Search

Notices

CRS - Complete Joke

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-09-2016 | 10:16 PM
  #151  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
Default

I teach my kids not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I teach my kids the time value of money.
I teach my kids to never ever rely on a pension, because I watched my uncle lose his at UAL.
I teach my kids that when you negotiate for four years, it's not realistic to go back to the table and say, "We changed our minds, we want more, and this time we REALLY mean it."

I don't think Delta should have signed their TA. And not because of the loss of profit sharing. Because of the access Flight Ops was given to their medical records.

But I do think their timeline is relevant. If we had turned down our TA we'd still be waiting, just like them. And with all this strife and litigation with our MEC, I wouldn't at all have been surprised if it had been three years or more to get another TA.
Reply
Old 05-09-2016 | 10:21 PM
  #152  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 505
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by FXDX
Sure we would have all taken an increase in our A plan. The company wasn't going to give it. It was their line in the sand. Believe it or not, biatch about it all you want. Guys who thought the A fund retirement was going to be improved were delusional. If you honestly thought that I can imagine why you won't let it go. I personally was shocked that we got an increase (however small) in the B fund.

This are simply my opinions, and I was a no vote, but it certainly wasn't because of the lack of improvements in the A fund. That wasn't going to happen, and if anything the union NC probably should have tempered those expectations because that was the source of a lot of angst over the new contract. Live and learn.
Go back and look at your retirement summary from FDX that you got last fall. The company had already funded for what they forcast would cost for the increased A fund. They were 4 Billion over funded for the current retirement obligation, since we did not increase the retirement. It will be interesting to see where that 4 B moves to now that it is not needed to fund retirements. Maybe it will counter balance the 4.8 Billion cash purchase price they agreed to pay for TNT.
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 03:30 AM
  #153  
CloudSailor's Avatar
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,097
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Huck
...I wouldn't at all have been surprised if it had been three years or more to get another TA.
You really believe that? With us being undermanned by close to 1,000 pilots? (Number from instructors in AOTC).
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 04:24 AM
  #154  
TonyC's Avatar
Organizational Learning 
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
Default

Originally Posted by Huck

I teach my kids the time value of money.

It's more than just a catch phrase. There's math involved. Try these numbers on for size. A 55-year-old pilot with 20 years of service plans to retire on his 60th birthday and live to 90 with a spouse living to 90 and a month. (She'll die of a broken heart.) How much of a pay raise is required, with its time value, to make up for the failure to raise the FAE cap to twice the IRS limit (as it was originally intended to be)?

How much can he make up by changing his mind and working (and delaying your rise in seniority) until his 65th birthday?


I was making enough money per month BEFORE we ratified the TA. Higher pay rates wasn't even in the Top 5 priorities most pilots expressed in polls and surveys. The paychecks that concern me the most are the ones that start upon retirement. I'm going to need a lot more time value on my 10% to make a dent in the damage done in our "A" plan by abandoning a Top 3 goal.

Originally Posted by Huck

I teach my kids to never ever rely on a pension ...

But you won't refuse your pension checks, right?






.
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 04:28 AM
  #155  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
Default

No.

But I'm not planning on them being there either.
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 04:42 AM
  #156  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Default

Originally Posted by kwri10s
Go back and look at your retirement summary from FDX that you got last fall. The company had already funded for what they forcast would cost for the increased A fund. They were 4 Billion over funded for the current retirement obligation, since we did not increase the retirement. It will be interesting to see where that 4 B moves to now that it is not needed to fund retirements. Maybe it will counter balance the 4.8 Billion cash purchase price they agreed to pay for TNT.
The funding for the current employees was never the issue. IMHO the issue was the funding for the 1000 new hires with a projected retirement beyond 2040. Perhaps there was a reason hiring was delayed and the company was willing to outsource until after the contract was settled.
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 06:06 AM
  #157  
TonyC's Avatar
Organizational Learning 
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

IMHO the issue was the funding for the 1000 new hires with a projected retirement beyond 2040.

Why would that ever be an issue? You know, time value of money and all that jazz.





.
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 06:11 AM
  #158  
TonyC's Avatar
Organizational Learning 
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
Default

Originally Posted by Huck

No.

But I'm not planning on them being there either.

I noticed you avoided the "time value of money" math problem.



Is it just a mantra for how short can I sell myself, or can you attach a real dollar value?






.
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 06:27 AM
  #159  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC
Why would that ever be an issue? You know, time value of money and all that jazz.


.
Someone has to put up the money upfront to get the time value of it. And if the cap were unlimited it is a lot more up front. Precisely the point. Thanks.
Reply
Old 05-10-2016 | 06:43 AM
  #160  
TonyC's Avatar
Organizational Learning 
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4,948
Likes: 0
From: Directly behind the combiner
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG

Someone has to put up the money upfront to get the time value of it. And if the cap were unlimited it is a lot more up front. Precisely the point. Thanks.

The benefit is not, and never has been unlimited. It's based on earnings, which is based on work performed. Nothing is at risk "up front." The employee performs a unit of work, a proportion is set aside to fund the "A" Plan, and a proportion is directed to the "B" Plan. When it's the "B" Plan, The Company has no choice but to incur the entire expense immediately and repeatedly. In the case of an "A" plan, the money still belongs to The Company and the obligation can be spread over time.

Why do people believe it's too expensive for The Company to save the money, but the pilot will have no trouble?






.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
vagabond
Hangar Talk
27
02-25-2014 12:16 PM
vagabond
Hangar Talk
3
07-15-2009 03:29 PM
N2rotation
Regional
12
04-07-2008 06:29 PM
blastboy
Pilot Health
9
03-21-2007 07:00 PM
SGRogue
Cargo
17
01-19-2007 03:19 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices