Madoff was a “professional” too!

Once again another indirect comment melded in a lie. You said “And every financial advisor will tell you to never get rid of an A plan!”. I have not seen a single communication from the union talking about giving up our A plan. Only discussion of different pension formulas and using them to increase the pension value. Now back to spreading lies and rumors. Standard for the internet.

I didn't know one individual defines an entire group of professionals. Just imagine if we took our select few in our pilot group to define the group as a whole.

So, they’ve decided to just start calling it the A plan, cause that’s what everyone wants, lol...