golfandfly: I do mean to pile on. No PBS. Period.

Couldn't agree with you more Tony. Sarcasm aimed at the "Capt God" mentality that still exists (though is slowly moving into the 21st century) here at FedEx. 99% of the Capts I fly with get it. But there are a few holdouts left that think they are "above it all". Just poking those people in the eye 😀.

I bid reserve on vacation months. It's works best for me. Call it myopic if you will.

Currently, you get 6 hours a day credit on secondary lines. Not having a contract handy at the time, I apologize for not memorizing the implementation schedule. However, you will eventually be allowed to decide how many days of vacation credit you want to take when bidding secondary lines. So, those "greedy secondary lineholders" will be able to reduce their vacation to zero if they wish.

I hear a lot of people talk about QOL issues then work 20+ days/month.

Again, I've never advocated PBS, but pretty much everything has its price. It's a very high price, but everything is negotiable.

No, the flexibility here that allows me to have 6-7 weeks off every summer and winter is NOT negotiable. Not at any price - not at 200% pay rate. Just stop selling yourself short. Our new CBA should be enough of a sell back for you. By advocating "everything is negotiable" you are in fact advocating for PBS. Wake up.

Bidding reserve with vacation isn't myopic. It's a good plan if you have the flexibility to actually be in MEM on reserve for the days you don't knock out. Especially if your vaca is at the beginning of the month and you get leveled for it.

Based on your statements about secondary lines and the fact that you've never used vacation other than with reserve, I said your view seems myopic.

I understand we will eventually be able to have more control over vacation hours used on secondary lines. I also don't expect you to memorize the implementation schedule - just don't throw out some BS example as if you have personal knowledge of it happening when it's not even possible yet.

There is a limit to secondary line holder greed, FWIW. There's still a 40% buy-back limit at the end of the year, so they have to take it some time (or simply lose it). If they lose vacation for no pay, then I would suggest they suck at being greedy. :D

Frankly, who cares. There are lots of ways to be greedy here depending on circumstances and seniority. Most of them involve working harder than required. If a guy wants to fill his calendar with blue, fly extra carryover at straight time, sell back vacation and work himself into the grave, I really don't care (since we're not in negotiations). If he chooses to work his butt off and complains about it, then maybe chalk it up to his membership in the 5% club and move on.

You'll hear a lot more complaints about QOL issues if we go PBS, except then most likely the complaints will be very, very valid. There is no realistic pay raise that would be worth giving up the flexibility and control we currently have over our schedule. This is a marathon, not a sprint.

I've been at this game a long time and I never sell myself short. That said, I'll entertain any offers.

As I've said, I've worked under PBS. I haven't just heard about it from a friend at United. It would cost them a lot, and I'm quite sure Fedex wouldn't pay what I'd require. Again, they want to talk, I'd listen.

We have other line in the sand items. We wanted to burn the heretics that dare considered to look at other retirement options. I have to admit it, but I agreed with the union's position at the time. Now many of us wonder if that was so smart after all. If they would have said, "the retirement high five number would stay at 260k", would you have entertained any other options? Let's say you are 30 and just got hired here. What is 130k (minus any survivor benefit) going to be worth in 2046? We can only use statistical inflation numbers to guess, but I'd say it won't be worth a lot. What would a 17% B fund (cash over cap)be worth? Again, we can only guess at market performance, so we really don't have a clear picture. But, needless to say, I think most of us would have listened to the offer had we known that our A fund wasn't going to improve.

This conversation started when someone said he thought we our contract was a win because we didn't get PBS or give up our A fund. I simply mentioned that we already have our A fund and current bidding system, and really wasn't a win to keep what we already have. Could we have missed an opportunity to improve our A fund if we discontinued it for new hires? Would we be throwing them under the bus, or did we do that by insisting to keep them under the current plan? I think we should have looked at it more closely, but our myopia caused us to not listen to other options.

Again, I'd be willing to listen to any offers they want to talk about.

Look, I agree with your points here. I know the contract pretty well and I know we've had a change to our secondary lineholders vacation bidding. It's TBD, and I never said I knew if anyone that had actually done this. I just knew that this has changed. I also don't care what anyone does here outside of negotiations. Fly every day, sell back your vacation, take off the summer/winter, whatever.

The key word was "realistic". My selling point for anything concessionary is not going to be realistic. They'd never pay the price that I would take, but again, I'd listen to them. That's all I'm saying.

Very valid point. The NC thought they were doing new hires a favor when most likely, there were better options for a young guy. I agree looking at other options might have allowed gains we'll never know now.

Unfortunately, from what I understand, we negotiated the 10% and yearly raises to follow BEFORE we got the "line in the sand" drawn on the A-plan. Our NC accepting the raise schedule was predicated on them also getting us A-plan improvements. Since section 4 was TAed, we never went back and re-attacked the raise plan after realizing the A-plan was not budging. Money - BIG MONEY - left on the table.

One positive point (and it's only a small positive) of the new CBA is that vacation anywhere in the month now counts for leveling. One no longer has to use strategery to plan where to bid vacation during reserve months.

We can guess, based upon historic and expected market returns to evaluate which is the better deal. We also have to guess\assume that there's no huge knockout blow to FedEx in the future. There's no way of knowing what technology may bring to us in the future. If you think FedEx is going to go away, then Freezing or eliminating the A play is a better bet. That 130k would look mighty good to whatever the PBGCC was willing to pay out if they let FedEx handover the A plan (Current PBGCC is 39k at 60, 60k at 65)

That 130k is going to be worth about 70k in todays dollars (ballpark WAG using rule of 72, it'll be a bit more if you use Govt's WAG, bit less if you use historic norms. Way less if the US implodes ala Greece)

Keep in mind, that if you look at expected wage growth in the US, that 130k is still going to be above the Median and Average income in the US.

As to a 17% B plan, most people who run the numbers never quite think of the fact that Taxes will be an issue and cut into your returns. Companies contributions to the A plan are tax free to US and that's a huge benny, and they always will be. A big B plan runs into issues with cash over cap surprisingly quickly if you are also saving into your 401k. But, for the purposes of Internet Number calculations, let's assume that cash over cap isn't an issue and the company volunteers to pony up extra cash to pay for the taxes involved. And let's also assume a newhire that wants to enjoy some relative Seniority and QOL who was fortunate enough to be hired as a WB FO, the NB Capt at 6, then WB Capt at 15. Assuming the 6% expected return will net you a cool 3.46M at 30 years. (of course that 3.46M will only be worth 1.86M of today's dollars)

Sounds great, and way better than the 1.83M a 9% B plan will get our mythical newhire.
Until you look at the cashflow.

Suggested cashflow for your $$ in retirement is a 4% drawdown rate. 4% of that 3.46M nets you 138.2k. The cashflow the lowly 130k pension will get you plus the same 4% drawdown of your tiny 1.83M will net you a cashflow of 203.2k

It's quite true that the value of your 17% B plan will be greater than the 9%, possibly leaving $$ for your heirs-especially if you die early. But if leaving money to your heirs is a goal, doesn't take very long of simply saving the extra 64.9k the A+B plan combination gives you to match the money in the big B plan.

And, just as we don't know what will happen with FedEx, we also don't know what Medical Advances are just around the corner. There's been some recent breakthroughs with stem cells, so certainly not outside the realm of probability that lifespan could increase another decade or two.