The Emirates Strike Back

I'm not aware of anyone arguing for a "protectionist" environment. Regardless, my post was regarding pension plans, so you responding to it in this fashion makes about as much sense as Ralph on The Simpsons answering "my cat's breath smells like cat food." Um, okay?


You said: "unless you work at a company like FedEx that is almost certain to never go bankrupt."

I pointed out that an absolute statement like that may not be accurate, especially considering the context of the thread. Try to keep up ;).


TP
 
typhoonpilot said:
You said: "unless you work at a company like FedEx that is almost certain to never go bankrupt." I pointed out that an absolute statement like that may not be accurate, especially considering the context of the thread. Try to keep up ;). TP

A statement that begins with "almost certain" is by definition not an "absolute statement." Try to keep up. ;)
 
A statement that begins with "almost certain" is by definition not an "absolute statement." Try to keep up. ;)



......and in the end, with your half-witty banter, you still fail to grasp the implications that the ALPA passenger airlines strategy might have on the ALPA ( and other union's) cargo airlines business models.



Typhoonpilot
 
typhoonpilot said:
......and in the end, with your half-witty banter, you still fail to grasp the implications that the ALPA passenger airlines strategy might have on the ALPA ( and other union's) cargo airlines business models. Typhoonpilot

Having served on the Council when this was all being discussed, along with the Executive Vice President from FedEx, I can tell you that your understanding of ALPA's strategy and goals is inadequate at best, and the FedEx MEC does not oppose the ALPA strategy or believe that it will lead to the outcome that you imply.
 
Having served on the Council when this was all being discussed, along with the Executive Vice President from FedEx, I can tell you that your understanding of ALPA's strategy and goals is inadequate at best, and the FedEx MEC does not oppose the ALPA strategy or believe that it will lead to the outcome that you imply.


Did you read the letter above from the President of FedEx? Clearly he is concerned. Perhaps he knows more than his pilots about what the implications might be. Wouldn't be the first time an ALPA strategy adversely affected a whole sub-group of their pilots.


TP
 
typhoonpilot said:
Did you read the letter above from the President of FedEx? Clearly he is concerned. Perhaps he knows more than his pilots about what the implications might be. Wouldn't be the first time an ALPA strategy adversely affected a whole sub-group of their pilots. TP

I don't pay much attention to management propaganda, no.
 
There are downsides to that, as well. When the union runs the plan, management is no longer responsible for a certain payout. They're only responsible for certain contributions. That means that if the plan isn't well managed (and many of them aren't), then the plan can run out of money necessary to pay out benefits, and benefits get cut. When management is responsible for managing the plan, the CBA just says what they're required to pay you in a defined benefit, and then management is required to make it happen. If they mismanage the plan, then they just have to contribute more money to make the math work. That way you know what your benefit is going to be, no matter how poorly the plan may be managed.

The reality is that A-Funds are a bad idea until there is pension reform that puts the plan as the top creditor, ensuring that it gets money before anyone else. I don't see that happening, so everyone is better off with a B-Fund unless you work at a company like FedEx that is almost certain to never go bankrupt.
I realize that it can be mismanaged and run out of money, but everyone at the legacy carriers would still have a pension if their respective companies were not allowed to access the funds. Seems like a much safer bet.
 
A drop in the bucket, and still deep in a hole if they in fact received the $40+ billion in subsidies. In any business plan, the investment is still well in the red.


Uh, did you read the report? The only money in it attributable to Emirates was an alleged fuel hedging loss that was taken over by the government. It amounted to $2.4 billion. That accusation has been denied by Emirates and the proof that the airline white paper has is circumstantial and vague at best.

So not $40 billion as you "mistakenly" say, but only $2.4 billion if true. That $700 million dividend along with roughly $100 to $200 million in dividends in practically every year since 2010 would go a long way to paying off any "loan" they may have received in 2008/09. Hardly a subsidized airline.


Typhoonpilot
 
From what I've read Qatar is a bad place to work. Al Bakar is a little man and I don't mean physically.

Yeah. I've read a lot online about Qartar, and I've talked to pilots about it IRL, and they all seem to dismiss the online stuff as lies, and rumors. And angry rantings of disgruntled ex-employees. So I don't know what is truth or not, but I lean heavily toward the stuff online that I've read. On here and other places.
 
If you have proof, please provide it.

star_wars_its_a_trap.jpg
 
Back
Top