Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

FedEx and Pilots reach TA !!!!

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Gearup727 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason the B-Fund came into existence in the airline industry was because pilots have to retire at age 60. I guess at the time age 65 was the normal retirement age. They were not able to acrue retirement for those 5 years like other professions. So the IRS allowed pilots companies to create and contribute to the B-Funds. If pilots are allowed to go to age 65 I could see the rational for the B-Fund not being allowed by the IRS. I'm not tring to hijack the thread but this back and forth on the B-Fund may become a mute point when the age 65 goes into effect.

Sounds like one more reason not to change the age.
 
Gearup727 said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but the only reason the B-Fund came into existence in the airline industry was because pilots have to retire at age 60. I guess at the time age 65 was the normal retirement age. They were not able to acrue retirement for those 5 years like other professions. So the IRS allowed pilots companies to create and contribute to the B-Funds. If pilots are allowed to go to age 65 I could see the rational for the B-Fund not being allowed by the IRS. I'm not tring to hijack the thread but this back and forth on the B-Fund may become a mute point when the age 65 goes into effect.

Tax law is written by the Congress, not the IRS. Today the move is toward more Defined Contribution plans (B Plans), not Defined Benefit plans (A Plans).
 
If your Negotiating Committee truly speaks for you as most of you have said, you should be voting yes without even looking at the TA.
I know I will vote yes, those guys are true heros. Wouldn't it be great if the vote came in at 95% pass. This would send a true messasge that the Negotiators do truly speak for us. Congrats to all!!!​
 
Brian a300 said:
If your Negotiating Committee truly speaks for you as most of you have said, you should be voting yes without even looking at the TA.
I know I will vote yes, those guys are true heros. Wouldn't it be great if the vote came in at 95% pass. This would send a true messasge that the Negotiators do truly speak for us. Congrats to all!!!​

LOL! I love you P3 guys, the eternal optimists.

Screw it, I'm with ya, where's my ballot?
 
Brian a300 said:
If your Negotiating Committee truly speaks for you as most of you have said, you should be voting yes without even looking at the TA.​



I know I will vote yes, those guys are true heros. Wouldn't it be great if the vote came in at 95% pass. This would send a true message that the Negotiators do truly speak for us. Congrats to all!!!​

Our MEC has not released the TA to the members. They themselves may not have had a chance to review its language. At that point they will release it to the members along with their "vote recommendation".

The days of the home run died with Delta's contract before 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Brian a300 said:
If your Negotiating Committee truly speaks for you as most of you have said, you should be voting yes without even looking at the TA.


I know I will vote yes, those guys are true heros. Wouldn't it be great if the vote came in at 95% pass. This would send a true messasge that the Negotiators do truly speak for us. Congrats to all!!!​
I disagree. There is a reason for the membership vote..one of which being that our negotiating commitee had to make some compromises.

Be a responsible union member, read the TA, discuss, and then vote. If you vote no be prepared to walk...if you vote yes...no more bitchin for 4 years about the contract.

Oh...a 95% vote sends the message that the company gave in to easily. Their goal is 51%...the crappiest deal that 1% over 50% would accept.
 
Just curious... where'd the 7% retro figure come from?
 

Latest resources

Back
Top