Hacker15e

The far, far more important question is if The Company was already planning on this and has other work in plans for that loss of business.

MEMA300

Maybe the dont want to carrying USPS mail so when they ask to be released there are fewer reasons to say no.

JackStraw

Are you serious?

JustInFacts

So you would prefer Fedex to sign contracts that loses money, as long as fligh hours aren't reduced? That is rhetorical, because I'm sure that you realize that if the company operated that way, you would be much more likely to lose your job than if they continued with a contract that encompassed less than 3% of all revenue and was actually losing money. It has been pointed out that the contract has shrunk from $2.3 billion in revenue to $1.73 billion in revenue from the beggining of this last contract. That is a 25% reduction. It has also been pointed out that the company lost $400 million in 2023 on the contract.

P-3Bubba

I agree that just accepting a substandard USPS contract may not be as lucrative but there’s no doubt this is going to have repercussions. We’ve lost flying. They may find more freight that is less volume and equal revenue but I think we’re on the ropes here with staffing and leverage to negotiate without a USPS contract. I think guys are going to be put on the street. ~500.

-Bubs

Stan446

I disagree. We don't know what the company long term projections are, but FX doesn't release any info until the deal is done. How many rumors have we heard about getting new airplanes, base closures, etc, until the last minute. The company isn't posturing with potential revenue streams, just to get a better TA for the company. Its almost 9 months since the TA was rejected, and yet, 800 guys aren't gone.

Cocoloco

They are not gone because of the Contract. Until the reduced hours hit the thresold, they can't.

Sluggo_63

Wow... you seem a bit sensitive about this subject. Personal attacks aside, did you read what I wrote?
That was never in question. My post you quoted acknowledged that you negotiated the FDA increase, but did not negotiate an increase to the FAE portion.

Now, I could post "Are you really that stupid not to be capable of reading an APC post?" But, I won't.

I'll just ask you the question again...

Why didn't UPS improve the 1% FAE multiplier to increase their pension and instead went the route of the FDA pension?

Does it?
UPS Captain w/30 years: $139,500
FedEx Captain w/30 years: $130,000

UPS Captain w/25 years: $116,250
FedEx Captain w/25 years: $130,000

UPS FO w/30 years: $111,600
FedEx FO w/30 years: $130,000

UPS FO w/25 years: $93,000
FedEx FO w/25 years: $130,000

FDX ALPA has no plans of abandoning our pension either. IPA abandoned the FAE part of your A-plan, letting that die a slow death, just like we may devise an alternative to the FAE (like you guys did with the FDA). Time will tell, but I'll tell you this, any TA that does not have a DB plan will more than likely get shot down.

Moneybags

Thank you. The UPS route is not the answer.

BoilerUP

IPA didn't increase the FAE percentage for the same reason that FDX ALPA is seeing now - the costs associated with increasing FAE skew contract value heavily toward deferred retirement compensation. The 1% FAE is still there and still funded for all, but the FDA is only funded for a decade at a time - reducing the cost and allowing contract value to be distributed elsewhere (ie. a higher defined contribution percentage). It requires expending negotiating capital each contract cycle to extend and improve it, but it has been extended and has been improved three times.

FDX adopting a $6600/YOS flat dollar amount would ensure the 2% FAE remains for all while providing the same DB benefit as TA1, and increasing it $200 each amendable date provides somewhat of a hedge against inflation. Contract value could then be shifted toward a higher DC and Cash-Over-Cap.

It isn't a panacea, and it may not be "the" way forward for FDX pilots, but it IS a viable means to meet the desires of both those soon to retire AND those with decades before retirement while maintaining a diversified DB/DC retirement scheme that doesn't provide a fissure point for the pilot group.