New Letter from MEC
07-31-2007, 07:34 AM
#1
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Right, left, js
Posts: 9
New Letter from MEC
[php]NEGOTIATING UPDATE
It has been quite some time since I last communicated with you. Since last fall, my team and I have spent most of our time flying the line and decompressing from the stresses of negotiating our Contract. As well, we have been overseeing the implementation of our new Agreement and participating in the development of the plans for our new, international bases. We have been busy—and maybe a bit too complacent. It has recently become obvious to me that the absence of the rational discourse we enjoyed during our years of working together on our contract has enabled the proliferation of discontent amongst a familiar demographic. Hopefully this letter will serve to re-direct our energies and begin a constructive dialogue once again.
The part we got the most right during our recent negotiation was the two-way discussion that we conducted during the process, and the three years preceding it. It was that intra-member dialogue that resulted in the development and adoption of the four cornerstone issues of Scope, Work Rules, Healthcare, and Retirement, which enabled us to maintain our focus so diligently during that grueling process. The same dialogue was a key component in the determination of the tone, tenor, and subject mix of our communications. Another thing that proved to be critical to the successful conclusion of the negotiating process was our insistence on the ability to accurately determine the cost or value of each item in the negotiation. Work rules, Healthcare, and Retirement were analyzed in depth and mathematical costing factors were assigned to the various subsets of each. Scope, of course, is less mathematical than empirical. Although an absence of effective Scope protections would render the remainder of any Contract virtually moot, it is of course, almost impossible to assign a simple dollar value to it. The value is in “who gets the flying,” and make no mistake, the crowning jewel of our 2006 Agreement is our considerable advancements in this most important Section. We secured the flying. As simple as it may sound, the ability to understand and quantify the value of your negotiating goals is vital to the process, because there is really no other way to determine when you have achieved your goals. You need to know when the deal is done.
There is another invaluable body of knowledge we gleaned while we ground our way through the negotiating process. We learned that both sides, pilots and management, have demographic breakdowns of remarkable similarity. On our side, we are disbursed over a classic bell curve. On one end of the curve we have a vocal group of individuals who are combative, not easily satisfied, and frankly, will never be willing to make a deal, because the consummation of an agreement renders moot their discontent. This group demands an inordinate amount of the Union ’s time, stimulates a modicum of constructive debate, but at the same time does significant damage to the process and desire of good people to participate in it. The counterparts to this group on the other side are the management “hawks.” They take the position that the pilots are a fractured group, unable to make and keep agreements. They don’t really wish to recognize the sacrifices we make on a daily basis to get the job done. They believe the company would be better served by assuming a hard line position with the pilots and/or seeking alternative means of moving the freight. They assume all pilots are part of the loud and vocal minority, presumably because they too are loud and vocal.
“Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim.”
George Santayana ---“The Life of Reason” volume 1, Introduction
George Santayana ---“The Life of Reason” volume 1, Introduction
The part we got the most right during our recent negotiation was the two-way discussion that we conducted during the process, and the three years preceding it. It was that intra-member dialogue that resulted in the development and adoption of the four cornerstone issues of Scope, Work Rules, Healthcare, and Retirement, which enabled us to maintain our focus so diligently during that grueling process. The same dialogue was a key component in the determination of the tone, tenor, and subject mix of our communications. Another thing that proved to be critical to the successful conclusion of the negotiating process was our insistence on the ability to accurately determine the cost or value of each item in the negotiation. Work rules, Healthcare, and Retirement were analyzed in depth and mathematical costing factors were assigned to the various subsets of each. Scope, of course, is less mathematical than empirical. Although an absence of effective Scope protections would render the remainder of any Contract virtually moot, it is of course, almost impossible to assign a simple dollar value to it. The value is in “who gets the flying,” and make no mistake, the crowning jewel of our 2006 Agreement is our considerable advancements in this most important Section. We secured the flying. As simple as it may sound, the ability to understand and quantify the value of your negotiating goals is vital to the process, because there is really no other way to determine when you have achieved your goals. You need to know when the deal is done.
There is another invaluable body of knowledge we gleaned while we ground our way through the negotiating process. We learned that both sides, pilots and management, have demographic breakdowns of remarkable similarity. On our side, we are disbursed over a classic bell curve. On one end of the curve we have a vocal group of individuals who are combative, not easily satisfied, and frankly, will never be willing to make a deal, because the consummation of an agreement renders moot their discontent. This group demands an inordinate amount of the Union ’s time, stimulates a modicum of constructive debate, but at the same time does significant damage to the process and desire of good people to participate in it. The counterparts to this group on the other side are the management “hawks.” They take the position that the pilots are a fractured group, unable to make and keep agreements. They don’t really wish to recognize the sacrifices we make on a daily basis to get the job done. They believe the company would be better served by assuming a hard line position with the pilots and/or seeking alternative means of moving the freight. They assume all pilots are part of the loud and vocal minority, presumably because they too are loud and vocal.
07-31-2007, 07:36 AM
#2
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Right, left, js
Posts: 9
The center of the bell curve (and by far the largest demographic group) contains the “silent majority.” This group is mostly reasonable and willing to examine and entertain solutions that provide incremental improvements in quality of life and economic benefits. They appreciate what they have and look to build on it in the future. The management equivalent of this demographic has a similar mindset. They recognize the contributions of the pilot group and appreciate the sacrifices the pilots make on a daily basis. They believe the best way to move the freight is with our own pilots and look to find ways to further that end. They are the management group that took professional risk by entering into a negotiated labor agreement with us--the first legitimately negotiated labor agreement ever consummated on this property. It is this group (on both the union and management sides) to whom we targeted our communications.
The remaining group consists of quite a small number of both pilots and managers. This bunch chooses to ignore the fact that there are groups on both sides engaged in bilateral discussions for the purpose of developing labor agreements that will significantly impact their lives. I occasionally come across persons of this genre and am invariably overcome with awe and disbelief. Bless their hearts.
The reason I have taken the time to examine this demographic spread with you will become evident later in this piece. At this point I would like to introduce three topics I feel are timely and relevant to us as a group. I will list and discuss them in what I consider the order of relative importance:
The quality of the pairings and the lines. B777 pay and ultra-long-range work rules. The impending opening of the Paris and Hong Kong FDAs.
While we were busy negotiating the Contract and in the months since the implementation, management has been gradually cranking up their “optimizer.” The result has been a steady degradation in our quality of life. I submit they have finally gone too far (I fly the MD11 internationally and have first-hand knowledge of the degradation of that flying. I believe the same is happening domestically, but only through anecdotal evidence.)
One of our goals in Negotiations was to eliminate the need for the SIG and PSIT by achieving ironclad scheduling rules. About halfway through the process (when our first Mediator told us to give it up) we knew we would not achieve that goal. We then set about the task of strengthening the ability of the SIG to dispute and otherwise influence bad pairings for the better. We had some minor successes in that area, but in the final analysis we all knew that in the scheduling arena there is no justice—just us! It is now time for “us” to get involved (some of you already have). Register your complaints with your Block reps and demand demonstrative action. If things don’t get better quickly we should reconsider our participation in the SIG and PSIT as well as other alternatives that might present themselves.
By the way, historically this sort of thing has happened every time we have become distracted as a group. Make no mistake about it, we are currently quite distracted. The twin topics of age 60 and the FDA LOA have provided fertile subject matter for the proponents of hysteria. Unfortunately, whenever we are busy lobbing hand grenades at each other management sits back and tightens the screws. It is really important that we maintain focus in this quality-of-life area.
In short order we will begin preparing for the introduction of the B-777F into our fleet. There have been some questions asked concerning pay rates and ultra-long range work rules for this aircraft type. I caution you to not also allow this subject to distract us from our proper focus. Our management has stated quite clearly in each and every press release on the subject that the B-777F is a seamless replacement for the cancelled A380 (We maintain a file containing copies of all press coverage on the subject in the Association’s Communications Office.). I ask you now to refer to pages 3-4, 7 and 10, as well as page 12-22 of your programs (a/k/a the “Operational Sections of the Agreement” dated October 30, 2006). On those pages you will find both pay rates and operational rules which recognize the size difference and ultra-long range capabilities of the A380 versus the MD11. While there is some MTGW difference between the B-777F and the A380, we feel that is irrelevant to this discussion. The book rates for the new aircraft are seven percent higher than the wide body rates. According to the Boeing web site, the MTGW of the B-777F is 766,000 pounds. That number is 21.2% greater than the MTGW of the MD-11—more than justifying the 7% pay premium assigned originally to the A380. The ultra-long range parts of the International Grid (page 12-22) are similarly interchangeable as they were negotiated in recognition of the type of flying and not any specific aircraft type. All I feel is required for the introduction of the B-777F is a pen and ink change lining through A380 and writing in B-777 in all relevant areas of the Contract. The Negotiating Committee has recommended this position to the MEC.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana---“The Life of Reason” volume 1, 1905
Now back to the demographics of our group and some relevant history. In 1995, after two years of full-contact negotiating, our ALPA Negotiating Committee brought us a Tentative Agreement. In their judgment, the TA was the best deal available at the time and merited ratification. We were a pretty fractured group back then, however, and the loud, vocal element was in full feather. They denounced the TA, the negotiators and the leadership that recommended it. Sadly, truth and facts were never requirements for publication of their hysterical rantings. The TA failed, we lost ALPA, and we descended into three years of rudderless wandering. In 1998, two TAs later, we approved a contract that contained significantly less in many areas than the failed 1995 TA. Most notably, in the area of Scope, the Holding Company was mostly not obligated, and there were some quite onerous poison pills in the 1998 Agreement. The 1995 TA obligated the entire Company and was quite simple and straightforward. In Work Rules, the 1995 TA contained a 1:3.43 Trip Rig. The Trip Rig in the 1998 Agreement was 1:4. Of course there were other things, but I think you get my point.
Our collective bargaining process was hijacked by the loud and vocal minority in 1995 much to our collective detriment. We were not only set back in the areas of quality of life and economics, but our collective self respect and self image hit bottom. It took us the better part of ten years to recover.
We now have in front of us a Letter of Agreement that adds economic benefit to those pilots who choose to bid either of the new FDAs in Paris or Hong Kong. Before it was even finished and published, the loud and vocal minority was putting up vitriolic posts on the internet message boards and blast emailing the world demanding you vote “no” to send some sort of message to someone. Much like 1995, they propose no credible plan for how to proceed if and when the LOA goes down. Also, again like 1995, truth and fact appear to be optional. Astonishingly enough, we have even had such a communication from a Block Rep who was actually present at the site visit to Guangzhou , and also present at the negotiating session at the Memphis Hilton on April 19, 2007. At the April 19 session he participated as we informed management that we felt Guangzhou was an inadequate location for the FDA base, that they needed to make the base Hong Kong , and that they needed to build ground transport or deadhead legs onto every pairing and on the clock for pay. We also turned down the rent support offer they made at that meeting, and subsequently settled for a greater amount. The Block Rep to whom I refer told you the Negotiating Committee took Management’s first offer. I am flabbergasted.
Those who post on the internet found expensive Hong Kong apartments and asserted those prices are the norm. What is more troubling, however, is that people would rather believe the internet chat boards than rationally discuss the matter with their Association representatives. For the record, we assumed a housing contribution of $2000.00 per month per pilot. Adding the $2700.00 per month contribution from the Company makes $4700.00 per month available for housing expenses (rent, utilities, internet). There are very nice housing accommodations available in both Hong Kong and Paris at that amount.
The remaining group consists of quite a small number of both pilots and managers. This bunch chooses to ignore the fact that there are groups on both sides engaged in bilateral discussions for the purpose of developing labor agreements that will significantly impact their lives. I occasionally come across persons of this genre and am invariably overcome with awe and disbelief. Bless their hearts.
The reason I have taken the time to examine this demographic spread with you will become evident later in this piece. At this point I would like to introduce three topics I feel are timely and relevant to us as a group. I will list and discuss them in what I consider the order of relative importance:
The quality of the pairings and the lines. B777 pay and ultra-long-range work rules. The impending opening of the Paris and Hong Kong FDAs.
While we were busy negotiating the Contract and in the months since the implementation, management has been gradually cranking up their “optimizer.” The result has been a steady degradation in our quality of life. I submit they have finally gone too far (I fly the MD11 internationally and have first-hand knowledge of the degradation of that flying. I believe the same is happening domestically, but only through anecdotal evidence.)
One of our goals in Negotiations was to eliminate the need for the SIG and PSIT by achieving ironclad scheduling rules. About halfway through the process (when our first Mediator told us to give it up) we knew we would not achieve that goal. We then set about the task of strengthening the ability of the SIG to dispute and otherwise influence bad pairings for the better. We had some minor successes in that area, but in the final analysis we all knew that in the scheduling arena there is no justice—just us! It is now time for “us” to get involved (some of you already have). Register your complaints with your Block reps and demand demonstrative action. If things don’t get better quickly we should reconsider our participation in the SIG and PSIT as well as other alternatives that might present themselves.
By the way, historically this sort of thing has happened every time we have become distracted as a group. Make no mistake about it, we are currently quite distracted. The twin topics of age 60 and the FDA LOA have provided fertile subject matter for the proponents of hysteria. Unfortunately, whenever we are busy lobbing hand grenades at each other management sits back and tightens the screws. It is really important that we maintain focus in this quality-of-life area.
In short order we will begin preparing for the introduction of the B-777F into our fleet. There have been some questions asked concerning pay rates and ultra-long range work rules for this aircraft type. I caution you to not also allow this subject to distract us from our proper focus. Our management has stated quite clearly in each and every press release on the subject that the B-777F is a seamless replacement for the cancelled A380 (We maintain a file containing copies of all press coverage on the subject in the Association’s Communications Office.). I ask you now to refer to pages 3-4, 7 and 10, as well as page 12-22 of your programs (a/k/a the “Operational Sections of the Agreement” dated October 30, 2006). On those pages you will find both pay rates and operational rules which recognize the size difference and ultra-long range capabilities of the A380 versus the MD11. While there is some MTGW difference between the B-777F and the A380, we feel that is irrelevant to this discussion. The book rates for the new aircraft are seven percent higher than the wide body rates. According to the Boeing web site, the MTGW of the B-777F is 766,000 pounds. That number is 21.2% greater than the MTGW of the MD-11—more than justifying the 7% pay premium assigned originally to the A380. The ultra-long range parts of the International Grid (page 12-22) are similarly interchangeable as they were negotiated in recognition of the type of flying and not any specific aircraft type. All I feel is required for the introduction of the B-777F is a pen and ink change lining through A380 and writing in B-777 in all relevant areas of the Contract. The Negotiating Committee has recommended this position to the MEC.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
George Santayana---“The Life of Reason” volume 1, 1905
Now back to the demographics of our group and some relevant history. In 1995, after two years of full-contact negotiating, our ALPA Negotiating Committee brought us a Tentative Agreement. In their judgment, the TA was the best deal available at the time and merited ratification. We were a pretty fractured group back then, however, and the loud, vocal element was in full feather. They denounced the TA, the negotiators and the leadership that recommended it. Sadly, truth and facts were never requirements for publication of their hysterical rantings. The TA failed, we lost ALPA, and we descended into three years of rudderless wandering. In 1998, two TAs later, we approved a contract that contained significantly less in many areas than the failed 1995 TA. Most notably, in the area of Scope, the Holding Company was mostly not obligated, and there were some quite onerous poison pills in the 1998 Agreement. The 1995 TA obligated the entire Company and was quite simple and straightforward. In Work Rules, the 1995 TA contained a 1:3.43 Trip Rig. The Trip Rig in the 1998 Agreement was 1:4. Of course there were other things, but I think you get my point.
Our collective bargaining process was hijacked by the loud and vocal minority in 1995 much to our collective detriment. We were not only set back in the areas of quality of life and economics, but our collective self respect and self image hit bottom. It took us the better part of ten years to recover.
We now have in front of us a Letter of Agreement that adds economic benefit to those pilots who choose to bid either of the new FDAs in Paris or Hong Kong. Before it was even finished and published, the loud and vocal minority was putting up vitriolic posts on the internet message boards and blast emailing the world demanding you vote “no” to send some sort of message to someone. Much like 1995, they propose no credible plan for how to proceed if and when the LOA goes down. Also, again like 1995, truth and fact appear to be optional. Astonishingly enough, we have even had such a communication from a Block Rep who was actually present at the site visit to Guangzhou , and also present at the negotiating session at the Memphis Hilton on April 19, 2007. At the April 19 session he participated as we informed management that we felt Guangzhou was an inadequate location for the FDA base, that they needed to make the base Hong Kong , and that they needed to build ground transport or deadhead legs onto every pairing and on the clock for pay. We also turned down the rent support offer they made at that meeting, and subsequently settled for a greater amount. The Block Rep to whom I refer told you the Negotiating Committee took Management’s first offer. I am flabbergasted.
Those who post on the internet found expensive Hong Kong apartments and asserted those prices are the norm. What is more troubling, however, is that people would rather believe the internet chat boards than rationally discuss the matter with their Association representatives. For the record, we assumed a housing contribution of $2000.00 per month per pilot. Adding the $2700.00 per month contribution from the Company makes $4700.00 per month available for housing expenses (rent, utilities, internet). There are very nice housing accommodations available in both Hong Kong and Paris at that amount.
07-31-2007, 07:37 AM
#3
New Hire
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Right, left, js
Posts: 9
Another argument that has gotten some traction is the one that says due to the schooling issue and the smaller size of the housing these new bases don’t work well for 100% of our pilots. Rather than waste my time refuting that assertion, I will just say that we don’t have a single crew base that works well for 100% of our pilots. With the cost of housing and the high state taxes, LAX isn’t for everyone. It is certainly inarguable that ANC isn’t for everyone, and if MEM worked well for everyone I doubt we would have upwards of 65% commuters in that base. If CDG and/or HKG don’t work well for your situation, I recommend you don’t bid them.
I do recommend you vote for the LOA, though. I could give you many well-substantiated reasons to do so, but in the interest of brevity I’ll limit myself to three important ones:
During the negotiation of our Contract we promised you we wouldn’t bring you any agreement that didn’t contain quantifiable economic gain. Taking into account only the $2700.00 per month to secure housing, the $32,400.00 per year that the monthly allowance totals, amounts to a 21.6% pay premium for a sixth year FO earning $150,000.00 annually, and 14.4% for a twelfth year Captain earning $225,000.00. By any measure those percentages represent quantifiable economic gain that is quite substantial. In fact, the 21.6% pay premium for a First Officer exceeds the cumulative pay raises of the entire 2006 Agreement on a per year basis. Scope. The approval of this LOA further memorializes this flying under our Agreement and the Railway Labor Act. I know you understand the importance of that. The rejection of something as straightforward as an LOA that only adds to our current Agreement and gives up nothing can only empower the “hawks” on the management side. They already believe we are an unruly mob given to anarchy.
There has been a lot of ground covered in this update, and hopefully some informed discussion has been stimulated. I really feel our focus has been diverted unnecessarily and to our collective detriment. Membership ratification was never intended to provide “line item veto” power to individual members. In a representative democracy such as our Association that type of authority belongs to the elected representatives. Nevertheless, if you honestly feel the LOA before you imposes a significant hardship on you and the welfare of your family, then you should vote against it. If you are simply angered that you will not be made into a “privileged class” of pilot by having all your living expenses in CDG or HKG paid by the company then I think you have lost your way. If you never had any intention of bidding either of these bases, but are intending to vote “no” simply because it makes you feel good or “because you can” then know you are doing irreparable damage to this process and depriving the pilots who will bid these bases anyway of, at the least, tax equalization; and most likely, significant economic benefits. That would be horribly irresponsible. If there is something else causing your anger (like the Association’s position on the mandatory retirement age), I urge you to compartmentalize those issues and deal with them individually and at the proper time. After carefully weighing the facts, I am hopeful the majority of you will exercise your votes on the FDA LOA responsibly.
I must admit though, to being more than a little concerned about the ability of a vocal minority to drive this group into the angry and emotional state in which we are currently entrapped. This FDA LOA is a clear improvement and economic gain over and above the provisions of our current Contract. Yet some of us seem unable to accept it for what it is—an economic improvement—and make an unemotional business decision. This does not bode well for 2010 negotiations. Our strength in our most recent negotiating effort came from the silent resolve of the center of the bell curve—not the fringes. The silent majority refused to become ensnared in the intoxicating rapture of discontent and we were able to achieve an outstanding Agreement. What’s more, we did so with our dignity intact.
I’ll leave you with this business axiom from a good friend of mine, a country gentleman from Arkansas :
Fraternally,
Captain Bob Chimenti
FedEx MEC Negotiating Committee Chairman
[/php]
I do recommend you vote for the LOA, though. I could give you many well-substantiated reasons to do so, but in the interest of brevity I’ll limit myself to three important ones:
During the negotiation of our Contract we promised you we wouldn’t bring you any agreement that didn’t contain quantifiable economic gain. Taking into account only the $2700.00 per month to secure housing, the $32,400.00 per year that the monthly allowance totals, amounts to a 21.6% pay premium for a sixth year FO earning $150,000.00 annually, and 14.4% for a twelfth year Captain earning $225,000.00. By any measure those percentages represent quantifiable economic gain that is quite substantial. In fact, the 21.6% pay premium for a First Officer exceeds the cumulative pay raises of the entire 2006 Agreement on a per year basis. Scope. The approval of this LOA further memorializes this flying under our Agreement and the Railway Labor Act. I know you understand the importance of that. The rejection of something as straightforward as an LOA that only adds to our current Agreement and gives up nothing can only empower the “hawks” on the management side. They already believe we are an unruly mob given to anarchy.
There has been a lot of ground covered in this update, and hopefully some informed discussion has been stimulated. I really feel our focus has been diverted unnecessarily and to our collective detriment. Membership ratification was never intended to provide “line item veto” power to individual members. In a representative democracy such as our Association that type of authority belongs to the elected representatives. Nevertheless, if you honestly feel the LOA before you imposes a significant hardship on you and the welfare of your family, then you should vote against it. If you are simply angered that you will not be made into a “privileged class” of pilot by having all your living expenses in CDG or HKG paid by the company then I think you have lost your way. If you never had any intention of bidding either of these bases, but are intending to vote “no” simply because it makes you feel good or “because you can” then know you are doing irreparable damage to this process and depriving the pilots who will bid these bases anyway of, at the least, tax equalization; and most likely, significant economic benefits. That would be horribly irresponsible. If there is something else causing your anger (like the Association’s position on the mandatory retirement age), I urge you to compartmentalize those issues and deal with them individually and at the proper time. After carefully weighing the facts, I am hopeful the majority of you will exercise your votes on the FDA LOA responsibly.
I must admit though, to being more than a little concerned about the ability of a vocal minority to drive this group into the angry and emotional state in which we are currently entrapped. This FDA LOA is a clear improvement and economic gain over and above the provisions of our current Contract. Yet some of us seem unable to accept it for what it is—an economic improvement—and make an unemotional business decision. This does not bode well for 2010 negotiations. Our strength in our most recent negotiating effort came from the silent resolve of the center of the bell curve—not the fringes. The silent majority refused to become ensnared in the intoxicating rapture of discontent and we were able to achieve an outstanding Agreement. What’s more, we did so with our dignity intact.
I’ll leave you with this business axiom from a good friend of mine, a country gentleman from Arkansas :
“Don’t get your mad in front of your money.”
Captain Bob Chimenti
FedEx MEC Negotiating Committee Chairman
[/php]
07-31-2007, 08:00 AM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 62
Pay Raise
Does this strike you as out of touch??--"amounts to a 21.6% pay premium for a sixth year FO earning $150,000.00 annually, and 14.4% for a twelfth year Captain earning $225,000.00." This isn't a pay raise. It just barely covers INCREASED housing costs.
07-31-2007, 08:10 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by StangDog
....During the negotiation of our Contract we promised you we wouldn’t bring you any agreement that didn’t contain quantifiable economic gain. Taking into account only the $2700.00 per month to secure housing, the $32,400.00 per year that the monthly allowance totals, amounts to a 21.6% pay premium for a sixth year FO earning $150,000.00 annually, and 14.4% for a twelfth year Captain earning $225,000.00. By any measure those percentages represent quantifiable economic gain that is quite substantial...
Fraternally,
Captain Bob Chimenti
FedEx MEC Negotiating Committee Chairman
[/php]
Fraternally,
Captain Bob Chimenti
FedEx MEC Negotiating Committee Chairman
[/php]
- Memphis = 100
- Paris = 143
- HKG = 153
...or a DOD Avg housing rate equivalent measure for mid-level officers:
- Memphis = $1,374
- Paris = $5,238
- HKG = $6,762
It's really NOT higher level math BC...
It's not a "quantifiable economic gain" if you raise my pay by 14.4 to 21.6%, but then ask me to live in an FDA where the cost of living is 40% - 50% higher (...and equivalent housing is 400% higher!)
07-31-2007, 08:15 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 71
Advertising is the modern substitute for argument; its function is to make the worse appear the better.George Santayana
07-31-2007, 08:20 AM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
I always like the way they talk about a fragmented union. This is driven by the association's stance on Age 60. They clearly did not listen to the membership when it was very clear what we wanted. It is unfortunate that FDX ALPA's vote was irrelevant and they could have voted NO and ALPA would have still changed their stance. They could have then had our respect. They lost mine when they decided to go on their own and vote against their membership on a very important issue, one which we actually wasted our time and filled out a survey. At this time, I began to look closely at their motives, which are still unclear to me.
The contract was certainly geared toward the older crowd, but there were gains by all, and that was overlooked. Their age 60 reversal caused me to look closer, and I think this LOA is simply bad.
If Fedex wants to open a FDA without this LOA, that is perfectly acceptable to me. If current employees choose to bid either location, they deserve the crappy conditions they will live in. If management agrees to renegotiate, then we all benefit, union and Fedex alike. Fedex decided to base pilots in two of the top ten expensive cities in the world (not to mention the very weak dollar) and SHOULD assist with some of that expense.
Make a better deal or let them bid out the FDA as it stands!
The contract was certainly geared toward the older crowd, but there were gains by all, and that was overlooked. Their age 60 reversal caused me to look closer, and I think this LOA is simply bad.
If Fedex wants to open a FDA without this LOA, that is perfectly acceptable to me. If current employees choose to bid either location, they deserve the crappy conditions they will live in. If management agrees to renegotiate, then we all benefit, union and Fedex alike. Fedex decided to base pilots in two of the top ten expensive cities in the world (not to mention the very weak dollar) and SHOULD assist with some of that expense.
Make a better deal or let them bid out the FDA as it stands!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
