Jaxman187

I am concerned a little about the both sides being too friendly but I have to cut "O" some slack since DM has moved on.

hamfisted

mx727...we obviously disagree. What exactly did OR add to the meeting that our Union couldn't provide? I was there. Were you??? He told us the same thing our Union did...."this is our only offer", "no second bite at the apple", "trust us on the unknowns." Give him credit for showing up at a Union meeting and representing the Company perspective??? I don't want mgmt having access to Union internal conversations tryng to convince us to vote on an LOA still before the membership.

MX727

If our management pilots are ALPA members, they have access. If you don't want them to have that kind of access, then we need to get non-members or go to UPS's non-pilot flight managers.

I understand the concern with O being there. I wasn't there. Would it been alright with you if he would've sat in the back and not said anything?

I surmise from the quotes that you posted, we can be assured that our MEC isn't lying about their beliefs on what will happen when the LOA is voted down. That's fine with me. I'm stridently opposed to STV and as long as it exists in any form, I am forced to vote against the LOA.

I just wonder how we can ***** about having non-members (BC) in flight management and then, in the next breath ***** about having members in flight management jobs. Well, I know how we can do it, I just wonder why.

hamfisted

MX727..not upset at all that members are also of mgmt. It is a good thing. My concern is the blurrinh of lines netween mgmt and ALPA when we are in the process of negotiating changes to our contract with an LOA. I question why both are saying "no changes" yet have both arrived at a "new" intent for the STV. If intent is only 30 days, why is stated "from 30 o 90 days"?
Let's both hope this LOA fails........

Jetjok

This is possibly a first, as I agree wholeheartedly with you on this issue. Personally, I'd prefer that our management guys, when asked to become flight managers, resign their seniority number, and either resign from ALPA, or have their membership become an "affiliate member", with no active privileges whatsoever. My reasons are these: 1) when a guy becomes a manager here at FedEx, he no longer represents the crew force, he represents the Company, and I find it rather unsettling that someone can become a flight manager, cause harm or grief to member(s) of the crew force, and then either by choice or by directive, again become an active line pilot; 2) Choosing a flight management job should be a professional decision, whereby the individual relinquishes his former career and becomes a full time manager, with no ability to return to the line; 3) ALPA is a pilots union, for the betterment of the piloting profession and its members, whereas flight management, by virtue of whom they represent, in both contract negotiations as well as every day disciplinary actions, does not support these goals; 4) When someone goes into flight management, we always seem to say: "let's give him a chance. He's always been a good guy." Well, I'm sure he was a good guy, but I'm equally sure that his new goals and objectives have nothing to do with his "being a good guy", they have everything to do with doing the Company's bidding, pure and simple; 5) Personally, I'd prefer professional flight managers, guys who are in it for the long haul, not ones who want to see if it's better on the other side, and if not, just return to the line. As well, I feel it's better to truly know where a guys allegiances are, as opposed to thinking "he's a good guy, and therefore he's got the best interests of the crew force at heart." Nothing could be further from the truth.

I know UPS hires flight managers, directly into those positions, from either the street, or from the crew force. But I believe that their once-pilots-now-management types have to resign their seniority number. As well, I believe they are in the process of trying to get their flight managers into their union. It would be nice if a UPS'er were to share their reasoning with us.

Just my .02 cents

FR8Hauler

Who Cares? Why is everyone getting their panties in a wad about this? Don't we have bigger fish to fry? I kind of thought it was funny. If you were a cake eating civilian guy then I guess it might be offensive...

DLax85

Did anyone ask why "this is there only offer"?....why "no second bite at the apple"?

Are we about to enter bankruptcy?

Is there a brand new competitor in our industry that's eating our launch?

Is there a reason the company is offering a sub-standard LOA, with initially very little communication and using brinksmanship?

Can we not say "No thanks" and extend and offer to tweak it --- in writing?

How have we gotten ourselves into this concessionary position with a company that is so profitable?

BrownGirls YUM

I keep wondering the same thing.

eFDeeeX

Tru Dat!

The way this is being served to us on a platter makes me curious.

The sky is not falling.

Did anyone forget this is business? Remember the old addage, "it's only business..." People use this to be a complete jerk. Mgmt dupes are sitting around trying to save $$ to put on their next performance report: "Saved the company $XX Million by pressing the pilot force to agree to LOA." They may not be doing it so be jekrs, but it is their job to save the company money, and their performance reports reflect this end goal. This is what we are dealing with.

Reality: this is a negotiation. Our MEC appears to have gotten intertwined in a few aspects of this LOA and lost site of what is going on. As soon as you blink in a negotiation, chances are you will lose. As soon as you get emotional in a negotiation, chance are you will lose.

I view this LOA as substandard.

Intlpilot

We need to be careful what we ask for. . . . need to think alot of things through