FDXLAG

VEBA is an IRS term and 25K is covered by it. This is the reason the $25K was laundered through the other VEBA account before it goes to the recipient.

Daniel Larusso

By that definition of ND, I would agree with you JJ, but my definition and the one I seem to gather from those on the line, item 2 should be 60+, not 50 and with a heavy focus on those who came back up front. Also there's a lot of scorn for those who clearly don't need to be here financially. I say that not to go round and round about topics beaten down pretty well when Age 65 was still an official debate, but with respect to the discussion on whether the vast majority of us will be ND's one day or not. If 65 becomes the normal retirement age in the contract, I still say that the view will be that most will not be ND's. That is of course pending what 'gets' would come along with changing the normal retirement age(i.e. penalty or not for going at 60, extended yos benefit, multiplier changes, lump sum options, etc)

DLax85

JJ -

I respectfully disagree with each of these:

1) There's always been super senior folks that are the top of the seniority list ---- and there always will be. Some in fact, may be "relatively" young due to the age they were hired at FEDEX --- they're certainly not NDs.

2) Anyone over 50? Come on, JJ. You know that's not true --- once again, guys flying in their 50s has been the norm for years. Flying past 60...65...70...especially, at airlines with an A-plan are clearly what folks are referring too.

3) A Captain? Well, perhaps expanded to included Capts since 2008 when SOs started to "reclaim" their front seats --- but the term most certainly was focused on guys who moved to the back at 60...and stay beyond 65, when other programs like Social Security and Medicare kick in.

I am not defending the term, or some of the angst directed at this group, but let's not try to paint the picture that folks are referring to senior Capt's in their 50s --- I just don't buy it.

HIFLYR

If the union really did intend for the 25000 to get guys to go at
60, then you would only get the money if you retired. If you stayed
then the amount would be reduced by 5000 per year.

1st overnite

I agree 100%, but I was told it would be discrimination if that was the case.

FDXLAG

Was the guy who told you that over 53 on the dos?

Busboy

It was 53, before Jan. 01, 2007. Not DOS. We have at least one guy that missed it by one day. His 53rd b-day was 1/01/2007.

Of course, the idea was that we would continue this practice in the future contracts. We'll see, huh? Actually, I'd be all for it, if it had penalties for not leaving.

FDXLAG

How about all the money gets thrown into a pot and split evenly by all the guys who actually go at 60. That would be one rich dude.

nakazawa

If crew members at age 60 down-bid to the panel rather than retiring - both legitimate choices, why weren't those crew members seat frozen for two years, just as any other crew member would be for a 'down-bid'? The panel wasn't their only choice, it just happened to be the option they selected.

Jetjok

FDXLAG: I hope I'm still around when those of you who have complained so loudly and so often about guys either moving back to a window seat (from a sideways facing seat) or electing to continue to fly past 60, finally reach that age and have to make the decision to retire or to continue to work. As for splitting a pot of money for guys who elect to retire, good luck, because initially the reason for that subsidy was to help guys offset medical expenses between their retirement at age 60, and when they could start participating in Medicare. So with the new rule that allows guys to work until they're 65, you're suggesting that guys who retire early (prior to age 65) be rewarded with a subsidy, even though they now have the right to continue to work. It seems to be comparing apples and oranges. The wrinkle that has your panties in a wad is that those of us who met the criteria were given that "bank" of money, and yet when the rule changed, some elected to continue to work. I wholeheartedly agree that guys who were given the pot of gold and continued to work past 60 should have that pot recovered and split fairly amongst those who paid into it. However, I believe the whole thing was just another case of a good idea, that unfortunately had very bad timing.

Nakazawa: prior to the age 65 ruling, when someone turned 60 their two choices were to either retire or move to a back seat (I'm not including any management positions that might have been available, because the normal crew dog didn't have that option). I don't believe there was a "down-bid" to accomplish that, you simply called your flight admin person and told them your intentions. So what I'm saying is that I don't believe a freeze was required. However, today, if someone younger than 65 executes a down-bid, I believe they'd be frozen for the mandatory time.

JJ