The problem lies in Guarantee\per year.

As I understand the premise of a VB, There IS a built in Guarantee, and what that Guarantee Level is would depend upon what We negotiate. What level of Investment Risk We collectively decide we could tolerate. Minimal Risk could likely equate to a Guarantee near or At the 130k, but that would mean minimal Reward above the 130k level as well.

And Anyone with even a resemblance of fiduciary duty will pretty much never use the word Guarantee anywhere near any Investment...and I would recommend Running, not Walking, from any Advisor that Does Guarantee a return.

I can Guarantee that Stocks historically return better than Bonds and better than Cash, but there have been periods of time where the Reverse is true as well.

But I know where I want to place my Chips

One could argue that we have the most expensive pension in the industry and it is why our wages are slightly lower, our B Plan is slightly lower, and our A plan is capped and frozen at the same level since 1996. At least one could make that argument if they were at all interested in educating us on how much our plan actually costs. But they consider their role to be salesmen not educators.

Finally you agree they are selling something? 😏 By the way the lower wage have nothing to do with having an A plan. It’s a result of what you and many others voted for.

Who farted?

Again, you are not a FedEx pilot. Why do you feel the need to be such a troll? Now go pop some more zits.

If the company makes a fixed contribution based on payroll, as pointed out in the latest video at 8:35, how can there be a guaranteed level?

The only guarantee level this plan has is what the PBGC pays out. This is the same with the current plan.

If that makes you sleep better at night. In the end, we are all in this together. We all will be affected if the union continue along this dumb path.

The current plan pays a guaranteed level unless some pretty dire circumstances come to pass and the PBGC steps in. Not quite the same case as the variable plan which, in addition to the risks guaranteed by the PBCG, must also weather the vagaries of the market which might result in a lower pay out even without the PBGC.

I totally agree. I was commenting on the statement that the VB plan had a guaranteed payout level, which is not true. Sorry if referencing the PBGC caused confusion.

The point being stressed was that if you don't have your high 5 and 25 years of service yet, and your current benefit is say, $100K per year. IF left alone you could get your high 5 and 25 and have a benefit of $130K and it WOULD be guaranteed (short of bankruptcy or being negotiated away (imagine that!)). Question was could they guarantee that you would be able to make at least $130K guaranteed in the new system of combining your current frozen $100K and the new variable benefit amount (which would be subject to market forces).

The answer was clearly NO, but it was painful to watch KB struggle with his inability to admit this and instead tell us how it almost, nearly 99%, all but guaranteed, the market always goes up, dogs would have to sleep with cats, end of the world type stuff only could prevent you from getting $130K.

Yet they claim they are not selling this plan. His claim is that our risk of losing the current A plan due to FedEx going bankrupt is orders of magnitude greater than the risk of the market ever declining. BUT, in the unlikely event it ever did, especially just before you were forced to retire at age 65, you could always defer your retirement a few years while the market recovered and then start your benefits. So we would have that going for us, which is good.