JCBA Negotiations and updates for AA Fleet

[WeAAsles]

Weaasles I'm more concerned about what they are discussing in the AMT thread. I don't want to rotate days off after 38 years. You worked at LGA what is the purpose?Why are some of the shifts fixed and some rotated? It has to cost the company more money to rotate

Oh boy you are not going to like this answer with the seniority you have. I'm not sure when it happened there but it's only a local thing. Not even sure if they do it in JFK?

I do know that Senior guys have tried over the years to make a motion with the Union to have it changed but every time it happens a bunch of more junior people who know they wouldn't get weekends flood the hall and shoot it down.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the tradition will carry on once you are integrated there. (Notice no question mark)

 

[Worldport]

Oh boy you are not going to like this answer with the seniority you have. I'm not sure when it happened there but it's only a local thing. Not even sure if they do it in JFK?

I do know that Senior guys have tried over the years to make a motion with the Union to have it changed but every time it happens a bunch of more junior people who know they wouldn't get weekends flood the hall and shoot it down.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the tradition will carry on once you are integrated there. (Notice no question mark)

I guess it's  "welcome to the new AA" for me, seniority doesn't matter oh well. You don't bid your vacations in rounds do you?  A guy on the AMT thread said at one time they rotated shifts too

 

[Jester]

Anyone else on the US side read the standard boiler plate letter from the IAMNPF, and do some reading between the lines?
 
It has a couple of small charts with begining of years 2013-2015 market Valuation of Assets and Valuation of Liabilities, and the Funded Percentage being at 101% January 1, 2015, but also has the legalese disclosure: "They are also 'actuarial values.' Actuarial values differ from market values in that they do not fluctuate daily based on changes in the stock or other markets. Actuarial values smooth out those fluctuations and can allow for more predictable levels for future contributions.  Despite the fluctuations, markets values tend to show a clearer picture of a plan's funded status at a given point in time."
 
So the Fair-Market Value of Assets December 31, 2015: $10,697,858,749, but no mention of the Valuation of Liabilities in Jan 2016 or Dec. 2015.  However, as a comparison Fair-Market Value of Assets December 31, 2014: $10,930,151,976 and Value of Liabilities January 1, 2015 (one day apart): $11,521,942,880, thus funded only to 94.9% beginning of last year and AFTER the announced cuts of future accrued benefits earned.  The pension is under funded using the actuarial values, but the letter does not mention that inconvient fact of this "clearer picture".
 
I hope we don't get suckered into this money pit with the new joint contract.

 

[Worldport]

Anyone else on the US side read the standard boiler plate letter from the IAMNPF, and do some reading between the lines?
 
It has a couple of small charts with begining of years 2013-2015 market Valuation of Assets and Valuation of Liabilities, and the Funded Percentage being at 101% January 1, 2015, but also has the legalese disclosure: "They are also 'actuarial values.' Actuarial values differ from market values in that they do not fluctuate daily based on changes in the stock or other markets. Actuarial values smooth out those fluctuations and can allow for more predictable levels for future contributions.  Despite the fluctuations, markets values tend to show a clearer picture of a plan's funded status at a given point in time."
 
So the Fair-Market Value of Assets December 31, 2015: $10,697,858,749, but no mention of the Valuation of Liabilities in Jan 2016 or Dec. 2015.  However, as a comparison Fair-Market Value of Assets December 31, 2014: $10,930,151,976 and Value of Liabilities January 1, 2015 (one day apart): $11,521,942,880, thus funded only to 94.9% beginning of last year and AFTER the announced cuts of future accrued benefits earned.  The pension is under funded using the actuarial values, but the letter does not mention that inconvient fact of this "clearer picture".
 
I hope we don't get suckered into this money pit with the new joint contract.

Jester I'm pretty sure you and I are stuck with it, just have to keep your fingers crossed.

 

[Tim Nelson]

Anyone else on the US side read the standard boiler plate letter from the IAMNPF, and do some reading between the lines?
 
It has a couple of small charts with begining of years 2013-2015 market Valuation of Assets and Valuation of Liabilities, and the Funded Percentage being at 101% January 1, 2015, but also has the legalese disclosure: "They are also 'actuarial values.' Actuarial values differ from market values in that they do not fluctuate daily based on changes in the stock or other markets. Actuarial values smooth out those fluctuations and can allow for more predictable levels for future contributions.  Despite the fluctuations, markets values tend to show a clearer picture of a plan's funded status at a given point in time."
 
So the Fair-Market Value of Assets December 31, 2015: $10,697,858,749, but no mention of the Valuation of Liabilities in Jan 2016 or Dec. 2015.  However, as a comparison Fair-Market Value of Assets December 31, 2014: $10,930,151,976 and Value of Liabilities January 1, 2015 (one day apart): $11,521,942,880, thus funded only to 94.9% beginning of last year and AFTER the announced cuts of future accrued benefits earned.  The pension is under funded using the actuarial values, but the letter does not mention that inconvient fact of this "clearer picture".
 
I hope we don't get suckered into this money pit with the new joint contract.

 
Did you contact your congress person and sign the form to reverse the pension law that Obama hammered us with?  The IAM sent out a form and is the only union that is supporting and campaigning to reverse this awful law which will be the disastrous end to half of our IAMPF.  IMO,  we all should have an element of choice in this JCBA, i.e., TWU members ought to have a choice of IAMPF, but we ought to also have a choice, i.e., keep the $1.15 but put any increased retirement benefits in 401k.  For instance if the company proposes increasing its retirement contribution .90, I'd rather them fashion it as 3% in the 401k and keep the IAMPF at $1.15.  Putting $2.05 into the IAMPF with no 401k company contribution will just be more money that the IAMPF can steal from me a second time after I retire.
 
I'm working on an objective worksheet for the TWU peeps that explains the funding, history, and the pension laws, and IAMPF taxes like the spousal offset tax.  I almost have it done and I'll pdf it on most facebook sites and give it to key people in DFW, MIA, ORD to educate their members.
 
regards,

 

[WeAAsles]

Jester I'm pretty sure you and I are stuck with it, just have to keep your fingers crossed.

Curious on what Jester wrote? The assumption of course is that those who are currently receiving benefits off of Scedule A leave the fund currently in a position where it would be an untenable situation. That's obvious. But was the change to Schedule B moving forward shore up the problem over time?

Was that the purpose of the change in draw out amounts for the future to make sure that it could accommodate future retirees as Schedule A people drop off (Die)?

If the Multiemployer pension law passes can or will the Fund administrators cut the benefits that it's currently paying out to retirees? Will it have to?

 

[Worldport]

 
Did you contact your congress person and sign the form to reverse the pension law that Obama hammered us with?  The IAM sent out a form and is the only union that is supporting and campaigning to reverse this awful law which will be the disastrous end to half of our IAMPF.  IMO,  we all should have an element of choice in this JCBA, i.e., TWU members ought to have a choice of IAMPF, but we ought to also have a choice, i.e., keep the $1.15 but put any increased retirement benefits in 401k.  For instance if the company proposes increasing its retirement contribution .90, I'd rather them fashion it as 3% in the 401k and keep the IAMPF at $1.15.  Putting $2.05 into the IAMPF with no 401k company contribution will just be more money that the IAMPF can steal from me a second time after I retire.
 
I'm working on an objective worksheet for the TWU peeps that explains the funding, history, and the pension laws, and IAMPF taxes like the spousal offset tax.  I almost have it done and I'll pdf it on most facebook sites and give it to key people in DFW, MIA, ORD to educate their members.
 
regards,

Tim I agree I would like any additional retirement money in the 401 instead of the IAMPF fund.

 

[WeAAsles]

Did you contact your congress person and sign the form to reverse the pension law that Obama hammered us with?  The IAM sent out a form and is the only union that is supporting and campaigning to reverse this awful law which will be the disastrous end to half of our IAMPF.  IMO,  we all should have an element of choice in this JCBA, i.e., TWU members ought to have a choice of IAMPF, but we ought to also have a choice, i.e., keep the $1.15 but put any increased retirement benefits in 401k.  For instance if the company proposes increasing its retirement contribution .90, I'd rather them fashion it as 3% in the 401k and keep the IAMPF at $1.15.  Putting $2.05 into the IAMPF with no 401k company contribution will just be more money that the IAMPF can steal from me a second time after I retire.
 
I'm working on an objective worksheet for the TWU peeps that explains the funding, history, and the pension laws, and IAMPF taxes like the spousal offset tax.  I almost have it done and I'll pdf it on most facebook sites and give it to key people in DFW, MIA, ORD to educate their members.
 
regards,

I could have sworn that I was advocating for what you just proposed? Only I said 3% 401k match and $2.00 into the IAMPF like UAL secured.

Haven't I said this before? I mean seriously?

 

[Worldport]

Curious on what Jester wrote? The assumption of course is that those who are currently receiving benefits off of Scedule A leave the fund currently in a position where it would be an untenable situation. That's obvious. But was the change to Schedule B moving forward shore up the problem over time?

Was that the purpose of the change in draw out amounts for the future to make sure that it could accommodate future retirees as Schedule A people drop off (Die)?

If the Multiemployer pension law passes can or will the Fund administrators cut the benefits that it's currently paying out to retirees? Will it have to?

Weez I changed my mind I drink ,I smoke I have high cholesterol and high blood pressure I wont make it to 65 so I don't give a rats a$$ I don't care about the environment either they can use the Grand Canyon for a landfill for all I care, now I'm going to watch the Yankees lose and love it enjoy your day

 

[WeAAsles]

Weez I changed my mind I drink ,I smoke I have high cholesterol and high blood pressure I wont make it to 65 so I don't give a rats a$$ I don't care about the environment either they can use the Grand Canyon for a landfill for all I care, now I'm going to watch the Yankees lose and love it enjoy your day

(Tangent) Dude if Trump wins and they give him those Nuclear codes where do you think China or Russia are gonna send their first Enola Gay?

C'mon down. We can catch a fast boat ride to Cuba and escape the fallout. Nothing's pointed at Cuba.

 

[ograc]

(Tangent) Dude if Trump wins and they give him those Nuclear codes where do you think China or Russia are gonna send their first Enola Gay?

C'mon down. We can catch a fast boat ride to Cuba and escape the fallout. Nothing's pointed at Cuba.

 
Getting a little of topic folks.
 

 

[WeAAsles]

Getting a little of topic folks.

ograc I did specify "tangent"

Again though do you have an opinion on what I asked you earlier?

The floor is open.

 

[700UW]

Did you contact your congress person and sign the form to reverse the pension law that Obama hammered us with?  The IAM sent out a form and is the only union that is supporting and campaigning to reverse this awful law which will be the disastrous end to half of our IAMPF.  IMO,  we all should have an element of choice in this JCBA, i.e., TWU members ought to have a choice of IAMPF, but we ought to also have a choice, i.e., keep the $1.15 but put any increased retirement benefits in 401k.  For instance if the company proposes increasing its retirement contribution .90, I'd rather them fashion it as 3% in the 401k and keep the IAMPF at $1.15.  Putting $2.05 into the IAMPF with no 401k company contribution will just be more money that the IAMPF can steal from me a second time after I retire.
 
I'm working on an objective worksheet for the TWU peeps that explains the funding, history, and the pension laws, and IAMPF taxes like the spousal offset tax.  I almost have it done and I'll pdf it on most facebook sites and give it to key people in DFW, MIA, ORD to educate their members.
 
regards,

Didn't know having a degree in Theology makes you an actuary and a pension expert

 

[Kev3188]

I guess it's  "welcome to the new AA" for me, seniority doesn't matter oh well. You don't bid your vacations in rounds do you?  A guy on the AMT thread said at one time they rotated shifts too

Rounds suck.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Weaasles I'm more concerned about what they are discussing in the AMT thread. I don't want to rotate days off after 38 years. You worked at LGA what is the purpose?Why are some of the shifts fixed and some rotated? It has to cost the company more money to rotate

At JFK days off rotate backwards every two weeks.You start the bid with Tu/We,in two weeks it goes to Mo/Tu,ect.
There are some spots that have STD days off, but the vast majority of them rotate.Everyone gets a piece of a weekend at some point.
 
At LGA the days off rotated forward every four weeks.Start with a Tue/Wed,play it into a four day swing when you rotated from Thu/Fri to Sa/Su.Again,done to get everyone a piece of a weekend.PT'ers have STD days off there.
 
Vacation bidding is done in one fell swoop.You have X number of weeks, you go in, look at the sheets,pick your weeks and have a nice day.