Please read this while thinking about our overall QOL here, even if you believe 2.7%/year is sufficient. Another great letter from Block 6 Rep, AS:

Forward form LEC 26:
Members of Council 26,
I received several e-mails requesting that I expand on the efficiencies that I had alluded to in my previous message, “Pressing TOGA.” By leaving you with thoughts to ponder, I was hoping that each of you would review the TA with an open perspective that when the ballot closes, it isn’t just the obvious that affects us, but the consequences of all of the hidden details that affect us. Are the financial gains in the TA enough to offset the efficiencies given to the company in respect to future manning?
In light of the company’s Q1 2016 Earnings Report, it appears that management is expecting fairly substantial gains in efficiency. The following quote is taken from September 25, 2015, Motley Fool investment letter:
“New pilot contract won't hurt earnings
While this was a fairly generous contract offer—and FedEx's pilots were already near the top of the industry in pay—FedEx's management stated that it won't impact the company's projected profit growth trajectory. Other productivity-enhancing initiatives will more than offset the pilots' higher pay.”
[Emphasis added]
In my own rough analysis of the TA, the new scheduling efficiencies seem to outweigh our financial gains with respect to the staffing of our crew force. However, without having access to all of the data from the company, I can only make an estimate. In my opinion, adequate costing data was not given to the MEC. Resultantly, there is no factual answer. The following are some, but not all, of the efficiencies that I am concerned with that will affect us all.
· Section 25.S.2.e.
You walk into AOC expecting to fly an easy GSO pm out and back. You’re senior, and you’re looking forward to a white box of catering, a quick nap in a hotel, and an early arrival back into MEM. Scheduling calls, and they need you to fly to CPR-BOI instead. You say, “But I didn’t bid CPR-BOI? I’m senior!” They say, “Enjoy your flight, you’ve been revised.” Management has been practicing this type of revision in the recent past. Now this Out and Back Disruption is institutionalized in the TA for 1.5 CH.

Section 25.S.2.d.
You are scheduled to be bumped for training on an augmented flight. You are looking forward to some time off at home with pay. Unfortunately, your RFO is unable to operate the trip. Now your phone is ringing, and it’s CRS calling you instead of a reserve pilot. Welcome to Crew Designation Disruption. Without any options, you now get to work the trip as an RF2 or RFO for 1.5 CH per flight.

Section 25.S.2.f.
You have packed your swimsuit and plan to spend your layover in the sun in FLL. Next thing you know, you are wishing you had packed your parka for YEG. What happened? Single Layover Disruption happened. The company needs a pilot up north, and for 3 CH you get to pay the price for not getting to fly south where your seniority is.

Section 25 scheduling abuses have become an unpleasant standard in recent history. The pilot’s expectations of the TA were to fix the current abuses with concrete language in order to protect seniority. The addition of these Section 25 provisions codifies these “Trip Revisions” and removes the possibility of SUB with OTP options in these instances. CRS can now revise your trip using concrete language in the TA. The added CH penalty is nice, however, these revisions abrogate seniority; at their best they pay equal to or less than draft, and they give the pilots no options. When pilots have no options, CRS could require fewer reserve pilots, and Crew Planning could operate with a smaller, more optimized crew force. Expectations of the TA were to fix this abuse, not to simply add a penalty payment. It is up to you to decide if the penalty payment is adequate.

· Section 8.C.1.d.
Deadheading to Europe is at the top of your monthly bid. You live in Dallas, enjoying an extra day at home because you can fly nonstop to Paris. Arriving at 0730–0930 local for a show time of 0230–0330 local (depending on seasonal changes), ensures your 12-hour final check-in with back-ups. With the TA, you’ll be departing a day early to guarantee a no-stress 18-hour check-in. This equates to one less day at home for you and fewer pilots enjoying stand-by periods in Paris (and elsewhere). (Your only relief is if CRS schedules the DH through DFW, and you can un-deviate mid trip.)

· Section 12.C.2.d.
Do you like flying those senior DH pairings from SJC to IND and back with 24-hour layovers? If the company adjusts the schedule by 12 minutes, you can say goodbye to those long layovers with the new 8-in-24 company efficiency. Now, noncritical, domestic, consecutive duty periods can exceed 8 ABH if the intervening rest period was at least 10:15 (reducible to 9:15) and the next scheduled rest period is at least 13:00 (reducible to 12:00). What do you get for this efficiency? Shorter layovers built into pairings, more seat time, and no options for SUB/OTP if you exceed 8 in 24 in these circumstances.

· Section 24
Having read this section numerous times (and having the benefit of one-on-one Q&As with the Negotiating Committee), I understand the benefits to bidding for training and the ease of bidding during a time of expansion. The hidden company efficiencies that could occur during a down size are what concern me the most. I interpret a “bump & flush” of junior pilots within the contractual language of this section that leads to their instability (with Section 23: Furlough and Recall). Also, the senior pilots are limited on a “bid to relieve” to the “seniority” of the junior pilot being assigned. This section allows management to continually shift the manning of this airline to their needs, on a whim, at our expense. It is now up to you, or possibly a grievance or arbitration in the future, to determine how this section will be interpreted. Based on our history with grievances with management, how confident are you in your interpretation of this section with respect to protecting our junior pilots?

· Section 28.F.
It is common knowledge that we are undermanned at 4,200. With a large number of those pilots being retirement-ready, why aren’t we hiring nonstop to fill the retiring-pilot vacuum (with the customary slow-down during peak)?

Each pilot nearing retirement is being encouraged to fly to age 64 + 11 months. These pilots are also being financially incentivized to not use any sick time or vacation in 2015 and 2016 so that they can fund their own retirements (SLB and 100 percent vacation buy-back). Two years of seniority stagnation is approaching all of those remaining (reminiscent of Age 65).
Could this TA create enough efficiency that the company could correct their manning problems with one swipe of the pen? I anticipate fewer reserve pilots, fewer standby periods, and far less substitution options with open time priority. I foresee the degradation of seniority, and a smaller, more optimized pilot group. At the expense of your quality of life, we will hire fewer pilots, we will retire fewer pilots, and we will require fewer pilots.
The company seems fairly confident that productivity will offset our higher wages. Unfortunately for us, passing the TA is the only way for us to know how many efficiencies we have given them for only a marginal cost of living adjustment and a couple of pay penalties. We already know that retirement is deficient in the TA. What we don’t know is how the details in the TA will affect our every day quality of life.
You are the PIC on this 6–8 year journey. If it doesn’t look right or feel right to you, then call the go-around. As your PM, I’ll get your flaps and gear, and I have your back.
In Unity,
AS
FDX Council 26
Block 6 Rep.
FDX 26 Secretary-Treasurer