JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[gulfcoast1]

Sure. Didn't say the TWA folks were the only ones affected, just the most affected.

It will also be an interesting situation being they were represented by the IAM and their seniority arbitration allowed them to credit their TWA service as LAA Company seniority.

Company seniority is what LAA uses to bid vacation. So in MIA, for instance, their occupational seniority is 4/10/01 but their Company seniority could in the 1970's and 1980's.

If the JCBA eliminates the current mechanism used by LAA in exchange for the IAM mechanism in LUS, those former TWA members could lose 20-30 years of Company seniority which they've carried at LAA for the last 16 years.

I don't know how many Legacy TW Fleet Service Clerks there are, but someone said about 400. My point was if this number is correct, I am almost certain there are a lot more than 400 Legacy AA Clerks with more Company Seniority than Occupational Seniority who will be affected adversely. It will affect all Legacy TW Clerks yes, but it will affect a higher total number of LAA Clerks.

 

[NYer]

I don't know how many Legacy TW Fleet Service Clerks there are, but someone said about 400. My point was if this number is correct, I am almost certain there are a lot more than 400 Legacy AA Clerks with more Company Seniority than Occupational Seniority who will be affected adversely. It will affect all Legacy TW Clerks yes, but it will affect a higher total number of LAA Clerks.

Don't believe anyone is disputing others will also be affected.

 

[FWAAA]

Thanks. Ok, here is the scenario, Employee A and Employee B work until December 31st, 2025, then retire. They both have $400,000 in their 401k's. For sake of rounding, both make $40 per hour, both make $80,000 for the year. They get a choice on January 1st, 2018 to either take 10% match for 401k or $4.00 per hour towards pension ($40x10%=$4). Employee A takes 401k and invests $8,000 and gets $8000 match. Employee B takes pension, invests $8000 into their 401k, doesn't get match because they took pension.

Employee A would have $860,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3583/mo.

Employee B would have $770,000 assuming 7% returns. He takes 5% of that out per year which would equal $3208/mo. Also, $150.41x8 years for pension would equal $1203/mo. That would total $4411/mo.

About the bolded parts:

$8,000 per year of contributions to the IAMPF pension ($4/hr x 2000 hrs) for 8 years at 7% equals $85,500 of total contributions. But your post says that at retirement, the pension will pay a monthly annuity of $1,203/mo. If that worker is 65 years old, then that annuity has a present value (at 7%) of about $141,000. How can the IAMPF afford to pay a retirement benefit worth $141k to a retiree whose company contributed just $$85,500? No wonder the IAMPF has had money trouble.

 

[pjirish317]

It may be.

Since vacations are station specific, is it possible there could be the ability to use the IAM methods in IAM represented stations and the TWU method in TWU stations?

In LAA Fleet, most have the same Occupational and Company time. If they go with the current IAM language the most negatively affected would the former TWA Members who could lose the use of decades of Company Seniority they were able to grandfather from their TWA careers.

In Maintenance, there would be many more affected since they have many that transfered into those classifications. Those transfers restarted their occupational seniority clocks while they're in maintenance, but they kept their Company seniority for vacation bidding.

I suppose they could, but why would they do that really? It would be much much easier to bid everything by one date. The other thing is how we accrue vacations. LUS earns the time the same year we use the vacation time, and as I understand LAA accrues the year prior. Is this an accurate statement? Personally I like the way LUS does it, but that's just because I am used to it, and honestly it works. But either way will be interesting to see which way it goes.

 

[NYer]

I suppose they could, but why would they do that really? It would be much much easier to bid everything by one date. The other thing is how we accrue vacations. LUS earns the time the same year we use the vacation time, and as I understand LAA accrues the year prior. Is this an accurate statement? Personally I like the way LUS does it, but that's just because I am used to it, and honestly it works. But either way will be interesting to see which way it goes.

Obviously, everyone is more comfortable with what they know.

Changing the manner which vacations are bid may be easier to do it one way over another, but having so many lose or go backward on something they've already attained would be very unfortunate.

Hopefully, they can come up with some type of hybrid that would minimize anyone losing a standing they've already had. It would be a tough pill to swallow for someone with 30 years with LAA and who bids their vacation with that time to suddenly be told their transfer to another classification 10 years ago now means they now only have 10 years seniority to bid with. Ouch.

As far vacation accrual, I'd guess you're correct that we'll go with the current IAM method.

 

[Tim Nelson]

About the bolded parts:

$8,000 per year of contributions to the IAMPF pension ($4/hr x 2000 hrs) for 8 years at 7% equals $85,500 of total contributions. But your post says that at retirement, the pension will pay a monthly annuity of $1,203/mo. If that worker is 65 years old, then that annuity has a present value (at 7%) of about $141,000. How can the IAMPF afford to pay a retirement benefit worth $141k to a retiree whose company contributed just $$85,500? No wonder the IAMPF has had money trouble.

Who cares about his fake scenario when the plan is still LIVING the 2009 meltdown.

Prez never read the actuarial report, judging from his statements.

First off, there is a recommendation on the table for the IAM Trustees which was reviewed and will have to be acted upon prior to January 1, 2018.

What we do know is that the 2008/2009 financial meltdown is NOT behind us. The IAM pension would have went bye bye, with staggering losses, so the Trustees decided to seek pension relief by digesting the massive loss over 10 years, i.e., 10% per year up to 2020+. Really poor investing had them heavy into stocks (33%) at the time.

So, we already know that it will take a hit of millions and millions once again by absorbing 10% of the financial crisis meltdown.
Toss in a double whammy since the plan assumes a 7.5% interest rate but the real rate of the plan last year was only 3.53%. So chalk up millions more in losses.

The triple whammy is that plan participants aren't getting any younger either as the average age is now 50 years old. To disclose, I have an interest that the plan does well so I don't mind if 30,000 TWU peeps agree to join the plan, provided the Union Bosses have fully disclosed the financials to them and the future reductions in benefits that is coming.

Quadriple whammy is that the plan did not fully participate in the run up in the stock market. As stocks advanced greatly, The plan manager decided to go softly into stocks with only 12%. So as myself and others made a killing in 401k this year, unfortunately, our pension didn't regain much health from the market since it only had a minor position in it. Actually, a good investment plan might be to do the exact opposite of what the IAMNPF fund manager does because the management of the funds have been in the wrong things at the wrong times.

The IAM will most likely settle on a new TA and have it all ratified prior to a presumed Dear John letter coming this December. Word about our health care is that the company is cold on the IAM medical because it will raise cost for other employees if 30,0000 opt out. And Sito seeking political coverage for his underbosses in 141 by tossing out our health care after ratification would be exposed, for what is is, by special key people.

We're on it!

 

[P. REZ]

Who cares about his fake scenario when the plan is still LIVING the 2009 meltdown.

Prez never read the actuarial report, judging from his statements.

First off, there is a recommendation on the table for the IAM Trustees which was reviewed and will have to be acted upon prior to January 1, 2018.

What we do know is that the 2008/2009 financial meltdown is NOT behind us. The IAM pension would have went bye bye, with staggering losses, so the Trustees decided to seek pension relief by digesting the massive loss over 10 years, i.e., 10% per year up to 2020+. Really poor investing had them heavy into stocks (33%) at the time.

So, we already know that it will take a hit of millions and millions once again by absorbing 10% of the financial crisis meltdown.
Toss in a double whammy since the plan assumes a 7.5% interest rate but the real rate of the plan last year was only 3.53%. So chalk up millions more in losses.

The triple whammy is that plan participants aren't getting any younger either as the average age is now 50 years old. To disclose, I have an interest that the plan does well so I don't mind if 30,000 TWU peeps agree to join the plan, provided the Union Bosses have fully disclosed the financials to them and the future reductions in benefits that is coming.

Quadriple whammy is that the plan did not fully participate in the run up in the stock market. As stocks advanced greatly, The plan manager decided to go softly into stocks with only 12%. So as myself and others made a killing in 401k this year, unfortunately, our pension didn't regain much health from the market since it only had a minor position in it. Actually, a good investment plan might be to do the exact opposite of what the IAMNPF fund manager does because the management of the funds have been in the wrong things at the wrong times.

The IAM will most likely settle on a new TA and have it all ratified prior to a presumed Dear John letter coming this December. Word about our health care is that the company is cold on the IAM medical because it will raise cost for other employees if 30,0000 opt out. And Sito seeking political coverage for his underbosses in 141 by tossing out our health care after ratification would be exposed, for what is is, by special key people.

We're on it!

Lol, how is showing math fake?

 

[pjirish317]

Obviously, everyone is more comfortable with what they know.

Changing the manner which vacations are bid may be easier to do it one way over another, but having so many lose or go backward on something they've already attained would be very unfortunate.

Hopefully, they can come up with some type of hybrid that would minimize anyone losing a standing they've already had. It would be a tough pill to swallow for someone with 30 years with LAA and who bids their vacation with that time to suddenly be told their transfer to another classification 10 years ago now means they now only have 10 years seniority to bid with. Ouch.

As far vacation accrual, I'd guess you're correct that we'll go with the current IAM method.

What I find ironic is that now all of a sudden you are concerned about the TWA folks when all those years ago AA Fleet and MTC could have just gone by D.O.H. with that "merger" and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Where was the "concern" then for so many to lose or go backwards on something they've already attained? There will be many many changes for both sides to get used to, it is just they way it is going to be. If you don't like it, vote no.

 

[NYer]

What I find ironic is that now all of a sudden you are concerned about the TWA folks when all those years ago AA Fleet and MTC could have just gone by D.O.H. with that "merger" and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Where was the "concern" then for so many to lose or go backwards on something they've already attained? There will be many many changes for both sides to get used to, it is just they way it is going to be. If you don't like it, vote no.

So may years ago, the TWA seniority situation went to arbitration. An arbitrator decided what would happen to them as is the process.

Today, we have another process in place and it seems that same process will impact many of us. The irony, in all of this, is not about concern but about how anything they do will impact large groups of the combined workforce.

There is no way to do seniority integration where someone or some groups won't be negatively affected.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Lol, how is showing math fake?

One can build an equation in any way. It means nothing. The assumptions in your equation will most likely be inaccurate based on the recommendations presented to the iam trustees. Their review of the latest report will mean a breach in their duties or acting upon such recommendations. The funding policies will have to change. If they only eliminate the 30 and out then they may have to revisit the plan a couple years later as well.

 

[swamt]

Swamt. At lus leads. Laa crew chiefs. Same basic role. Only at laa crew chiefs do clp. They dont push back or wing walk. I believe they take a yrly test to be crew chief qualified

OK. Best explanation I've had yet. Thx robbed.

In Fleet, neither Crew Chiefs or Leads restart seniority accrual when they go into those classifications.

Hence, this particular issue doesn't affect Fleet.

So. Your telling me that "in fleet" it's just like at LAA in the mechanics ranks. Never lose any seniority when entering new classification? So MAYBE your right, and MAYBE your wrong. What if the decision is to go with classification seniority instead of DOH? Then it will in fact affect fleet too. But if they go the way the LAA is done it will not affect them at LUS.

 

[NYer]

OK. Best explanation I've had yet. Thx robbed.



So. Your telling me that "in fleet" it's just like at LAA in the mechanics ranks. Never lose any seniority when entering new classification?

So MAYBE your right, and MAYBE your wrong. What if the decision is to go with classification seniority instead of DOH? Then it will in fact affect fleet too. But if they go the way the LAA is done it will not affect them at LUS.

No, not any classification. This is solely about going from Clerk/Agent to Crew Chief/Lead in Fleet. There is no separation like there is in Maintenance, therefore this doesn't affect Fleet.

On your second point. If I'm a Fleet Service Clerk my Company (DOH) and my Occupational (Classification) is the same date. If I take a Crew Chief/Lead both of my seniority dates would still be same.

 

[P. REZ]

One can build an equation in any way. It means nothing. The assumptions in your equation will most likely be inaccurate based on the recommendations presented to the iam trustees. Their review of the latest report will mean a breach in their duties or acting upon such recommendations. The funding policies will have to change. If they only eliminate the 30 and out then they may have to revisit the plan a couple years later as well.

Huh? Math is math. Kindly go back and refute the math. Read what I said about everything.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Huh? Math is math. Kindly go back and refute the math. Read what I said about everything.

200 years ago, scientizt were convinced that the Sun was 5 million miles away. Hint: their math didnt lie. But the equation they based the math on was incorrect.

Likewise, the iam math in 2008 concluding that id earn $820 monthly benefits after 10 years is now incorrect since it assumed schedule A.

Prez, before you start putting together numbers, it may be wise to read the actuaries report. It seems as if the iam trustees have a funding policy change to consider. The plan is in bad shape. Bad enuf that i dont think we can use your numbers with certainty. To be sure, im not sure what changes will be made but something gotta give. It will suck if they have to eliminate the 30 and out.

 

[robbedagain]

welcome swamt