Quote:
Originally Posted by DangaZone
As an outsider, I certainly appreciate Albie's well-thought out opinions. He had to know he was opening himself up to criticism from those who would disagree, yet he laid out *his* reasoning for everyone to see and dissect.
Also, as an outsider, it is disappointing to see some FedEx pilots advocating for what essentially would be a B-scale retirement plan for newhires in order to bolster the benefit of pilots already on property. FedEx might be the only ALPA carrier accepting newhires into an defined benefit plan but FedEx also didn't take the same trip through bankruptcy that others did, and has both shown and forecast continual growth in both revenue and income.
It would be educational if someone could show how big a "cash over cap" DC fund a youngish (say, 35) newhire would need in order to exceed the retirement income of joint DB/DC offered in the current TA.
You've hit the crux of the matter. No one wants the combination of our retirement to go away. But, we are faced with a NC that says the A plan is done for, merely by the inaction of removing the CBA cap. They say it's the company line in the sand. Our union said we were going to fix retirement and carry new hires on it. If they suddenly say that's not possible I'm faced with a simple choice: 1) keep new hires on it and see no improvement for those on property, or 2) new hires go on a B fund and we fix retirement for those on property.
If you believe the NC, then continuing the A plan with no fix makes no sense and we do a disservice to everyone on and future hires to continue the charade. LAG has argued that it was going to die for a long time (I know that's a simplification LAG.) Retaining new hires while failing to fix it is a poor solution.
On the other hand, if you don't believe the negotiating committee that this is all we are going to get, I would think you would be a definite no voter.
I think the analogy you make that it's a B scale is false. That would only be true if we dropped new hires, fixed the A plan for those on property, and did nothing else. No one is advocating that. It's a B fund increase or some creative combo of things that would replace it for new hires. (And no, I don't have the numbers to present to you, I'm arguing the concept.)
A poster in another thread ran calculations and his military retirement will be more valuable than the A plan not too many years after the end of this contract because it has a COLA effectively.
I'm basing what I say on union polls, union comments, research, etc from 2010 on this issue. It's easy to suppose this is a B scale for new hires, but it's much more complicated when you're talking our livelihoods for pilots who have bled purple for 10, 15, or even 25 years. We don't deserve an improved retirement, we've earned it. If it's changed for new hires, they will sign on knowing full well the change and frankly, I suspect many would be quite happy with a large B fund for them to control and invest.