Joe Depete (United)
#111
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 579
The president's salary has remained relatively constant with minor tweaks for decades. If he had told the BOD he planned on retiring from FedEx it would not have made a lick of difference in the salary he was going to get from ALPA. Just because you are getting a military pension the airlines don't say "oh, since you're getting $5k a month in retirement income we'll just knock off a few dollars from your airline pay. O.K.?"
Also, he has deferred the retirement income until his term is over and no longer accrues years of service nor does he get to add to his FedEx 401k. I'm not sure I see where you guys think he somehow dramatically increased his income. Can someone please show me the language they are looking at that makes this an increase.
Also, he has deferred the retirement income until his term is over and no longer accrues years of service nor does he get to add to his FedEx 401k. I'm not sure I see where you guys think he somehow dramatically increased his income. Can someone please show me the language they are looking at that makes this an increase.
The theory of the salary determination in the bylaws is clear, if a pilot who is making and living on $250,000/year is forced to take a leave of absence to serve this post, it is reasonable that the membership should support the pay that is being missed out on from his normal employment. It is not intended to be a windfall which goes above and beyond otherwise expected earnings.
The severity of the act depends upon what the BOD would have decided had they all of the relevant information at hand, according to the bylaws, when considering his salary. They could have kept the salary exactly where it is. Or, they could have decided on a lower salary given that the pilot was not on LOA without any other income pertaining to his pilot career. None of us know the answer to that, since the BOD was not provided with all of the relevant information to make their determination.
Again, disingenuous at best (assuming BOD would have decided same salary if given all of the relevant information), and outright fraud at worst (assuming BOD would have opted for a lower salary to compensate pilot only for that portion of his regular expected earnings missed out on in service of post). Going back to your scenario of a regular pilot and an airline, if such language existed under the same circumstances I can guarantee you that your legal department would consider it fraud.
#112
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
FollowMe, since you speak as if you know specifics, can you tell me when the board of directors has ever reduced the president's pay because he was either getting retirement income, or deferred it until the end of his term? Have they reduced pay because someone was getting years of service credit? I'm not sure why you think they would have reduced pay, as I thought the point was to establish a minimum pay, not to pay the absolute minimum by reducing salary as much as possible.
It seems to me that if this was a problem with the BOD, they could vote for changes. Why don't you ask someone on the BOD if they would have reduced his salary, and now that things have changed, are they? Better than speculation and accusations.
It seems to me that if this was a problem with the BOD, they could vote for changes. Why don't you ask someone on the BOD if they would have reduced his salary, and now that things have changed, are they? Better than speculation and accusations.
#113
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 579
FollowMe, since you speak as if you know specifics, can you tell me when the board of directors has ever reduced the president's pay because he was either getting retirement income, or deferred it until the end of his term? Have they reduced pay because someone was getting years of service credit? I'm not sure why you think they would have reduced pay, as I thought the point was to establish a minimum pay, not to pay the absolute minimum by reducing salary as much as possible.
It seems to me that if this was a problem with the BOD, they could vote for changes. Why don't you ask someone on the BOD if they would have reduced his salary, and now that things have changed, are they? Better than speculation and accusations.
It seems to me that if this was a problem with the BOD, they could vote for changes. Why don't you ask someone on the BOD if they would have reduced his salary, and now that things have changed, are they? Better than speculation and accusations.
You can shout "THEY WOULDN'T HAVE CHANGED THE SALARY" until you are blue in the face, and I could even stipulate to that fact. All that would prove is the best case scenario, that his actions were disingenuous.
Since we are in the speculation game, if deferring his retirement gains him zero dollars in retirement benefit, and the BOD stood zero chance of adjusting the salary downward, what possible motivation could there be for the deferral? Opportunity cost alone would call this an unwise financial move, not the type of foresight I'd look for in an organizations leader.
#115
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
To add, because I think you don't understand....you get an increased pension benefit if you defer your pension. So if you had another job where you were making a good income, or your spouse did, it could be a useful thing to defer your pension. It's kind of like social security, if you take it ASAP after retiring, you get the base amount, if you wait, you get more. You're taking a gamble on your lifespan, and any FedEx pilot can do this.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post