Some guy

Agree 100%. The discussion should have happened years ago but got squashed during these negotiations. After the company just recently opened their books and they saw the future cost of the A-plan going forward under the new FAS rules, they understood why the Company wouldn't budge. Don't know why the Company took so long to show us the numbers since it benefits them just as much to modify our retirement benefits. We need to get this fixed now, and not kick the can down the road by 6-10 years.

dckozak

What the company wants (IMHO) is for you to always have a surplus after you've hit the max cap for sick bank (686 hrs). The sooner you get to it, the sooner you get to keep, I mean, invest, via the payout to the "B" plan and the bigger the pie at retirement. Also remember you will be taking an increaseing percentage of the risk of how well you invest, just like the rest of Americans who have no DB retirement. This is just (one of) Fedex's way of controlling SCK usage by making it (mandatory ) that you fund your retirement with the benefit thats meant for when your ill or hurt. God forbid you have a long term need for your sick benefit, by way of a long term recovery from cancer, disease, or some major injury.
Going forward, you will be expected to either 1. fly sick or 2. MUS after using the benefit. At the end of your career, you will have to give Fedex 1 years notice to get the "going away" present they have dangled so you get to keep 50% of your SCK balance.

All this is going to make Social Security way more important in your financial planning. If your looking at retirement way down line, you better hope the Government (and at that time, the next generation tax payer/your kids/neighbors kids) continue to provide a benefit for you. I wouldn't want to bet my future on that.

kwri10s

DING, DING, DING. You hit the nail on the head. A big enough B plan to allow a financially smart decision to terminate the A plan IS NOT POSSIBLE with current legislation. You can put it in a contract, but the company cannot pay it out to you. I'm sure they would be happy to put out a 22% B fund if you completely dump your A fund. Then they can spend some big FDX bucks to lobby to drop the IRS cap down to 20,000.

Don't get me wrong. I love the "idea" of a bigger B fund. It's mine, I keep it. My wife and kids get the money. The company cannot get it. Having my dad "lose" his retirement when Lorenzo stole the money out of the retirement plan at CAL, I understand the risks of the retirement money being in the companies bank account. Not that it is possible here, but it is a cautionary tail. But you at least have to know, it's not really your money until it is in your bank account. That being said, we cannot get enough of a B fund raise without hitting the annual caps to overcome losing the A fund.

For me only, if they want to freeze the A cap at $260,000 then bump my B by 7+%. At least that way I can start recouping the buying power lost to inflation. I could even see down the road a proposal where you earn a lower (1ish)% per year multiplier assuming you "elect" retirement option #2. In exchange you get a B fund bump of "X", where X is 7-10 percent. Again that type of proposal leave us hanging with respect to legislation. So.....not sure where that could leave me if I elected the change and then congress changed the rules.

Very tricky all around to find a perfect solution. But not increasing the A fund cap for inflation or putting that lost inflation into a B fund bump or drastically increasing the 401k match, is not acceptable.

Harrumph

You hit the nail on the head. Well put.

FDXLAG

So what you are saying Kwri10s is you will not vote yes until you get an increase in the A Fund or more than the current 2% increase in B Fund. Ok I am sure the company can live with that decision. See you in 5 years.

We said no negotiation on new hire A Plan. They said no negotiation on 260K cap or indexing. The company loses nothing by keeping the status quo. I would gladly vote no if I thought we would get more, with attitudes like yours I dont think we will.

Raptor

You make the assumption, I think, that the company would have no reason to ever "give" us a contract? So, since they have at this point, it must be good for them and bad for us.

We have more leverage, even under the RLA, than I think many give us credit for. We would (individually of course) become a very unhappy pilot group if we got no contract for 5 years.

kwri10s

I'm not sure a no vote means a long drawn out process. If this gets voted down, this place will potentially get nasty. Good chance the company will be back at the table prior to peak. They cannot go into peak with an extremely angry pilot group who just stepped up as a group and demanded a better contract. Resolve and anger are not be the components you want from the company perspective when you will need crew members to give above and beyond effort to get through the usual winter problems. A signed TA and a ambivalent pilot group is all they are shooting for, happiness is our job not theirs. Not at all sure what a no vote will do to the share price, but I bet the company has thought about it.

The young guys are sitting back just letting this play out. We had our opinions that the kinder, gentler contract extension negotiations were not going to work. But maybe we were going to be wrong. We were not. That was a tactical failure. Now let's see if the senior guys can step up as a group. I've never heard one Capt calling out anther pilot in AOC for not wearing their lanyard. Or even not being a union member. Those are simple and easy things to fix. We are waiting for the more senior crowd to take the lead.

The answer, "we took all the money off the table that was offered", does not seem like the proper answer. Seriously, did we expect them to say, "here's our best offer. We have more money if we need to, but this is all we are going to give you right now." No the company negotiators did exactly what I would expect them to do. (of course why we are negotiating against our chief pilot is a whole other issue) Now it's up to us. The contract we are under is not bad. Other than a pay raise and back pay I don't lose much by waiting. I'm going to get the raise and back pay when every we sign anyway. So waiting to get a better deal in the long term can affect me for the rest of my life and potentially my wife's life if we can fix the retirement issue.

Your position seems to be, let's take what they offered so we don't have to worry about it for the next 8 years. It's always easier to settle for something then to have the confidence to get what you deserve. Sometimes you have to walk out of the car dealers office to get a better deal. Not implying we have to strike, but taking the first "final" offer might not be our best interests. It might be. I just don't like where the future of my retirement is headed. If I cannot be happy with where I am leading my family financially in the future, then I need to change where I am going or how I am getting there. Just my opinion.

Full pull

This is a great discussion about A plan vs. B, percentages, caps. None of it means anything until we vote no on the contract, then we'll have a chance to fix it.

Miso

Here's the thing for me...Effectively both our retirement accounts are capped...The A-fund at $260,000 per the MEC (too expensive for the Company to increase it), and the B-fund at $53,000 (in 2015) based on federally mandated Highly Compensated Employee restrictions...Perhaps there might have been an opportunity to explore other taxable choices (stock options, higher pay rates, larger lump sum payouts), however I believe the horse might have left the barn, because the TA is on the table...If 50% plus 1 vote to approve this, then we'll live with it...I am a "No vote", but what about those who remain silent until it's time to vote.
This is clearly concessionary. At some point in the foreseeable future widebody F.O.'s will hit the $260,000 A-fund "high five" cap. How does this keep up with inflation for those at higher pay scales? It doesn't...

StarClipper

FDXLAG;
You're coming across as selfish. Only thinking about yourself. Why are you so anxious to throw new hires under the bus. Do you realize these new hires will one day have the future of your retirement in their hands? Seems like as long as you got yours you don't care.