Originally Posted by skypig

My block rep...who doesn't speak for me....



September 16, 2015

I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources and time, truths are akin to the long arm of the law in the Old West. I’ve also heard it said that some people never let facts get in the way of a good argument.

I vowed to communicate with you as honestly and openly as I could. I still respect your right to make the best decision for you and your family. Your MEC vowed not to “sell” this tentative agreement (TA), but to present all of it to you to decide upon. Lately, I have been stunned by what I have read. It seems that the vow not to “sell” has only applied to one side. Rather unfortunately, one side is clearly trying to sell you on perceived negatives. In some cases, they are grasping at some misguided rumors and misleading arguments and painting them as their own. They are espousing opinions that were mostly unspoken when negotiating positions were being discussed, formulated, or agreed upon. While I may respect their passion, the misinformation campaign is too much. It would take a novel to address it all so I will start with just a few of the topics.

Concerning Section 8—Deadheading: Specifically, I will address the higher class of service and the “lay-flat seat issue” contained in 8.A.5.c. While I will freely admit this would be in the “give” column, it most certainly does not lower accepted fares. In fact, if you actually read further in that same section in 8.A.5.c.vi: “Regardless of class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the baseline fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.” The Negotiating Committee and the attorneys agree with this point. As to the concern that carriers will go to all lay-flat seating in coach on flights, any of us who have flown at the pax carriers know they are loathe to remove seats. Do we really think they are going to remove three rows of seats to put in one row of lay-flat seats in coach for a net loss of two rows for every row of lay-flats? How did “more room throughout coach” work out for American? I used to work there and it didn’t. The Negotiating Committee has said this provision was only discussed in business class. The gains in Section 8 in return for this “give” are numerous. To name a few: higher class of service on international deadheads reduced from 5+00 to 2+30. Second look at accepted fares when trips are assigned will result in higher, more realistic accepted fares, rolling deviation bank, the hotel cancellation bank, which accrues and can be used for any deviation expense. This is not an exhaustive list.

Some arguments have also been made concerning Section 27—Insurance. One such argument is that the lack of a health-care reimbursement account (HRA) for the buy-up plan is a disincentive to retirement. Not sure if the HRA being brought up here is regarding active or retired pilots? If it’s meant that a new round of $25K HRAs for pilots over age 53 should be included in this TA, like was done in the 2006 contract, then it’s important to remember that the regulated age under that contract was 60. We were forced on retiree health care back then. How many of those with the VEBA HRA went ahead and retired at 60? How many are still active that received that HRA? Now we have the option to retire or work and the justification for that HRA is gone. Whether you choose to retire or work, this TA has value in other areas. If it’s meant that the active pilot buy-up plan should have an HRA, let’s remember that other than copays, this plan pays 100 percent of in-network care. Without a deductible like the new CDHPs starting in 2017, there is no need for the active pilot buy-up plan to have a HRA. We still have the same quality of health care available and our worst-case rates at the end of this contract are still cheap compared to what is available in America today for lesser coverage. I make no apologies for that.

On to Section 28—Retirement: I too wanted to see more improvements. In fact I wanted to see them across the board for all of us. I grant that this was the most upsetting topic of discussion in the room. It was almost the only topic in the end. The B plan (DC) was increased by 28 percent over what we currently have. This is not insignificant and in the context of the federal government wanting to reduce DC limits to increase revenue, we got our plan high watermarked. This means that no matter what the government does with those limits, we get the cash the Company committed to contribute for us. This is also not insignificant. We definitely tried to get an improvement to the A plan (DB). Corporations are desperately seeking ways out of these DB plans due to the actual costs, volatility, and book liability involved. FedEx is no exception. Due to the Billions of dollars involved, we were not able to achieve this goal short of what I would consider massive concessions. I had to chuckle when I read that American’s plan is just frozen and not terminated and may be coming back. The existing balance was paid out by check or rolled into a mutual fund at each pilot’s option. Remember, I worked there. It isn’t coming back.

“We have leverage!” I keep hearing that. Leverage is only as strong as the ability to exercise it. The truth is that given the landscape and FedEx’s inextricable link to commerce, we have far less than most tend to think. In my view, the Negotiating Committee took the fullest advantage of our leverage at the point when we had the most leverage we could expect to have. Rejection of this TA will not create additional leverage nor do I think that we would even eventually resume bargaining with the same leverage.

Let me be clear. I endorse this TA. I will be voting “yes.” When I looked at it at first with my emotions running in overdrive, I didn’t like it at all. When I disengaged my emotions and reengaged my brain, I liked it. The reality is that this is an industry-leading agreement before us. It is a dynamic improvement that adds as much value and puts as much money in our accounts as the American contract and the failed Delta TA combined on a per-pilot per-year basis. I have heard it said a few times in my life that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.