Teamsters card drive

[Traymark]

1. Flight Attendants go back to 5.5% in 18 or 19.

Please do not diminish what the FA's got.
Anyone over 50 (which is the vast majority of M&R) have been getting 9.9% CONTRIBUTION,
not a match, since Dec 2014. That's a significant period of time.

Meanwhile, we get considerably less during the same period of time.
The FA's just also got Another raise outside of their contract language (their 3rd) , just because they are "so far" behind the other airlines. While we remain further behind in total compensation than they did.

How bout we get more than a couple days of negotiations a month? I think we've earned a little more urgency by both sides of the table, than what we've seen to date.

 

[Bob Owens]

P.REZ
1. Currently the FAs with my years of service are getting the higher rate. The expiration date of that rate is post contract term I believe. The FAs also have a contribution, not a Match.
2. I don't believe PAX is licensed or certified by the FAA like mechanics, Pilots or Flight Attendants. This was also their first contract.
3. My rate is $49.52 X .055 = $2.72/hr which is more than $2.20 and I get that for all hours worked.
4. Ok . Whats the formula and after 5 years what could we expect per month? What would my cash value be?
5 . Are CS and OT hours included in that figure or not? If not and the fund only receives $3522.2 (1601 x $2.20) would I get the same Pension as if the Fund received $4576? That's great for the company but not so great for the plan or its participants who pay the full amount. It would mean that the company could get the full 2080 hours of service but only fund 1601 hours and save over $1000 more.
6.OK Thanks

 

[WeAAsles]

P.REZ
1. Currently the FAs with my years of service are getting the higher rate. The expiration date of that rate is post contract term I believe. The FAs also have a contribution, not a Match.
2. I don't believe PAX is licensed or certified by the FAA like mechanics, Pilots or Flight Attendants. This was also their first contract.
3. My rate is $49.52 X .055 = $2.72/hr which is more than $2.20 and I get that for all hours worked.
4. Ok . Whats the formula and after 5 years what could we expect per month? What would my cash value be?
5 . Are CS and OT hours included in that figure or not? If not and the fund only receives $3522.2 (1601 x $2.20) would I get the same Pension as if the Fund received $4576? That's great for the company but not so great for the plan or its participants who pay the full amount. It would mean that the company could get the full 2080 hours of service but only fund 1601 hours and save over $1000 more.
6.OK Thanks

Bob the tiered formula for the FA's ends on Jan 1, 2019 and their contract doesn't become amendable till Dec 2019. On Jan 1, 2019 they all go to a 5.5% Match.

 

[Bob Owens]

They would most likely be vested. Who knows if any credits, that would depend on if the LAA pension was rolled into the IAMNPF. Dont know the legalities of that, theory only.

P. Rez

My understanding is that if our Pension did get rolled into the IAMNPF that our Pension would no longer fall under the rules of a "single employer pension" which provides us Protection even in BK through the PBGC. While on paper we aren't supposed to loose any value there would no longer be a guarantee from American Airlines or Protection through the PBGC. I believe we could also lose the ability to retire without penalty at 60. I believe the governments value is an actuarial value and does not put any value on things like being able to retire at 60 without penalty, that's considered a perk not an earned benefit. So lets say the fund runs into trouble we could see our benefits cut while AA posts record profits and pays nothing. I believe we could also lose the ability to retire without penalty at 60 and 55 with 3% penalty for each year prior to 60. These points are huge incentives for the company and its why I say we should be aware and prepared if it becomes a bargaining topic. The company would get to eliminate millions from their Liabilities and also lower premiums to the PBGC. It would have the same effect on their balance sheets as getting rid of the Pension in BK. Instead of giving stock to the PBGC they may be able to give stock to the IAMNPF for the shortfall, either way the IAMNPF would see a huge influx of cash. Either way our Pension liability would be off their books with nothing to back up the fund except the contributions of other workers.

There would be a lot to be gained by the Company, the IAMNPF and the Association and a lot lost by us through such an arrangement and I don't trust these guys enough to think they will pass over it if they feel they can get away with it. I think if they are thinking about it they will stay quiet about it till the last moment and hope that we are so desperate for Holidays and Vacation back that we slip them this HUGE Concession, a Concession that we gave everything else away to preserve over the last two decades. They will sell it as us getting our DB Pension back but omit or downplay all the very serious shortfalls of losing our single employer DB vs the Multi employer DP. (defined promise with nothing to back it up). The best way to make sure it doesn't happen is to start making a lot of noise about it and to make it toxic to the Association. The Association must be made very aware that they can be fired.

P.REZ was your AWA Pension rolled into the IAMNPF for credits? I'm pretty sure I've seen examples but I haven't found any lately.

 

[Bob Owens]

Please do not diminish what the FA's got.
Anyone over 50 (which is the vast majority of M&R) have been getting 9.9% CONTRIBUTION,
not a match, since Dec 2014. That's a significant period of time.

Meanwhile, we get considerably less during the same period of time.
The FA's just also got Another raise outside of their contract language (their 3rd) , just because they are "so far" behind the other airlines. While we remain further behind in total compensation than they did.

How bout we get more than a couple days of negotiations a month? I think we've earned a little more urgency by both sides of the table, than what we've seen to date.

Traymark, we (LAA) remain over $2/hr behind LUS due to the vacation and Holiday disparity alone. Not only are we bottom of the industry but we are bottom of the New AA.
I week Vacation =$1980.80
LAA Holiday = 20 hours extra pay for working all 8 Holidays
LUS Holiday=80 hours extra pay for working 8 Hilidays
60 hrs difference = $2971.20
Total for those two concessions = $4952 / 2080hr =$2.38/hr

 

[Bob Owens]

Bob the tiered formula for the FA's ends on Jan 1, 2019 and their contract doesn't become amendable till Dec 2019. On Jan 1, 2019 they all go to a 5.5% Match.

Match or Contribution?

 

[Bob Owens]

Please do not diminish what the FA's got.
Anyone over 50 (which is the vast majority of M&R) have been getting 9.9% CONTRIBUTION,
not a match, since Dec 2014. That's a significant period of time.

Meanwhile, we get considerably less during the same period of time.
The FA's just also got Another raise outside of their contract language (their 3rd) , just because they are "so far" behind the other airlines. While we remain further behind in total compensation than they did.

How bout we get more than a couple days of negotiations a month? I think we've earned a little more urgency by both sides of the table, than what we've seen to date.

The idea is to make us so desperate that we'll accept ANYTHING. The IAMNPF IS GOING TO BE IN THERE. They want to make sure it passes, so unless we start a drive to replace the Association they will be in no hurry. If they feel especially confident they will try and roll our AA Pension into the IAMNPF as well.

 

[WeAAsles]

Match or Contribution?

3% contribution, up to 5.5% Matched. Exactly what we have right now. If I recall correctly it was how they structured the return of the 3% to their contract when the BK ask was brought down from 20% to 17%?

We also went from 5.5% on a base of Hours either PT or FT maxed to 40 hours per week to on all hours worked. And the 3% was also added back to other improvements against the original 20% we were almost going to live under.

 

[Bob Owens]

3% contribution, up to 5.5% Matched. Exactly what we have right now. If I recall correctly it was how they structured the return of the 3% to their contract when the BK ask was brought down from 20% to 17%?

We also went from 5.5% on a base of Hours either PT or FT maxed to 40 hours per week to on all hours worked. And the 3% was also added back to other improvements against the original 20% we were almost going to live under.

Wrong. We have an automatic deduction of 3% which is then matched, and would be matched up to 5.5% provided the member ups his contribution to at least 5.5%. If the members stops the 3% deduction the company no longer contributes either. Ours is a Match, the company will not contribute if we don't. That's where the wash comes in that was spoken of earlier. The percentage who receive nothing is IIRC in the double digits or close to it. If it was a contribution then 100% of members with over a year would be receiving something.

From the Contract;
(i) On November 1, 2012, the Company will enroll all current employees, except those described in paragraph (i)(1) below, and all future new-hire and transfer employees in the $uper $aver - A 401(k) Capital Accumulation Plan for Employees of Participating AMR Corporation Subsidiaries (“$uper $aver Plan”), a defined contribution plan, or equivalent plan. (1) Employees who already have a $uper $aver Plan, (or equivalent plan), contribution election on file as of the date they would otherwise be automatically enrolled will not be automatically enrolled in the $uper $aver Plan (or equivalent plan) and their previous contribution election will remain in place. (2) Employees who are automatically enrolled into the $uper $aver Plan, will be enrolled at an employee-deferral rate of 3% pre-tax contribution. (3) The Company, subject to any laws limiting the amount of benefit which can be contributed to or accrued under a plan qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time to time, and its regulations, will, for each employee who has at least one year of Eligibility Service, contribute to the $uper $aver Plan on a pre-tax basis for each Plan Year as an Employer Matching Contribution 100% of the aggregated amount of the employee’s Employee Before-tax Contributions and employee’s Employee Designated Roth Contributions, Page 206 of 272 up to a total amount of 5.5% of an employee’s Eligible Compensation (as defined in the $uper $aver Plan). Eligible Compensation for the purposes of determining any matching contribution or Company contribution, eligible compensation will be the sum of all 401(k) deferrable compensation, e.g. wages, overtime, CSW, etc. except for the following:

(2), that means they are taking 3% out of their pay and putting it in Super Saver.
So if the employee opts for ZERO the company matches ZERO.
(3) that means they will match up to 5.5% of what they put in, no more, no less, if they put in zero the company puts in Zero.

 

[WeAAsles]

The idea is to make us so desperate that we'll accept ANYTHING. The IAMNPF IS GOING TO BE IN THERE. They want to make sure it passes, so unless we start a drive to replace the Association they will be in no hurry. If they feel especially confident they will try and roll our AA Pension into the IAMNPF as well.

Bob when that doesn't happen will you step up on here and admit that you were wrong? Or will you say that they capitulated because of the fear that TWU members would riot if it happened?

Would you accept if the IAMPF was offered as a separate choice to our members and not rolled in to our contract as a vote to either except or decline the full JCBA starting back to square one?

Basically I'm curious if we should completely advocate for it not to be offered at all to anyone on the TWU side of the fence and if any of should have the right to make that decision for a collective of around 17,000 people.

Whether you or I or anyone else for that matter maybe doesn't want it, what about if some kid did? Even if it "may" not be the best choice the kid makes?

 

[WeAAsles]

I don't think so. I believe we have an automatic deduction of 3% which is then matched, and would be matched up to 5.5% provided the member ups his contribution to at least 5.5%. If the members stops the 3% deduction the company no longer contributes either. Ours is a Match, the company will not contribute if we don't. That's where the wash comes in that was spoken of earlier. The percentage who receive nothing is IIRC in the double digits nor close to it. If it was a contribution then 100% of members with over a year would be receiving something.

My apologies Bob. 3% "deferred"

But I guess they could have just as easily at the time made it a contribution instead and your direct wages would have been 3% less in aggregate and no one would have known any better?

With it going through the siv of through you into the Super Saver doesn't that make it entitled to be matched at 3% if I'm correct for a total of 6%?

If it were a contribution instead perhaps the Company would save money as many members might not bother to think about their futures as us old geezers are now and put anything else in?

 

[Bob Owens]

My apologies Bob. 3% "deferred"

But I guess they could have just as easily at the time made it a contribution instead and your direct wages would have been 3% less in aggregate and no one would have known any better?

With it going through the siv of through you into the Super Saver doesn't that make it entitled to be matched at 3% if I'm correct for a total of 6%?

If it were a contribution instead perhaps the Company would save money as many members might not bother to think about their futures as us old geezers are now and put anything else in?

That entire post makes ZERO sense, or should I say cents?
On an equal percentage basis Matches are inherently cheaper for the employer and more costly for workers than Contributions. The employer only matches what the employee cant do without up to a defined max. If I can afford to put in nothing. like many new hires feel, then I get nothing, If I can afford to put in 10% they only match 5.5%. Either way If I want any contribution from the company I have to pay for it with less disposable income now.

 

[WeAAsles]

That makes ZERO sense, or should I say cents?

Sure it does/did. During the BK we had to ultimately give back a total final tally of 17% of the total value of our contracts. We weren't on an upswing comparing ourselves to our peers to at least match wages.

A contribution by the Company direct wouldn't be matched. That would be a silly thought in and of itself. They're going to say we're going to give you 3% and Match that as well for a total of 6%? They would have just said we're contributing X amount by percentage against your wages into that retirement vehicle.

Anyway you try to formulate the puzzle they were intent on the max (at the time) being 5.5%

Also IMO taking it out of your check is a good thing as it raises an awareness that it exists. Unlike our old Pension that most people actually had no clue how much was in there and how many years they actually had vested for a payout?

Had a lady once that wanted to retire after only putting in 10 years with the Company. (PT and CS'd off half her shift her entire career) You had to see the look on her face when I showed her she only had 3 years vested.

 

[WeAAsles]

BTW Bob the reason that our frozen Pension will NOT be rolled into the IAMPF is because under that Pension reform law that yes forced the IAMPF to dramatically cut future payouts. If the IAMPF trustees accepted our still dramatically underfunded DBP they would BAM automatically go deeply into the red zone and have to come up with a plan how to fix that within I think a year or two.

Which means AA would have to front the cash into the IAMPF much sooner than they currently have to. Do you think AA wants to pop that much money to a creditor in such a fast clip? Plus I'm sure the PBGC and the DOL would have something to say about it.

The conversation just doesn't make any sense if you factor in all the people who have nothing to do with AA or the TWU who are currently in the IAMPF.

 

[Tim Nelson]

BTW Bob the reason that our frozen Pension will NOT be rolled into the IAMPF is because under that Pension reform law that yes forced the IAMPF to dramatically cut future payouts. If the IAMPF trustees accepted our still dramatically underfunded DBP they would BAM automatically go deeply into the red zone and have to come up with a plan how to fix that within I think a year or two.

Which means AA would have to front the cash into the IAMPF much sooner than they currently have to. Do you think AA wants to pop that much money to a creditor in such a fast clip? Plus I'm sure the PBGC and the DOL would have something to say about it.

The conversation just doesn't make any sense if you factor in all the people who have nothing to do with AA or the TWU who are currently in the IAMPF.

As a side, the IAM cut future benefits twice since 2003. The earlier one being a result of the 911 events and markets. The second one, mostly as a result of it having 33% in stocks when the market collapsed. At least that was what they told us. Along the way there have been pension acts. One which put more pressure on the union pensions and one [the latest] which provided relief and allows for a extended amortization of liabilities. And a 3rd where a union pension can cut active benefits of retirees but I hope we don't ever have to see that.