skypine27

Unlike some of my previous posts, which are cut and pastes of info and/or emails I have found informative, this one is entirely my own words. It is aimed at those who have not voted, those who have voted yes (hey, you can change your vote...), and 11 members of the union.

"IT AIN'T THAT BAD"

Is that really the package that this pilot group deserves, in light of FedEX's financial situation?

I've flown for an airline that was in Chapter 11. During my employ there, we had not one, but two LOA votes. Both were for concessionary LOAs that pilots occasionally remarked, "It ain't that bad." And both votes passed. But, there was a huge difference between then and now. That airline was WAAYY in the red, and the company's threat (if you vote No, there's a good chance we'll go from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7) was a valid one.

FedEX's financial situation is far, far different. How many times have I logged onto pilot.fedex.com, checked a stock quote, logged onto a message board, etc... and read a blurb about FedEX's huge 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, Quarter profit??? Does anyone think our profitability is on the brink of disaster? Does anyone actually not recognize that these new FDA's will strengthen FedEX's balance sheet even if we got a halfway decent ex-pat package? I'm not trying to bankrupt my company with a United or Delta "Blue Skies" type contract. I'm just asking for a package that elicits responses other than those ranging from "It ain't that bad..." to "Jesus H, are you kidding me??" That is WELL within FedEX's financial reach.

The bottom line: With FedEX's financial situation, this pilot group should not settle for a substandard, somewhat concessionary, "It ain't that bad" LOA. We are well within reason to expect, and demand, a LOA that 80 % of the pilot group can read and say "Man, that's a pretty good deal". This "C-" spec LOA is for companies in, or on the edge, of Chapter 11. Not for one making record profits.

I'm not an unreasonable man. I don't necessarily have "Full Pay to the Last Day" stickers all over my flight bag when the unemployment line is staring me in the face. But, as a reasonable man, I also don't agree with using my paycheck to subsidize my highly profitable company's soon to be highly profitable expansion plan.

Let's not act like a beat dog who's happy simply when his owner decides not to kick him in the ribs on any given day. Stand up and demand what's reasonable.

C- LOA = No way

MrSuupafly

I'm all for that. I see nothing cost neutral about this LOA. Imagine if it's voted down and the company has to open the FDAs under the current provisions of the CBA? Think of how much money they'd have to spend moving a lot more that 500 lbs of household goods, plus 2 automobiles? Think of how much money they'd spend inversing people utilizing SIBA (The FIRST class tickets, not BUSINESS); how much productivity would be lost using SIBA and not STV?

I think they'd rather give guys that $2700/month and STV the h*ll out of the rest, than proceed under the current provisions.

The only reason to vote yes is to get the housing allowance, but you give up a lot from Section 6. Is there something I'm missing? Give me one good reason to vote yes. Just one...

ConnerP

Excellent post Skypine.

The only other way I've heard it described by Yes voters is "It's better than nothing".

Not exactly the way to look at a deal. Not at a thriving Fortune 500 company.