![]() |
Originally Posted by FDX1
(Post 3724310)
Yeah, totally agree! Why the hell did that snake oil 169K improved pension and a totally sustainable new pension that adjusts for inflation ever get sold to us! Go sell that stink bomb somewhere else...give me my 130K pension now!!!
If snake oil = the best retirement in the industry, then count me in!! |
Good comms by TC from Council 22.
Go to FDX.Alpa.org Under News, read: Council 22 Message from the Block 2 & 5 Reps - 11/14/23 “An orderly transition to a refreshed Negotiating Committee is in the best interest of regaining the pilots' trust and rebuilding unity. It’s a required step in moving us forward, together to our shared goals and priorities.”- TC |
Originally Posted by FreightFlyer91
(Post 3724535)
Just cause retirment was good for you, doesn't mean it was good for everybody dopey! Theres a whole slew of people in the middle senirority range that are too old for the new plan and young enough that they'll be screwed by inflation for another 20 years with this last and final change to the legacy A plan. Sorry you didn't get your retirement bump, hopefully you're gone before we get to TA2.0. Don't be such a bitter oooooolllld man !
Oh and maybe you'll be furloughed before we get to TA2.0. So there. |
Originally Posted by Huck
(Post 3724550)
Those people in the middle had their years compressed in the pay increases to counter this.
Oh and maybe you'll be furloughed before we get to TA2.0. So there. |
Originally Posted by FreightFlyer91
(Post 3724535)
Just cause retirment was good for you, doesn't mean it was good for everybody dopey! Theres a whole slew of people in the middle senirority range that are too old for the new plan and young enough that they'll be screwed by inflation for another 20 years with this last and final change to the legacy A plan. Sorry you didn't get your retirement bump, hopefully you're gone before we get to TA2.0. Don't be such a bitter oooooolllld man !
|
Originally Posted by TomAce
(Post 3724525)
Retirement wasn't perfect, but I don't think it's the reason it failed. The graph seems to show that. We fix pay/retro to industry leading, get rid of the QOL concessions, alleviate scope concerns, and I think retirement is fine. Of course, I'll take more money in retirement, but if I had a choice, I'd prefer more in the DC side instead of increasing beyond the 11% in MBCBP.
|
Originally Posted by NotMrNiceGuy
(Post 3724575)
Sheesh. I guess I don’t know what people want. I was hoping we’d negotiate a sustainable retirement this time. But I’m not going to accept a 15% effective savings rate in exchange for giving up the A-Plan.
There's a ton of different opinions on retirement. I'd love a higher % contribution. But I'd like higher pay and less QOL concessions more. I also don't love the pension. I don't trust it after seeing what's happened in our industry and to some family friends. I'd rather have money in my own accounts. I know a lot of people think differently, and I understand their reasons. |
Originally Posted by Huck
(Post 3724550)
Those people in the middle had their years compressed in the pay increases to counter this.
Oh and maybe you'll be furloughed before we get to TA2.0. So there. the pay compression to industry standard was PM's response to his scope blunder.
Originally Posted by TomAce
(Post 3724589)
My quick math says you'd have to make almost $450k a year to only see a 15% contribution. Which good for you if that's the case.
There's a ton of different opinions on retirement. I'd love a higher % contribution. But I'd like higher pay and less QOL concessions more. I also don't love the pension. I don't trust it after seeing what's happened in our industry and to some family friends. I'd rather have money in my own accounts. I know a lot of people think differently, and I understand their reasons. |
Originally Posted by threeighteen
(Post 3724653)
lol a 3 year compress does not counter that.
the pay compression to industry standard was PM's response to his scope blunder. Whenever we finally get a ratifiable TA, that would put most of our WB CAs at $450k/year.... to have them only getting 15% in lieu of a pension when right now they're getting 9% and a pension is not acceptable. I'm not arguing against more retirement. I'll take as much as I can. I just don't want it to come at the cost of getting paid now. Seems like focusing on retirement led us down our current path. |
Originally Posted by TomAce
(Post 3724589)
My quick math says you'd have to make almost $450k a year to only see a 15% contribution. Which good for you if that's the case.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:17 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands