TA Standard Termination?
07-03-2023, 04:20 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,381
TA Standard Termination?
If you have not already done so. Go over to FB and read JG's missive about the possibility and ramifications of a "standard termination" of our A plan.
Then proceed to vote no on July 5.
Then proceed to vote no on July 5.
07-03-2023, 04:23 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 560
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
If you have not already done so. Go over to FB and read JG's missive about the possibility and ramifications of a "standard termination" of our A plan.
Then proceed to vote no on July 5.
Then proceed to vote no on July 5.
07-03-2023, 04:33 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,381
This is a copy and paste of a post by JG on FB. JG negotiated, IIRC, the 2006 contract.
Hi. I have been fairly dormant on here while reading and watching all things TA-related. In the last 2-3 days, some of our retired pilots (all who held significant ALPA MEC positions) and I have discussed the TA as it relates to Retirement and Scope. A very significant concern was recently brought forth wrt Retirement and a potential downstream ramification that could possibly affect every pilot vested in our DB plan. I've spent a lot of time researching as much as I can and now, along with my retired friends, have questions that we think should be answered before the vote. Due to the holiday weekend and the movement of the MEC offices, I opted to email Capt. Cutler vice submitting a DART. I'm quite certain that this email will not languish in his inbox.( For those who don't know my history, under the FPA negotiating model, I was one of 3 R&I pilots who designed and negotiated our current Retirement structure. Later, I spent considerable time as the NC Vice Chair and Chairman). This is a lengthy email. I apologize. I also appreciate the hard work that has been put forth by all of the ALPA volunteers, especially the NC as I have extreme empathy for what they have endured so far. I have other thoughts on the TA but will maybe write those later. I thought this was worthy of a stand alone subject. Thanks.
Hi Tony.
Conversations and interactions late this week with retired pilots have highlighted some new concerns about our legacy Defined Benefit Plan. The main concern is the interrelationship between the “sunsetting” of the DB plan and a potential standard termination of the plan and the associated ramifications. While I am fairly sure that the sunsetting of the DB Plan upon TA ratification, in and of itself, does not constitute a standard termination; does this set the stage for a potential standard termination? I’m using the term “sunsetting” to euphemistically describe the closure of the plan to pilots with a DOH on or after 7/31/23 and the choice offering between the legacy DB plan and the MBCBP.
Most pilots are familiar with distress terminations that have occurred throughout our industry due to bankruptcies. A standard termination, however, is allowed by the PBGC when the company can prove that it has enough money to pay all benefits owed to the participants. A standard termination allows for two forms of benefit payout. If the DB plan allows, a lump sum distribution that covers the entire benefit can occur. I don’t think that would be the case as we do not presently have a lump sum distribution option at retirement commencement. The other option is for the company to purchase an annuity from an insurance company. Here is where things get very interesting and concerning. Upon either form of benefit payout, PBGC guarantees cease. If the insurance company providing the annuity becomes unable to pay, the applicable state guaranty association guarantees the annuity to the extent allowed by that state’s laws. While it varies from state to state, the vast majority of the states have a $250,000 present value statutory coverage limit….This information is not speculation or conjecture, it can be found in our annual pension plan pamphlet, most recently dated September 2022 and an online search of "state guaranty associations maximum benefit limits”.
Is this a far-fetched concern? It may not be out of the realm of possibility. In the 2000’s, company employees (including the mechanics) were transitioned to a "cash balance" portable pension plan. In May of 2018, FedEx entered a Pension Risk Transfer (PRT) agreement with MetLife, which transferred $6 Billion of pension obligations for ~41,000 FedEx retirees and beneficiaries via the purchase of a group annuity contract. This was the biggest PRT in the U.S. since 2012. It is my understanding that standard terminations can affect different subsets of the pension plan membership, such as state(s) of residence or groups of employees. My friend visited with two retired mechanics and he was left with the distinct impression that they were indeed affected by this. I’m not sure if this represented their legacy DB plan benefit or the portable pension plan benefit.
I have been paying close attention to everything related to the TA. I have no recollection of this subject being discussed or briefed. Consequently, myself and the retired pilots (all former ALPA volunteers) have the following questions that we strongly feel the MEC needs to answer in writing prior to the commencement of the vote so that the membership can make an informed choice. These questions are not accusatory in nature, but reflect our very deep concern for the most enduring benefit we have earned over our careers.
28. CONSULT
To consider and take input from before implementation but not requiring
agreement, approval, or consensus.”
In my mind, the answers to these questions are of such importance and consequence, that the TA vote commencement should be delayed until they are provided and made known to the pilots. While I appreciate all of the hard work involved to-date, we need the answers in written format please. I have been through a crash course in PBGC guarantees along with standard terminations and now wonder if it is possible that my legacy DB plan benefit could somehow be reduced to $250K in the future, given the circumstances described above. According to the internet, $250K net present value equates to ~ $1094/month or $13,125 annual benefit, if commenced @ age 60 (normal retirement age). If this is indeed an issue, then it potentially affects every vested pilot. Tony, I have sent this to you as I believe that you will handle it most appropriately and expeditiously during this holiday weekend.
Thanks very much & Happy 4th of July!
John
Hi. I have been fairly dormant on here while reading and watching all things TA-related. In the last 2-3 days, some of our retired pilots (all who held significant ALPA MEC positions) and I have discussed the TA as it relates to Retirement and Scope. A very significant concern was recently brought forth wrt Retirement and a potential downstream ramification that could possibly affect every pilot vested in our DB plan. I've spent a lot of time researching as much as I can and now, along with my retired friends, have questions that we think should be answered before the vote. Due to the holiday weekend and the movement of the MEC offices, I opted to email Capt. Cutler vice submitting a DART. I'm quite certain that this email will not languish in his inbox.( For those who don't know my history, under the FPA negotiating model, I was one of 3 R&I pilots who designed and negotiated our current Retirement structure. Later, I spent considerable time as the NC Vice Chair and Chairman). This is a lengthy email. I apologize. I also appreciate the hard work that has been put forth by all of the ALPA volunteers, especially the NC as I have extreme empathy for what they have endured so far. I have other thoughts on the TA but will maybe write those later. I thought this was worthy of a stand alone subject. Thanks.
Hi Tony.
Conversations and interactions late this week with retired pilots have highlighted some new concerns about our legacy Defined Benefit Plan. The main concern is the interrelationship between the “sunsetting” of the DB plan and a potential standard termination of the plan and the associated ramifications. While I am fairly sure that the sunsetting of the DB Plan upon TA ratification, in and of itself, does not constitute a standard termination; does this set the stage for a potential standard termination? I’m using the term “sunsetting” to euphemistically describe the closure of the plan to pilots with a DOH on or after 7/31/23 and the choice offering between the legacy DB plan and the MBCBP.
Most pilots are familiar with distress terminations that have occurred throughout our industry due to bankruptcies. A standard termination, however, is allowed by the PBGC when the company can prove that it has enough money to pay all benefits owed to the participants. A standard termination allows for two forms of benefit payout. If the DB plan allows, a lump sum distribution that covers the entire benefit can occur. I don’t think that would be the case as we do not presently have a lump sum distribution option at retirement commencement. The other option is for the company to purchase an annuity from an insurance company. Here is where things get very interesting and concerning. Upon either form of benefit payout, PBGC guarantees cease. If the insurance company providing the annuity becomes unable to pay, the applicable state guaranty association guarantees the annuity to the extent allowed by that state’s laws. While it varies from state to state, the vast majority of the states have a $250,000 present value statutory coverage limit….This information is not speculation or conjecture, it can be found in our annual pension plan pamphlet, most recently dated September 2022 and an online search of "state guaranty associations maximum benefit limits”.
Is this a far-fetched concern? It may not be out of the realm of possibility. In the 2000’s, company employees (including the mechanics) were transitioned to a "cash balance" portable pension plan. In May of 2018, FedEx entered a Pension Risk Transfer (PRT) agreement with MetLife, which transferred $6 Billion of pension obligations for ~41,000 FedEx retirees and beneficiaries via the purchase of a group annuity contract. This was the biggest PRT in the U.S. since 2012. It is my understanding that standard terminations can affect different subsets of the pension plan membership, such as state(s) of residence or groups of employees. My friend visited with two retired mechanics and he was left with the distinct impression that they were indeed affected by this. I’m not sure if this represented their legacy DB plan benefit or the portable pension plan benefit.
I have been paying close attention to everything related to the TA. I have no recollection of this subject being discussed or briefed. Consequently, myself and the retired pilots (all former ALPA volunteers) have the following questions that we strongly feel the MEC needs to answer in writing prior to the commencement of the vote so that the membership can make an informed choice. These questions are not accusatory in nature, but reflect our very deep concern for the most enduring benefit we have earned over our careers.
- If the legacy DB plan sunsets upon ratification, does this potentially initiate/ facilitate the process of a standard termination? If so, what would that timeline look like?
- Can a standard termination occur while there are active pilots in the legacy DB plan? If so, how are the active pilots treated if they have not yet commenced retirement benefits?
- Would the company be allowed to enter into a PRT that affects only the currently retired pilots while we still have active pilots in the legacy DB plan?
- Did the NC attempt to / or secure any commitment from the company that a standard termination would never occur?
- Did the NC attempt to / or secure a lump sum payout for the active pilots in the legacy DB plan should a standard termination occur?
- Does the TA language relieve the company from negotiating with the union should the company initiate a standard termination?
- Notwithstanding all the above the questions, please explain in explicit detail, the meaning of newly inserted, TA Section 28.B.10 language, along with the CBA definition of “Consult” as it was understood by parties at the negotiating table and as it pertains to sunsetting of the DB plan along with any potential standard termination.
28. CONSULT
To consider and take input from before implementation but not requiring
agreement, approval, or consensus.”
In my mind, the answers to these questions are of such importance and consequence, that the TA vote commencement should be delayed until they are provided and made known to the pilots. While I appreciate all of the hard work involved to-date, we need the answers in written format please. I have been through a crash course in PBGC guarantees along with standard terminations and now wonder if it is possible that my legacy DB plan benefit could somehow be reduced to $250K in the future, given the circumstances described above. According to the internet, $250K net present value equates to ~ $1094/month or $13,125 annual benefit, if commenced @ age 60 (normal retirement age). If this is indeed an issue, then it potentially affects every vested pilot. Tony, I have sent this to you as I believe that you will handle it most appropriately and expeditiously during this holiday weekend.
Thanks very much & Happy 4th of July!
John
07-03-2023, 05:37 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
Originally Posted by Nightflyer
This is a copy and paste of a post by JG on FB. JG negotiated, IIRC, the 2006 contract.
Hi. I have been fairly dormant on here while reading and watching all things TA-related. In the last 2-3 days, some of our retired pilots (all who held significant ALPA MEC positions) and I have discussed the TA as it relates to Retirement and Scope. A very significant concern was recently brought forth wrt Retirement and a potential downstream ramification that could possibly affect every pilot vested in our DB plan. I've spent a lot of time researching as much as I can and now, along with my retired friends, have questions that we think should be answered before the vote. Due to the holiday weekend and the movement of the MEC offices, I opted to email Capt. Cutler vice submitting a DART. I'm quite certain that this email will not languish in his inbox.( For those who don't know my history, under the FPA negotiating model, I was one of 3 R&I pilots who designed and negotiated our current Retirement structure. Later, I spent considerable time as the NC Vice Chair and Chairman). This is a lengthy email. I apologize. I also appreciate the hard work that has been put forth by all of the ALPA volunteers, especially the NC as I have extreme empathy for what they have endured so far. I have other thoughts on the TA but will maybe write those later. I thought this was worthy of a stand alone subject. Thanks.
Hi Tony.
Conversations and interactions late this week with retired pilots have highlighted some new concerns about our legacy Defined Benefit Plan. The main concern is the interrelationship between the “sunsetting” of the DB plan and a potential standard termination of the plan and the associated ramifications. While I am fairly sure that the sunsetting of the DB Plan upon TA ratification, in and of itself, does not constitute a standard termination; does this set the stage for a potential standard termination? I’m using the term “sunsetting” to euphemistically describe the closure of the plan to pilots with a DOH on or after 7/31/23 and the choice offering between the legacy DB plan and the MBCBP.
Most pilots are familiar with distress terminations that have occurred throughout our industry due to bankruptcies. A standard termination, however, is allowed by the PBGC when the company can prove that it has enough money to pay all benefits owed to the participants. A standard termination allows for two forms of benefit payout. If the DB plan allows, a lump sum distribution that covers the entire benefit can occur. I don’t think that would be the case as we do not presently have a lump sum distribution option at retirement commencement. The other option is for the company to purchase an annuity from an insurance company. Here is where things get very interesting and concerning. Upon either form of benefit payout, PBGC guarantees cease. If the insurance company providing the annuity becomes unable to pay, the applicable state guaranty association guarantees the annuity to the extent allowed by that state’s laws. While it varies from state to state, the vast majority of the states have a $250,000 present value statutory coverage limit….This information is not speculation or conjecture, it can be found in our annual pension plan pamphlet, most recently dated September 2022 and an online search of "state guaranty associations maximum benefit limits”.
Is this a far-fetched concern? It may not be out of the realm of possibility. In the 2000’s, company employees (including the mechanics) were transitioned to a "cash balance" portable pension plan. In May of 2018, FedEx entered a Pension Risk Transfer (PRT) agreement with MetLife, which transferred $6 Billion of pension obligations for ~41,000 FedEx retirees and beneficiaries via the purchase of a group annuity contract. This was the biggest PRT in the U.S. since 2012. It is my understanding that standard terminations can affect different subsets of the pension plan membership, such as state(s) of residence or groups of employees. My friend visited with two retired mechanics and he was left with the distinct impression that they were indeed affected by this. I’m not sure if this represented their legacy DB plan benefit or the portable pension plan benefit.
I have been paying close attention to everything related to the TA. I have no recollection of this subject being discussed or briefed. Consequently, myself and the retired pilots (all former ALPA volunteers) have the following questions that we strongly feel the MEC needs to answer in writing prior to the commencement of the vote so that the membership can make an informed choice. These questions are not accusatory in nature, but reflect our very deep concern for the most enduring benefit we have earned over our careers.
28. CONSULT
To consider and take input from before implementation but not requiring
agreement, approval, or consensus.”
In my mind, the answers to these questions are of such importance and consequence, that the TA vote commencement should be delayed until they are provided and made known to the pilots. While I appreciate all of the hard work involved to-date, we need the answers in written format please. I have been through a crash course in PBGC guarantees along with standard terminations and now wonder if it is possible that my legacy DB plan benefit could somehow be reduced to $250K in the future, given the circumstances described above. According to the internet, $250K net present value equates to ~ $1094/month or $13,125 annual benefit, if commenced @ age 60 (normal retirement age). If this is indeed an issue, then it potentially affects every vested pilot. Tony, I have sent this to you as I believe that you will handle it most appropriately and expeditiously during this holiday weekend.
Thanks very much & Happy 4th of July!
John
Hi. I have been fairly dormant on here while reading and watching all things TA-related. In the last 2-3 days, some of our retired pilots (all who held significant ALPA MEC positions) and I have discussed the TA as it relates to Retirement and Scope. A very significant concern was recently brought forth wrt Retirement and a potential downstream ramification that could possibly affect every pilot vested in our DB plan. I've spent a lot of time researching as much as I can and now, along with my retired friends, have questions that we think should be answered before the vote. Due to the holiday weekend and the movement of the MEC offices, I opted to email Capt. Cutler vice submitting a DART. I'm quite certain that this email will not languish in his inbox.( For those who don't know my history, under the FPA negotiating model, I was one of 3 R&I pilots who designed and negotiated our current Retirement structure. Later, I spent considerable time as the NC Vice Chair and Chairman). This is a lengthy email. I apologize. I also appreciate the hard work that has been put forth by all of the ALPA volunteers, especially the NC as I have extreme empathy for what they have endured so far. I have other thoughts on the TA but will maybe write those later. I thought this was worthy of a stand alone subject. Thanks.
Hi Tony.
Conversations and interactions late this week with retired pilots have highlighted some new concerns about our legacy Defined Benefit Plan. The main concern is the interrelationship between the “sunsetting” of the DB plan and a potential standard termination of the plan and the associated ramifications. While I am fairly sure that the sunsetting of the DB Plan upon TA ratification, in and of itself, does not constitute a standard termination; does this set the stage for a potential standard termination? I’m using the term “sunsetting” to euphemistically describe the closure of the plan to pilots with a DOH on or after 7/31/23 and the choice offering between the legacy DB plan and the MBCBP.
Most pilots are familiar with distress terminations that have occurred throughout our industry due to bankruptcies. A standard termination, however, is allowed by the PBGC when the company can prove that it has enough money to pay all benefits owed to the participants. A standard termination allows for two forms of benefit payout. If the DB plan allows, a lump sum distribution that covers the entire benefit can occur. I don’t think that would be the case as we do not presently have a lump sum distribution option at retirement commencement. The other option is for the company to purchase an annuity from an insurance company. Here is where things get very interesting and concerning. Upon either form of benefit payout, PBGC guarantees cease. If the insurance company providing the annuity becomes unable to pay, the applicable state guaranty association guarantees the annuity to the extent allowed by that state’s laws. While it varies from state to state, the vast majority of the states have a $250,000 present value statutory coverage limit….This information is not speculation or conjecture, it can be found in our annual pension plan pamphlet, most recently dated September 2022 and an online search of "state guaranty associations maximum benefit limits”.
Is this a far-fetched concern? It may not be out of the realm of possibility. In the 2000’s, company employees (including the mechanics) were transitioned to a "cash balance" portable pension plan. In May of 2018, FedEx entered a Pension Risk Transfer (PRT) agreement with MetLife, which transferred $6 Billion of pension obligations for ~41,000 FedEx retirees and beneficiaries via the purchase of a group annuity contract. This was the biggest PRT in the U.S. since 2012. It is my understanding that standard terminations can affect different subsets of the pension plan membership, such as state(s) of residence or groups of employees. My friend visited with two retired mechanics and he was left with the distinct impression that they were indeed affected by this. I’m not sure if this represented their legacy DB plan benefit or the portable pension plan benefit.
I have been paying close attention to everything related to the TA. I have no recollection of this subject being discussed or briefed. Consequently, myself and the retired pilots (all former ALPA volunteers) have the following questions that we strongly feel the MEC needs to answer in writing prior to the commencement of the vote so that the membership can make an informed choice. These questions are not accusatory in nature, but reflect our very deep concern for the most enduring benefit we have earned over our careers.
- If the legacy DB plan sunsets upon ratification, does this potentially initiate/ facilitate the process of a standard termination? If so, what would that timeline look like?
- Can a standard termination occur while there are active pilots in the legacy DB plan? If so, how are the active pilots treated if they have not yet commenced retirement benefits?
- Would the company be allowed to enter into a PRT that affects only the currently retired pilots while we still have active pilots in the legacy DB plan?
- Did the NC attempt to / or secure any commitment from the company that a standard termination would never occur?
- Did the NC attempt to / or secure a lump sum payout for the active pilots in the legacy DB plan should a standard termination occur?
- Does the TA language relieve the company from negotiating with the union should the company initiate a standard termination?
- Notwithstanding all the above the questions, please explain in explicit detail, the meaning of newly inserted, TA Section 28.B.10 language, along with the CBA definition of “Consult” as it was understood by parties at the negotiating table and as it pertains to sunsetting of the DB plan along with any potential standard termination.
28. CONSULT
To consider and take input from before implementation but not requiring
agreement, approval, or consensus.”
In my mind, the answers to these questions are of such importance and consequence, that the TA vote commencement should be delayed until they are provided and made known to the pilots. While I appreciate all of the hard work involved to-date, we need the answers in written format please. I have been through a crash course in PBGC guarantees along with standard terminations and now wonder if it is possible that my legacy DB plan benefit could somehow be reduced to $250K in the future, given the circumstances described above. According to the internet, $250K net present value equates to ~ $1094/month or $13,125 annual benefit, if commenced @ age 60 (normal retirement age). If this is indeed an issue, then it potentially affects every vested pilot. Tony, I have sent this to you as I believe that you will handle it most appropriately and expeditiously during this holiday weekend.
Thanks very much & Happy 4th of July!
John
07-03-2023, 06:00 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 617
Originally Posted by StarClipper
Why delay the vote? Just vote NO! We are not voting only on retirement, we are voting on the entire contract. Retirement is not all that’s affected in this POS TA. And I refuse to thank the NC/MEC except Tony for wasting my time and money and trying to sell me out.
You all need to WAKE the F up and realize that this company is coming hard for this pilot group. What was once arguably the best job in the industry has the potential for becoming garbage!
It was kind of the author to recognize the efforts put forth by the NC/MEC. However, they were outplayed ... by a long shot. They failed us! We need to send this garbage back, fire them all, and put the a-holes in charge, guys like Shaman, and and Tony.
This is the thanks we get for all the **** we endured during covid. Pathetic. Can’t wait for my tri-annual lecture on ETHICS!
07-03-2023, 06:26 AM
#6
Line Holder
Joined APC: Dec 2022
Posts: 48
Unintended consequences.
I said it in a different thread and I'll say it again. This pilot group has a history of seeing a problem, attempting to fix it, and then failing to see the alternative method by which the company will exploit them. Lie flat seats, system bids, etc come to mind for 2015. This time around it seems to be scope, vacation, R24->R16, student lines, etc. When will we learn? Our ability to "red cell" is downright awful.
I said it in a different thread and I'll say it again. This pilot group has a history of seeing a problem, attempting to fix it, and then failing to see the alternative method by which the company will exploit them. Lie flat seats, system bids, etc come to mind for 2015. This time around it seems to be scope, vacation, R24->R16, student lines, etc. When will we learn? Our ability to "red cell" is downright awful.
07-03-2023, 06:54 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2019
Posts: 1,034
[QUOTE=Anthrax;3659932]Indeed, your precious A fund is at risk, Stan!!! And others like Stan, attempting to take the entire ship down with your arrogance and greed.
My precious A Fund, I don't give a crap about the A fund. And nice article about, "Standard Termination". You do know that FedEx has to go bankrupt for the PBGC to come into play. Its interesting to see all the conspiracy theories coming out. More fear tactics but ok, you aren't convincing anyone on the anger forums to follow your, "Sky is Falling" scenarios. But after 25years of this crap, I'm definitely a YES vote now. Good luck. I'll watch you all on the next contract with the same sad stories. I'm sure you'll be here lamenting how every contract sucks, oh wait, you won't because FedEx will be gone, everyone will be laid off, no retiree will have an A plan, yadda yadda. You guys would be great Trump attorneys or hosts on the View. When this thing passes, I hope you can carry on with life, Well I'm off to have a cup of coffee and enjoy my retirement, thanks.
My precious A Fund, I don't give a crap about the A fund. And nice article about, "Standard Termination". You do know that FedEx has to go bankrupt for the PBGC to come into play. Its interesting to see all the conspiracy theories coming out. More fear tactics but ok, you aren't convincing anyone on the anger forums to follow your, "Sky is Falling" scenarios. But after 25years of this crap, I'm definitely a YES vote now. Good luck. I'll watch you all on the next contract with the same sad stories. I'm sure you'll be here lamenting how every contract sucks, oh wait, you won't because FedEx will be gone, everyone will be laid off, no retiree will have an A plan, yadda yadda. You guys would be great Trump attorneys or hosts on the View. When this thing passes, I hope you can carry on with life, Well I'm off to have a cup of coffee and enjoy my retirement, thanks.
07-03-2023, 07:03 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2023
Posts: 102
[QUOTE=Stan446;3659964]
Your comment puts me in a pickle. From which of you do I take advice, Stan or the guy who was once the Retirement guy and has intimate knowledge of the process? Decisions, decisions. You have to be a window licking moron to vote for this thing without at least having answers to big questions like the ones JG brings up. Especially if you were a yes vote before hearing them. It's bizarre to see a grown up cling to their position in the face of new information that may see a significant source of their retirement all but eliminated. But, you do you.
Originally Posted by Anthrax
Indeed, your precious A fund is at risk, Stan!!! And others like Stan, attempting to take the entire ship down with your arrogance and greed.
My precious A Fund, I don't give a crap about the A fund. And nice article about, "Standard Termination". You do know that FedEx has to go bankrupt for the PBGC to come into play. Its interesting to see all the conspiracy theories coming out. More fear tactics but ok, you aren't convincing anyone on the anger forums to follow your, "Sky is Falling" scenarios. But after 25years of this crap, I'm definitely a YES vote now. Good luck. I'll watch you all on the next contract with the same sad stories. I'm sure you'll be here lamenting how every contract sucks, oh wait, you won't because FedEx will be gone, everyone will be laid off, no retiree will have an A plan, yadda yadda. You guys would be great Trump attorneys or hosts on the View. When this thing passes, I hope you can carry on with life, Well I'm off to have a cup of coffee and enjoy my retirement, thanks.
My precious A Fund, I don't give a crap about the A fund. And nice article about, "Standard Termination". You do know that FedEx has to go bankrupt for the PBGC to come into play. Its interesting to see all the conspiracy theories coming out. More fear tactics but ok, you aren't convincing anyone on the anger forums to follow your, "Sky is Falling" scenarios. But after 25years of this crap, I'm definitely a YES vote now. Good luck. I'll watch you all on the next contract with the same sad stories. I'm sure you'll be here lamenting how every contract sucks, oh wait, you won't because FedEx will be gone, everyone will be laid off, no retiree will have an A plan, yadda yadda. You guys would be great Trump attorneys or hosts on the View. When this thing passes, I hope you can carry on with life, Well I'm off to have a cup of coffee and enjoy my retirement, thanks.
07-03-2023, 07:03 AM
#9
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,053
[QUOTE=Stan446;3659964]
Is this real? You're for giving productivity gains/concessions to a profitable company thats publicly stated it wants to shrink the airline side of things???
Man not even Great Lakes had "student flying".
Originally Posted by Anthrax
Indeed, your precious A fund is at risk, Stan!!! And others like Stan, attempting to take the entire ship down with your arrogance and greed.
My precious A Fund, I don't give a crap about the A fund. And nice article about, "Standard Termination". You do know that FedEx has to go bankrupt for the PBGC to come into play. Its interesting to see all the conspiracy theories coming out. More fear tactics but ok, you aren't convincing anyone on the anger forums to follow your, "Sky is Falling" scenarios. But after 25years of this crap, I'm definitely a YES vote now. Good luck. I'll watch you all on the next contract with the same sad stories. I'm sure you'll be here lamenting how every contract sucks, oh wait, you won't because FedEx will be gone, everyone will be laid off, no retiree will have an A plan, yadda yadda. You guys would be great Trump attorneys or hosts on the View. When this thing passes, I hope you can carry on with life, Well I'm off to have a cup of coffee and enjoy my retirement, thanks.
My precious A Fund, I don't give a crap about the A fund. And nice article about, "Standard Termination". You do know that FedEx has to go bankrupt for the PBGC to come into play. Its interesting to see all the conspiracy theories coming out. More fear tactics but ok, you aren't convincing anyone on the anger forums to follow your, "Sky is Falling" scenarios. But after 25years of this crap, I'm definitely a YES vote now. Good luck. I'll watch you all on the next contract with the same sad stories. I'm sure you'll be here lamenting how every contract sucks, oh wait, you won't because FedEx will be gone, everyone will be laid off, no retiree will have an A plan, yadda yadda. You guys would be great Trump attorneys or hosts on the View. When this thing passes, I hope you can carry on with life, Well I'm off to have a cup of coffee and enjoy my retirement, thanks.
Man not even Great Lakes had "student flying".
07-03-2023, 07:20 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,839
Standard terminations can occur out in the wild. Not sure if your contract would permit it. My sister had a DB plan with a nominal benefit from her employer, which had been frozen when they transitioned to a cash plan. About 5 years later, she gets a letter in the mail saying that the the plan was being terminated. She had me look it over since I was familiar with the lingo, but she ultimately went through her accountant.
Turns out, yes, they can terminate the plan, but it has to be not only fully funded, but has to have extra to cover administration fees and a hold back for unexpected costs, so you're really looking at 105-110% funded. How the company chooses to pay out is up to them, as long as the entire accrued benefit is paid, and that can be either with an annuity or a lump sum (which this plan permitted).
Companies typically do this when the projected administrative costs of running the plan exceed what they see as the termination costs plus whatever hassle factor. Maybe more expensive but they'd like it off the books. It's not cheap., which is why this is typically done only with plans that have a few hundred or maybe a thousand beneficiaries, with a nominal amount of benefit. Something super huge like the FedEx plan would be a giant check to write to someone, either to the pilots or to some insurance company. Annuities are less expensive than they were these days due to higher interest rates, but they're not cheap by any means, and something for the FedEx plan would be in the billions, easy.
Turns out, yes, they can terminate the plan, but it has to be not only fully funded, but has to have extra to cover administration fees and a hold back for unexpected costs, so you're really looking at 105-110% funded. How the company chooses to pay out is up to them, as long as the entire accrued benefit is paid, and that can be either with an annuity or a lump sum (which this plan permitted).
Companies typically do this when the projected administrative costs of running the plan exceed what they see as the termination costs plus whatever hassle factor. Maybe more expensive but they'd like it off the books. It's not cheap., which is why this is typically done only with plans that have a few hundred or maybe a thousand beneficiaries, with a nominal amount of benefit. Something super huge like the FedEx plan would be a giant check to write to someone, either to the pilots or to some insurance company. Annuities are less expensive than they were these days due to higher interest rates, but they're not cheap by any means, and something for the FedEx plan would be in the billions, easy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
