Fedex Pilots proposed retirement plan
11-11-2017, 07:53 PM
#581
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 503
Day turn brief thoughts
I'll try to hit some quick point real quick and in no real order.
My overall impression was the briefers tried to use lots of terms and phrases that are new and not well understood by the listeners. That right away reduces questions because we don't understand the material well enough to ask a smart question and as pilots we hate to look dumb.
Second, the briefers. I thought KB sounded very smart but was trying as hard as he could to sell this new proposal before he moves on. Numerous examples he gave of new vs old where he just changed the "given facts" when comparing the two plans. PM was just condescending and if he did not like the question he would move on to another person without really answering the question or speak down to the person asking. Unless he knew the person, then at times he would use a slightly degrading comedic comment about the person during his answer, making everyone chuckle at the person asking the question. Really turned off by his approach.
What seemed to be briefed. The Meat of plan. Let me try and describe by referencing how to build a house. The new plan will be built on as gravel/paver base of "trust us". I cannot express how often that was the answer or the implied answer. Then they poured a foundation of our current A plan is really bad and we should be scared to have a plan where 1/3 of our employee retirement plan is guaranteed by the company. (by 1/3 I mean the triad of A fund, B fund and 401k). Then they built a house that resembles a maze with lots of mirrors. And those mirrors to make it really hard to see exactly what the house looks like. They used terms like hurdle rate and replacement ratios and make whole and version 2.0 to reflect your vision. Then they blew some fun smoke through the house with fun phrases like PBGC and rates of return. All and all if you like a good carnival I'd say buy a ticket and visit the new Variable Annuity Defined Benefit Plan briefing.
The bottom line for what I saw so far, if you do not trust them 100% then it's really hard to accept that our current plan is doomed. If you think our current plan is pretty good but would be better with some improvements then you have a bad foundation for building their fun house on.
A couple interesting points that are now being floated around in crew room by other MEC members but NOT by those briefing. 1. The MEC expected us to vote down the last contract and they could not believe that we passed it. 2. The company offered us an increase to the $260 number during the last contract negotiation, but improving that number came with unacceptable conditions for new hires. I'd heard rumbles about the 2nd point but the first one I found to be some serious revisionist history considering how hard they sold the TA. We are now being blamed for passing the TA.
My overall impression was the briefers tried to use lots of terms and phrases that are new and not well understood by the listeners. That right away reduces questions because we don't understand the material well enough to ask a smart question and as pilots we hate to look dumb.
Second, the briefers. I thought KB sounded very smart but was trying as hard as he could to sell this new proposal before he moves on. Numerous examples he gave of new vs old where he just changed the "given facts" when comparing the two plans. PM was just condescending and if he did not like the question he would move on to another person without really answering the question or speak down to the person asking. Unless he knew the person, then at times he would use a slightly degrading comedic comment about the person during his answer, making everyone chuckle at the person asking the question. Really turned off by his approach.
What seemed to be briefed. The Meat of plan. Let me try and describe by referencing how to build a house. The new plan will be built on as gravel/paver base of "trust us". I cannot express how often that was the answer or the implied answer. Then they poured a foundation of our current A plan is really bad and we should be scared to have a plan where 1/3 of our employee retirement plan is guaranteed by the company. (by 1/3 I mean the triad of A fund, B fund and 401k). Then they built a house that resembles a maze with lots of mirrors. And those mirrors to make it really hard to see exactly what the house looks like. They used terms like hurdle rate and replacement ratios and make whole and version 2.0 to reflect your vision. Then they blew some fun smoke through the house with fun phrases like PBGC and rates of return. All and all if you like a good carnival I'd say buy a ticket and visit the new Variable Annuity Defined Benefit Plan briefing.
The bottom line for what I saw so far, if you do not trust them 100% then it's really hard to accept that our current plan is doomed. If you think our current plan is pretty good but would be better with some improvements then you have a bad foundation for building their fun house on.
A couple interesting points that are now being floated around in crew room by other MEC members but NOT by those briefing. 1. The MEC expected us to vote down the last contract and they could not believe that we passed it. 2. The company offered us an increase to the $260 number during the last contract negotiation, but improving that number came with unacceptable conditions for new hires. I'd heard rumbles about the 2nd point but the first one I found to be some serious revisionist history considering how hard they sold the TA. We are now being blamed for passing the TA.
11-11-2017, 08:36 PM
#582
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,989
11-12-2017, 03:45 AM
#583
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: B767/CPT
Posts: 56
This is worth repeating.
Monetary increases in the last contract were estimated at $1.67B.
After you remove funds dedicated for wage increases, retro pay, and B Plan increases, 63% of all remaining funds went to retirees in the form of sick buyback and advance notice of retirement payouts. Now we are being asked to consider a proposal where the same group will definitely benefit, and the remaining members are left with a plan filled with unknowns.
Monetary increases in the last contract were estimated at $1.67B.
After you remove funds dedicated for wage increases, retro pay, and B Plan increases, 63% of all remaining funds went to retirees in the form of sick buyback and advance notice of retirement payouts. Now we are being asked to consider a proposal where the same group will definitely benefit, and the remaining members are left with a plan filled with unknowns.
11-12-2017, 04:18 AM
#584
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 503
Oh yeah, that was mentioned, that if the plan has problems those pilots with over 25 years and over 58 (I think they said) will be made whole first. Then funds will be spread out evenly. I believe that is the jist of what they were trying to impact.
11-12-2017, 05:05 AM
#585
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
11-12-2017, 05:17 AM
#587
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: Two Wheeler FrontSeat
Posts: 1,162
LMBO, if you only knew sir. However from what I remember, you were one of the advocates for the TA. You voted for it without improvements to the A Plan.
11-12-2017, 05:50 AM
#588
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Fetal in the hub
Posts: 414
This pilot group has far far too many folks in it who think this way.
It is why we cannot have nice things.
11-12-2017, 06:40 AM
#589
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,989
I don't like you using my quote to throw mud on an individual here.
We all got a vote and who can blame anyone for doing what they thought was best for themselves and their family. I'm sure there are some who now regret their decision but plenty who don't and that's okay.
However, there are consequences that come with their vote. Lack of A-plan improvements being a big one. Now some aren't willing to own those consequences and that's where I'm having a pretty big problem. IMO, this attempt to change our retirement now is a big mistake. This course of action has just as much potential to divide our pilot group as the "b-scale" like suggestion by the company to move new-hires into another retirement system. Maybe that's not as big a concern as the NC lead us to believe as long as the eventual majority without an A-plan can't vote to end it for those who still do.
I'm getting pretty tired of these age dependent benefits used to make individuals "whole" under the assumption that those younger will benefit by virtue of longevity. So, 58 is the new magic number in this latest discussion? Tough luck for the 57.9 year old at DOS, just like the guys at age 53.9 when we signed two years ago. How long does a younger pilot have to work for these assumptions to be remotely valid? Is he going to be "whole" if he chooses to retire at age 60 with 25 YOS as he planned to when he got hired? Or is it now going to be expected that he has to stay to the bitter end because that's what most of our senior leadership plans to do? As we began negotiating CBA 2015, I seem to recall some serious concerns about age 60 and a pledge to avoid penalizing those who planned to stick with the plan they formulated when they were hired.
I have no desire to work until I'm 65. I'm sure as hell not willing to be put in a situation that forces me to do that just so I can retire with what I'll have at 60 under our current plan.
We all got a vote and who can blame anyone for doing what they thought was best for themselves and their family. I'm sure there are some who now regret their decision but plenty who don't and that's okay.
However, there are consequences that come with their vote. Lack of A-plan improvements being a big one. Now some aren't willing to own those consequences and that's where I'm having a pretty big problem. IMO, this attempt to change our retirement now is a big mistake. This course of action has just as much potential to divide our pilot group as the "b-scale" like suggestion by the company to move new-hires into another retirement system. Maybe that's not as big a concern as the NC lead us to believe as long as the eventual majority without an A-plan can't vote to end it for those who still do.
I'm getting pretty tired of these age dependent benefits used to make individuals "whole" under the assumption that those younger will benefit by virtue of longevity. So, 58 is the new magic number in this latest discussion? Tough luck for the 57.9 year old at DOS, just like the guys at age 53.9 when we signed two years ago. How long does a younger pilot have to work for these assumptions to be remotely valid? Is he going to be "whole" if he chooses to retire at age 60 with 25 YOS as he planned to when he got hired? Or is it now going to be expected that he has to stay to the bitter end because that's what most of our senior leadership plans to do? As we began negotiating CBA 2015, I seem to recall some serious concerns about age 60 and a pledge to avoid penalizing those who planned to stick with the plan they formulated when they were hired.
I have no desire to work until I'm 65. I'm sure as hell not willing to be put in a situation that forces me to do that just so I can retire with what I'll have at 60 under our current plan.
11-12-2017, 07:17 AM
#590
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
....I'm getting pretty tired of these age dependent benefits used to make individuals "whole" under the assumption that those younger will benefit by virtue of longevity. So, 58 is the new magic number in this latest discussion?
Tough luck for the 57.9 year old at DOS, just like the guys at age 53.9 when we signed two years ago. How long does a younger pilot have to work for these assumptions to be remotely valid?
Is he going to be "whole" if he chooses to retire at age 60 with 25 YOS as he planned to when he got hired?
Or is it now going to be expected that he has to stay to the bitter end because that's what most of our senior leadership plans to do?
As we began negotiating CBA 2015, I seem to recall some serious concerns about age 60 and a pledge to avoid penalizing those who planned to stick with the plan they formulated when they were hired.
I have no desire to work until I'm 65. I'm sure as hell not willing to be put in a situation that forces me to do that just so I can retire with what I'll have at 60 under our current plan.
Tough luck for the 57.9 year old at DOS, just like the guys at age 53.9 when we signed two years ago. How long does a younger pilot have to work for these assumptions to be remotely valid?
Is he going to be "whole" if he chooses to retire at age 60 with 25 YOS as he planned to when he got hired?
Or is it now going to be expected that he has to stay to the bitter end because that's what most of our senior leadership plans to do?
As we began negotiating CBA 2015, I seem to recall some serious concerns about age 60 and a pledge to avoid penalizing those who planned to stick with the plan they formulated when they were hired.
I have no desire to work until I'm 65. I'm sure as hell not willing to be put in a situation that forces me to do that just so I can retire with what I'll have at 60 under our current plan.
I don’t care if guys want to work until 65 - or chase the fly-to-you die, don’t call in sick, don’t use your vacation, bonus money
The extra 5 years of work won’t increase your longevity 5 years
Since the regulated age change FedEx has enjoyed many guys working 5 years longer and a 5 year decrease in A fund payouts
That’s had to generate savings fir FedEx on both ends!
Freezing the current benefit to switch to a VB plan will greatly disadvantage many who haven’t attained their high 5 or max YOS, especially those with less than 10 years until desired retirement
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
