TWU/IAM Members: How Long Will Negotiations Take?

[Worldport]

Did you read it?
 
The majority is the consulting contract.
Others were two holiday parties for the fund employees, a retirement dinner for a fund employee, and the dinners with people doing business with the fund or potential business.
 
Still wrong either way.

I might be wrong, but this puts an end to any idea of the iampf  for the "New American" its over check and mate

 

[700UW]

http://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/newsroom/releases/EBSA20160217.pdf

 

[Overspeed]

700UW,
It's simple answer the questions. How many AMTs are working engine overhaul at US? How many AMTs are working components at US? US has five lines of airframe overhaul/mods for 330 aircraft. That is far below what is in TUL and DWH now.
 
The point is you brag about the IAM scope clause and it's 50% labor hour cap but who sets those MHs? The union? No. The company does and so does the MRO. If a MRO does the check with 50% fewer MHs than they can do two checks for everyone done in house. So now it's more like 25% in-house and 75% outside. The MH measurement is an easily manipluted metric.
 
It would be nice if you would answer the questions for once. Step outside the spin room.

 

[AP Tech]

So has anybody actually seen a printout of the 50% yearly billable hours at LUS.  Who does the audit or does the company just hand them a report?  I once asked our AGC and he claimed to know nothing about it.....somewhere it has to be in print....I'm thinking that is something the membership should be able to at least view...

 

[Overspeed]

The TWU has a committee but there is a grievance pending since Feb 2015 about the language and the way they see the info.

 

[dfw gen]

glad the DOL brought the suit against the administrates of the IAMPNF BEFORE we (if we ever) get a contract, hopefully there will be no way that option will be in there.
 
oh wait we did not get to vote on the association, and we have waited thru 18 months of the most PROFITABLE history in aviation to start negotiations. the association would probably be arrogant enough to try to force us into it anyway. seeing how much they really care about our interest or opinions.

 

[Traymark]

glad the DOL brought the suit against the administrates of the IAMPNF BEFORE we (if we ever) get a contract, hopefully there will be no way that option will be in there.
 
oh wait we did not get to vote on the association, and we have waited thru 18 months of the most PROFITABLE history in aviation to start negotiations. the association would probably be arrogant enough to try to force us into it anyway. seeing how much they really care about our interest or opinions.

Get ready, because you're about find out just how brazen the IAM is.
Every IAM rep I've communicated with about the IAMNPF sings its praises.
Their main mouthpiece on this board still defends it, poo pooing the charges saying, "it's only $1 million ".
I fully expect the IAMNPF to be in the TA , for everyone, and we will have to vote it , and our large raise down, maybe more than once , to get it out of the equation.
Here's the thing, the IAM fully expects to get us all in it, nobody from their side has come off of that notion.

 

[Vortilon]

Get ready, because you're about find out just how brazen the IAM is.
Every IAM rep I've communicated with about the IAMNPF sings its praises.
Their main mouthpiece on this board still defends it, poo pooing the charges saying, "it's only $1 million ".
I fully expect the IAMNPF to be in the TA , for everyone, and we will have to vote it , and our large raise down, maybe more than once , to get it out of the equation.
Here's the thing, the IAM fully expects to get us all in it, nobody from their side has come off of that notion.

 
They might want to consider bodyguards if they think that.  Nobody I have spoken with has heard anybody say "hey wouldn't it be great to be in the IAMPNF".  It's more like "don't start messing with my retirement plans, if you do, you're gonna be sorry."

 

[WeAAsles]

Get ready, because you're about find out just how brazen the IAM is.
Every IAM rep I've communicated with about the IAMNPF sings its praises.
Their main mouthpiece on this board still defends it, poo pooing the charges saying, "it's only $1 million ".
I fully expect the IAMNPF to be in the TA , for everyone, and we will have to vote it , and our large raise down, maybe more than once , to get it out of the equation.
Here's the thing, the IAM fully expects to get us all in it, nobody from their side has come off of that notion.

Of course those who are in it are going to sing its' praises since to secure their payouts in retirement it needs to continue to have participants and hopefully gain even more. that's not to say though at the moment the fund is not solid? The basics on it 's website show assets of 10.9 Billion and 190,000 participants. 

From it's website.
 

"As a participant in the National Pension Plan, youre in good company. At the time we are publishing this SPD, more than 190,000 participants are earning pension benefits or are qualified to receive pensions from the National Pension Plan. Currently, benefits totaling more than $445,000,000 are being paid each year to over 80,000 retirees and beneficiaries. More than 1,750 employer locations nationwide contribute to the National Pension Plan".

I highlighted the part in red because that's where I would want to do my research if I was interested in joining in. Who are those company's and what is there projected growth rate over at least the next 10 years? Are those all viable companies in today's economy? What is the average age of fund participants and is the fund gaining new participants and at what rate? But also the fact that the fund needed to cut benefits a few years ago to remain solvent into the future must be a concern even if the entire market tanked back in 08.

My personal preference would be a tiered 401k match on every hour worked. Something like what the FA's currently have but with no drop off date so a member can maximize his benefits over 50 till we retire. It is 100% fair since every member from the second he or she walks in the door is going to get older.  Of course the member has to match the percentage given or else it's on them that they aren't getting their full value. To that end if someone feels they would never be able to put any money in to get the match, that's where maybe the IAMPF would be the better option for them?

On your last sentence. I've never been a fan of the hard sell when it comes to MY money.
 
 






 

 

[Traymark]

Of course those who are in it are going to sing its' praises since to secure their payouts in retirement it needs to continue to have participants and hopefully gain even more. that's not to say though at the moment the fund is not solid? The basics on it 's website show assets of 10.9 Billion and 190,000 participants. 
From it's website.
 "As a participant in the National Pension Plan, youre in good company. At the time we are publishing this SPD, more than 190,000 participants are earning pension benefits or are qualified to receive pensions from the National Pension Plan. Currently, benefits totaling more than $445,000,000 are being paid each year to over 80,000 retirees and beneficiaries. More than 1,750 employer locations nationwide contribute to the National Pension Plan".I highlighted the part in red because that's where I would want to do my research if I was interested in joining in. Who are those company's and what is there projected growth rate over at least the next 10 years? Are those all viable companies in today's economy? What is the average age of fund participants and is the fund gaining new participants and at what rate? But also the fact that the fund needed to cut benefits a few years ago to remain solvent into the future must be a concern even if the entire market tanked back in 08.
My personal preference would be a tiered 401k match on every hour worked. Something like what the FA's currently have but with no drop off date so a member can maximize his benefits over 50 till we retire. It is 100% fair since every member from the second he or she walks in the door is going to get older.  Of course the member has to match the percentage given or else it's on them that they aren't getting their full value. To that end if someone feels they would never be able to put any money in to get the match, that's where maybe the IAMPF would be the better option for them?
On your last sentence. I've never been a fan of the hard sell when it comes to MY money.
  
 

One question
Why didn't you also make note of the funds LIABILITIES ?

They are here, and it's not a good look
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/77156/AFN_2014_plan_%20yr.pdf

 

[WeAAsles]

One question
Why didn't you also make note of the funds LIABILITIES ?

They are here, and it's not a good look
http://mypension.iamnpf.org/media/77156/AFN_2014_plan_%20yr.pdf

Why would I be concerned with it's "current" liabilities if those liabilities are less than the funds assets? What concerns me more is it's "future" liabilities.

If you get a mortgage today on a $200,000 house and it's a 30 year loan, the question is will you have the ability to make those payments and get out of that debt when you retire if your income decreases at that time?

AA has a lot of debts on it's books. More than they have cash on hand. But do they have the ability to pay down that debt through revenue generation? Not much of a difference when you think about the pension plan. Will it have the ability to pay out it's now current promised benefits? Before the 40% reduction it obviously didn't and that's why the Pension Law change required them to reduce future payouts.

And again don't misconstrue that I'm in any way shape or form selling the plan. I'm asking questions about it that right now I don't have answers to. 

 

[WeAAsles]

Oh and Traymark don't forget that our AA frozen Pension is also underfunded. But AA made a balloon payment on it in 2014 and one would like to think that they do have the ability to shore it up to 100% funded in the future.
 
The company said in a 2013 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that the favorable terms for funding its pensions will be missed when they expire.
“Our pension funding obligations are significant,” American said in a 10-K filing last year. “Currently, our minimum funding obligation for our pension plans is subject to temporary favorable rules that are scheduled to expire at the end of 2017. Upon the expiration of those rules, our funding obligations are likely to increase materially.”
Now the airline is seeking to amend the deal it struck in 2006 to extend that deadline by an additional seven years. That would put it even with its competitors — with one caveat. It wants Congress to make the change while allowing it to still use the more aggressive rate-of-growth assumptions that have helped reduce what it must contribute to the funds each year.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/airline-industry/20141130-american-airline-asks-to-extend-deferral-on-pensions.ece
 

 

[Traymark]

The liabilities are essentially the same as the assets, and now we have a civil case that they pick their fund managers based on how lucky their sperm was.

Not my idea of a good vehicle for my retirement monies.

 

[WeAAsles]

The liabilities are essentially the same as the assets, and now we have a civil case that they pick their fund managers based on how lucky their sperm was.

Not my idea of a good vehicle for my retirement monies.

I agree with your comment on the fund managers........ but.

Resolution:  The lawsuit is seeking a court order requiring the defendants to restore any losses suffered by the fund due to the alleged violations and requiring the fund to implement reforms to prevent future ERISA violations.

http://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/20160201-1


 

 

[WeAAsles]

ERISA

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act