frozenboxhauler

I think the logic behind this is since it is a 6 year deal and we still have the ability to retire at 60, (60-6=54),therefore, the company has a little heads up on who is going to go out prior to the mandated age limit of 65 while we live under this contract if voted in.

I won't be able to attend any road shows, but not to worry as I already kNOw how I'm voting on this contract.
Cheers,
fbh

pipe

It's not reverse age discrimination - it's just age discrimination (AGAIN!) And, at this point, I think it could easily be proven that it's a pattern of behavior.

Pipe

155mm

As much as I don't want to, I reluctantly have to agree. Seniority is everything in the airline industry! You're right they did this before with a micro "catch up" percentage added to retirement. Now they are bold enough to add hard cash "pork" which certainly attracted my attention!

FDXLAG

I don't like this section, because I don't think we should be encouraging people to not call in sick, but I do not think this is a conspiracy to rip off the younger crowd like the 2006 contract blatantly did. They are not getting money from the collective to pay these guys off, they are using the money in each pilots sick account to do it. It is probably a break even point for FDX. I think FDX just wanted a way to control when retirements drop for the next 4 years or so. They are probably really tired of 63 year old guys going on Long Term Disability and using up their banks before they retire. I understand that. That being said there should not be a age limitation on who is eligible.

Fedex999999

I see the retirement bonus stuff as a safety issue. It is akin to paying pilots bonuses for saving fuel. UNSAFE. (Management doesn't really fly, so I guess they got their Fuel Sense $$!)

It is paying pilots to not use sick and disability and vacation by waiving cold hard cash in front of them. As we age, many of us will need these more and more. That's why WE HAVE THEM.

Without a retirement bump, it makes it even more appealing to try for the cash grab.Edit: I am not saying guys retiring don't need a cash bump. I am saying this is setting us up to chase it.

Laughing_Jakal

Then they should have just said the bonus only applies for retirements after a pilot reaches 60 years of age. That way if it gets memorialized in the contract over years, it will have a continuing, thus equal effect for all. If it truly is intended to be a 6 year contract then it will apply only to those 54 and older today, but will continue to apply to all pilots. By specifiying an age at signing, then they are effectively sunsetting the provision, giving a windfall to someone just because of age. So a guy who is older than me, but with less longevity can sell back his disability at 50 cents on the dollar, PLUS get a $40K bonus.....and I get zilch because he is 54 and I am 50......both doing the same job except I am senior to him and been here one year longer.....this is messed up. Also dollar limitations instead of credit hour limitations exploit the diminished capacity of money over time and innoculate the company from further expense if/when payrates ever go up.

This provision, along with the Healthcare expenses is why I'll vote no.

Iwa Washi

I would not be surprised in the least if a minimum of 51% of the pilot group just happens to be 54 years old at the date of signing....

Nightflyer

Remember the $25K VEBA payment in the 2006 contract?

You had to be 54 for that one as well.

Did it get extended for this TA?

NO!

That one simple issue will make me vote NO!

(But there are 100 other reasons that would make me vote NO as well!

FlyByNite

No you had to be 53 for that one.....and yes I'll be 53 on the DOS.

pipe

How about this proposition:

Let's have an airline contract in which everyone 37-44 years old receives a $100K bonus. No one else - just those guys.

Sound reasonable? No? Then why is it reasonable when it's a different age group?

Pipe