iarapilot

Albie makes a well written and compelling post. Most can probably see his point of view and can agree or disagree.

Everyone has their personal yea or nay feelings on each section of the TA. And some decisions will be based on only what is only good for them to the other extreme of what is good for everyone (if that is possible!).

So depending on how one weighs each + or - will determine what we have to live with for the next 6+ years. I dont think anyone can honestly say that they are generally happy with the whole package, but I could be wrong.

So hopefully most will vote their conscience on what is best overall for the pilots and the industry. Good luck to both sides!

MD11HOG

I'm going to need one hell of a salesman to convince me that a company that won't fix accepted fares outside of section 6 will fix retirement outside of it.

Tractor Bob

Amen Hog. They "might be willing to discuss it" in about 6 years......only to tell the NC no.

DangaZone

As an outsider, I certainly appreciate Albie's well-thought out opinions. He had to know he was opening himself up to criticism from those who would disagree, yet he laid out *his* reasoning for everyone to see and dissect.

Also, as an outsider, it is disappointing to see some FedEx pilots advocating for what essentially would be a B-scale retirement plan for newhires in order to bolster the benefit of pilots already on property. FedEx might be the only ALPA carrier accepting newhires into an defined benefit plan but FedEx also didn't take the same trip through bankruptcy that others did, and has both shown and forecast continual growth in both revenue and income.

It would be educational if someone could show how big a "cash over cap" DC fund a youngish (say, 35) newhire would need in order to exceed the retirement income of joint DB/DC offered in the current TA.

Huck

A 35-year-old shouldn't assume any A plan at all. My humble opinion. Talk to any United guy.

FDXLAG

Motivation. What is the company motivation for fixing accepted fares? Correct, absent payback elsewhere there is none, it was cheaper to keep the status quo. Now what is the motivation to fix retirement. You either think they have an incentive to negotiate or you don't. Like voting I cant make that decision for you.

Raptor

You've hit the crux of the matter. No one wants the combination of our retirement to go away. But, we are faced with a NC that says the A plan is done for, merely by the inaction of removing the CBA cap. They say it's the company line in the sand. Our union said we were going to fix retirement and carry new hires on it. If they suddenly say that's not possible I'm faced with a simple choice: 1) keep new hires on it and see no improvement for those on property, or 2) new hires go on a B fund and we fix retirement for those on property.

If you believe the NC, then continuing the A plan with no fix makes no sense and we do a disservice to everyone on and future hires to continue the charade. LAG has argued that it was going to die for a long time (I know that's a simplification LAG.) Retaining new hires while failing to fix it is a poor solution.

On the other hand, if you don't believe the negotiating committee that this is all we are going to get, I would think you would be a definite no voter.

I think the analogy you make that it's a B scale is false. That would only be true if we dropped new hires, fixed the A plan for those on property, and did nothing else. No one is advocating that. It's a B fund increase or some creative combo of things that would replace it for new hires. (And no, I don't have the numbers to present to you, I'm arguing the concept.)

A poster in another thread ran calculations and his military retirement will be more valuable than the A plan not too many years after the end of this contract because it has a COLA effectively.

I'm basing what I say on union polls, union comments, research, etc from 2010 on this issue. It's easy to suppose this is a B scale for new hires, but it's much more complicated when you're talking our livelihoods for pilots who have bled purple for 10, 15, or even 25 years. We don't deserve an improved retirement, we've earned it. If it's changed for new hires, they will sign on knowing full well the change and frankly, I suspect many would be quite happy with a large B fund for them to control and invest.

Raptor

I would think if the company were to do it, it would only be if they came out ahead.

FDXLAG

Tell me what the pay rates will be in 2040 and Ill answer your question. As a guess I would say our A Plan right now replaces about 40% of the average retirees income. Ten years ago it was probablly half. At best, without negotiating, it will be a bout 20% of your 35 year old new hire's replacement income, likely less. That also sounds like like a B scale retirement to me.

FDXLAG

Maybe if we let them keep the share eaten by the PGBC bureaucracy we can all come out a head.