Forgot to mention in my previous post, the MEC Chairman blamed many of the current events that feel like losses not on the contract but on the company hiring a consulting firm to find efficiencies in the contract that were always there but the company wasn’t previously exploiting. I thought the MEC Chair was being genuine though I disagree on some levels. Many of the items being exploited are completely exploitable due to language in CBA 2015 that didn’t exist before.

-UA

Did they hire outsiders or one outsider that just happens to be pushing a product?

And what do they think will happen in the future? The company going to just sit back and stop trying to find efficiencies? Talk about naive. How bout we learn from our mistakes and stop repeating them?

I don’t disagree with you. I’m in favor of more thoroughly stress testing our language with legal experts and pilots alike. I think we have failed in that regard to this point.

There was a disconnect between “the company is taking advantage of us” and “we think we can make this retirement deal air tight” and there seems to be animosity if you question why they feel this way. I agree with you there.

-UA

I thought one of the goals of the 2015 contract was to "tighten up the language"?

Just another failure by "my" union.

We gave away the store, and the union sold it to us as a good deal.

Just like they are doing right now.

I can't believe the MEC does not understand why we don't trust them.

Once again, here is the modeler preamble:

By clicking “Agree”, you acknowledge the following:
Use of this product is restricted to authorized FedEx Pilots, members of FDX Master Executive Council (MEC) and employees of Air Line Pilots Association. This product is offered as part of the FDX MEC’s ongoing education campaign concerning the variable defined benefit concept under consideration. This product is not offered for the purpose of financial, retirement planning, or legal advice. Various aspects of the variable defined benefit concept are subject to negotiation. Various assumptions have been made for the purpose of making the product operational and not as a representation concerning any final plan design. Estimates shown in this product rely on future demographic and economic experience conforming to the underlying assumptions and methods. To the extent actual experience deviates from the underlying assumptions and methods, or there are any changes in plan provisions or applicable laws, the estimates would vary accordingly. As such, users may not rely on the estimates as their actual retirement benefit.
Cheiron, Inc. owns all intellectual property rights in this product. Use of this product is subject to monitoring. Any unauthorized use of this product, including any attempt to modify, adapt, recreate, duplicate, reproduce, reverse engineer, “unlock,” decompile, combine or disassemble the product, is strictly prohibited. Use of this product does not create any third party rights in any user, and Cheiron assumes no duty or liability to any user. Cheiron disclaims all warranties with respect to the product, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, performance, quality, informational accuracy, and non-infringement. In no event shall Cheiron be liable to any user for any indirect, special, incidental, economic, or consequential loss or injury of any nature arising out of or caused in whole or in part by the use of this product.
AGREE REJECT

So you believe that the union saying that this solves the companies accounting problem means that it save the company money? Why not just ask that question?

I have asked, and the NC told me that this plan is actually more expensive than the current A plan. He also told me that they think that the company will like this because they will always know what they have to put into the plan because it can't be underfunded. In other words, according to PM, the company will never be required to make a large contribution during a down market because the plan can't be underfunded.

I did ask how that would work with the floor guarantee. He didn't follow. So I asked what would happen if the value of the plan fell below the floor guarantee. He said that the company would have to provide money to get it to the floor guarantee.

Now wait, doesn't that contradict what he said about the plan never being underfunded?

It's those exact kind of contradictory statements that result in us losing grievances and the contract not being what the union sells. The union only tells us what they want to believe, not what the language actually says.

Just show some courage and vote "NO." Tell the union and the company that we are willing to fight for the retirement the we deserve, not the one that came off the "sales rack."

That question was asked yesterday and they didn’t indicate the proposed plan was more expensive than the current A plan. They indicated that the timing of costs are different but also said that they could not comment much further due to confidential information needing to be protected.

Furthermore, I agree with you. Loose language is a major issue to me. That’s why I mentioned in an earlier post that we should be stress testing all language and going back to the table when the stress test indicates failure.

-UA

Yes, the timing of the costs are different, but that doesn't mean that the VB plan isn't more expensive than the current A plan. Unless they unequivocally said that the VB plan isn't more expensive or cheaper, or even the same cost as the current A plan, they avoided the question.

If you think that the VB plan isn't more costly, then explain how a 5% ROI with the same or lower investment dollars can yield more than the current company average ROI of over 6%. Furthermore, the plan requires the company to contribute a fixed percentage of the pilot payroll every year. If the pilot payroll increases every year, which it does unless there is a reduction in flying, the company contribution increase every year. In 23 years, the contribution would be double what the contribution is today.

It's funny how many things they won't say because it's proprietary information. Did they also mention that FedEx has made greater contributions to the A plan for the last 5 or 6 years than required? That sounds like it is a real hardship for them.

Why are we spending our dues money to solve a problem for the company and then accepting pennies on the dollar in return? The VB plan as proposed by the MEC to the crew force still falls way short of the 50% of final income replacement during retirement that the union said was their goal. When the first contract was signed, the top pay rate was around $200 per hour. If you multiplied that by 1000 hours, you get an income of $200,000. So that retirement of $130,000 was 65% of the highest pay rate. Now they are looking to replace it with something in the 35% range and we take all of the investment risk. No thank you! Get the retirement back up to at least 50% with no risk to us, and then we can talk!

Yeah, that "dude" (Retired Marine, fellow FDX pilot and ALPA volunteer) is currently out flying the line as a 777 Captain!

Why do our pilots throw guys like him under the bus? When has it become a sin to actually volunteer to help out and serve our pilots?

Walk a mile in a man's shoes first. Better yet, send me a private message and I'll be happy to share your contact info with him so he can share his flying schedule with you.

How about MLB...there's has been in place since 1947!