|
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1990445)
We will lose the healthcare fight the day we ratify this TA.
Until then, our benefits cannot be reduced, and our costs cannot be increased more than 6% per year. Our current TA, effective now and until a new TA is ratified, protects us from external changes. Approve the TA, and there's no limit to how high the costs will be. . And do you believe healthcare cost increases will be at the whim of the company or directly tied to real healthcare cost increases? |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 1990453)
Well, given there are an infinite number of opinions, let me take a shot at arguing our pension is being reduced:
Assuming a FAE based on 1,000 hrs a year & max WB (or NB) Capt pay rates, what's the ratio between the earned A fund pension payment & the FAE ...today? ...and someone retiring in 5 years under this TA? ...and beyond ? (assuming the $260K cap stays in place forever) I'll head to bed while you run the numbers (Note: Let's argue the pros & cons of the contract, but let's be genuine in our arguments and the associated math) Now, I'll fully admit --- there is a B fund increase value that can make our overall retirement (A & B) equivalent, but I assure you these two 1% bumps are not it It will take a bump of 5-6% bump to keep the total retirement ratio constant. Remember, the company's argument with the A plan is the new govt imposed accrual accounting methods for DB plans That's not stopping them for paying more in B fund/DC plan which does not put any future liability on their books It an important issue we should address now, not in 6 years |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1990445)
Approve the TA, and there's no limit to how high the costs will be.
. 3.17 years from now our share is capped at 20%. If costs increase dramatically, increase in premiums is capped at 10% per year. Clipping from the TA Example: As soon as practicable in 2018, the total projected per capita costs for all pilots and survivors paying active rates for 2017 will be compared to the actual costs for 2017, and if the actual costs are more or less than the total projected costs (outside a corridor of +/-3%), the difference times the 2017 contribution percentage shall be applied to 2019's contributions for all pilots and survivors paying active rates participating in 2019; provided that the total monthly contributions for any coverage tier will not be more than 10% over the monthly contributions payable for such coverage tier for 2018. |
Originally Posted by kronan
(Post 1990462)
That's Not quite true. Unlike our current coverage, company has to provide the numbers versus just saying things cost more. 3.17 years from now our share is capped at 20%. If costs increase dramatically, increase in premiums is capped at 10% per year. Clipping from the TA Example: As soon as practicable in 2018, the total projected per capita costs for all pilots and survivors paying active rates for 2017 will be compared to the actual costs for 2017, and if the actual costs are more or less than the total projected costs (outside a corridor of +/-3%), the difference times the 2017 contribution percentage shall be applied to 2019's contributions for all pilots and survivors paying active rates participating in 2019; provided that the total monthly contributions for any coverage tier will not be more than 10% over the monthly contributions payable for such coverage tier for 2018. Every year thereafter, the cost can rise no more than 10% each year. Unlimited + 10% + 10% + 10% + 10% ... pretty soon you're talking about real money. Under the current CBA it's a fixed amount + 6% + 6%, etc., etc., etc. OK, sure, The Company has to give us the reasons, and we get to comment on their actuary's work. Still, I'd rather have a 6% increase without the explanation than 10% with explanations. They've tried real hard to hide this, and even resist direct questioning, but when you finally nail them down, they admit that there is NO cap on the 2017 cost of healthcare. . |
Originally Posted by DLax85
(Post 1990453)
Remember, the company's argument with the A plan is the new govt imposed accrual accounting methods for DB plans
That's not stopping them for paying more in B fund/DC plan which does not put any future liability on their books . You are exactly right. If there are concerns about complying with Barney Frank's legislation on future obligations, then the B plan was where they needed to be generous to make up for the A plan that has stagnated since long before Barney got his name on a bill. |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1990470)
2017 is the "reset" year. We will pay a percentage of the total cost as determined by The Company's paid actuary. There is no limit to what that amount might be.
They've tried real hard to hide this, and even resist direct questioning, but when you finally nail them down, they admit that there is NO cap on the 2017 cost of healthcare. . |
Originally Posted by Rock
(Post 1990482)
27.G.6 of the TA says the agreed amount in 2017 is 18%. 18% of what? . |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1990504)
18% of what?
. Let's vote this thing in to find out! I'm sure the number will be industry leading, like the rest of our contract. :rolleyes: |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1990504)
18% of what?
. http://fdx.alpa.org/portals/26/docs/...tributions.pdf Those projections will be compared to actual expenditures once the year is complete. If the actual expenditures are different than the forecast the difference will be accounted for the following year with a max increase of 10%. |
Originally Posted by Rock
(Post 1990440)
What we deserve isn't really definable because there are an infinite number of opinions and variables that make up that value. And we lost the healthcare fight the same time the company (and I would argue the country) did...the day Obamacare started. Finally, our pension is not being reduced. Part of it isn't changing and the other part was increased. You could argue that the predicted value of our A plan will be less in the future, but you can't argue that the company is shrinking our pension. Predicted rates of inflation are shrinking the potential value of our pension. What those rates will be, and whether they will be offset by the combined increase in our payrates and the eventual 2% increase in our B plan is unknown.
Side note, but did anyone else notice the predicted rate of inflation for 2015 is .1%? Saying we lost the healthcare fight with Barrycare seems to be a total capitulation. I understand the argument. Just dont agree with it. I guess it boils down to how much of the piece of pie are people think they are getting, and are willing to go for. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:36 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands