a300fr8dog

Redeye,
I think you need to look again at this VEBA thing. You seem to think it's going to benefit everyone. That's not the case as it appears in our CBA today. Look at who qualifies:
para 27.H.4; those retired between 5/31/04 thru 8/26/06, and those over age 53 prior to 1 JAN 2007. Sure it was intended to keep this VEBA thing going. But, there is NO gaurantee it will be there for me in 2020. Once those mentioned in this paragraph are gone, I personally don't think this will stay in place, especially if we change to 65. JMO

Toccata

Come on. DW is never wrong.

Tuck

Redeye are you smoking crack?

1) VEBA was never intended to last for 10+ years - you can talk to your LEC rep or the specialists at ALPA - I've talked to both. Hopefully our $500/yr will cover the payments - if they don't then the 3 member VEBA committee made up of 2 retirees mind you, will raise our VEBA payments. Furthermore it becomes more and more worthless as a) our retirement age gets moved up and b) the country starts to tackle health care - both things seem to be assured

2) Grid Penalty Penalties - let's see I fly about 80% intl and have never had a penalty, even approached a penalty even or know of anyone that has. Furthermore I can't even find a pre-contract pairing that would have violated anything in the Grid Penalty or Anchor Zone req'ts. I wasn't aware of the give back in disruption pay - that sucks.

3) Our health care is great?!?! Come on dude - do you know anyone at any other majors. Other than Jet Blue I'd say we have one of the worst health care programs in the industry - it doesn't even touch UPS. When I pay $40 to see a podiatrist the receptionist asks me if I want to call my insurance to make sure because that seems awfully high. $25 copay for a non-generic drug? Give me a break about best in the system. What are the improvements for Well Point? We still haven't seen the updated Pilot Benefit Book so who has any idea what the improvement is?

4) 7% B fund? Hasn't happened yet - and why was there a 1 year delay in the 7% but no delay in all the increased percentiles for pension plans for the old guys (that was supposed to wash out the loss of their deserved 7%?)

5) You think our CBA guarantees us something like the right to retire at 60 if Age 65 is passed? Better read the recent info from the MEC about what the purpose of changing our stance on the Age 60 was to begin with - never heard it before but according to these recent emails the biggest thing was to guarantee that the company wouldn't be allowed to change the CURRENT CBA without our agreement as BA tried to do.

6) Pay raise I received? Let's see I've gotten a bigger increase (than our 3%/year COLA) every year I've been in the military and my wife has gotten a bigger increase every year she's been a public school teacher - says a lot about the huge profits we've made huh?

7) What about the $25K put into every over 53 year old's account to be used for medical expenses? How does that figure into retiree health benefits? Kind of surprised by that one? Not exactly a cornerstone issue and certainly not one that was for the whole pilot group. What percentage of our increases do you think were spent on VEBA and the $25K? 50%? More?

Don't tell me I'm the envy of the industry. Our last contract made us the envy as well so why even negotiate for a new one? Heck wasn't the pay enough last time? I mean everyone else has lost their pension why not just give back say half of ours? What happened to the thought that the pilot force was a strong part of the incredible profits FDX has made in the past and they deserve a piece. I for one thought the CBA was great at the time - until I've had a little time to use it and read it more closely. Not looking so great anymore - doesn't mean the MEC and NC were evil or unethical - just that they were wrong and we may have been wrong to back them up. We really need professional negotiators.

Toccata

Please elaborate on the above statement. As I read it, you are saying the Company could automatically increase our current "Normal" retirement age from 60, as written, to 65, without our approval.

I've read the Town Hall meeting update - I see the first bullet point that Mr. K stated. I've also read the proposed legislation. What wording, exactly, would allow the Company to unilaterally increase the CBA "normal" retirement age from 60 to 65? What wording, exactly, would allow the Company to unilaterally change ANYTHING?

Secondly, if this is one of things ALPA is after, what language in the proposed language PROHIBITS any unilateral CBA wording change? Of anything?

Not being argumentative. I simply don't see that being available for Company use under the RLA and the current wording of the proposed legislation. I hope some smarter minds chime in and explain this better.

If you did not closely look at the critical areas of the proposed CBA, what did you base the above opinion on? Presentations from the MEC, I'm guessing.

Tuck

The notes from the Town Hall Meeting specifically say one of the objectives is to:

1) Prohibit unilateral changes to labor agreements and benefit plans

.....Mr. Kenny again emphasized the key point is to ensure, through the writing of legislation that management may not unilaterally change any CBA provisions after the regulated age is changed without negotiating with the union.

And then it goes on to talk about the problems with BA. So even though this has never been mentioned in earlier emails, it now becomes the CRUX of the argument as to why we needed to change our stance and get involved to influence legislation. The "key point".

All along DW has said that our CBA cannot be changed without our okaying it but now we find out that we are very much concerned about management "unilaterally" changing it after Age 65 legislation.

Tuck

I read the CBA but not being a lawyer I did count a lot on the NC's road show and the emailed power point notes. They didn't explain very much at all about VEBA and never talked about the $500/yr input from each pilot.

You couldn't get anyone to explain the Intl Grid Penalty - even BC said "heck, he didn't understand it". So far we've seen little or zero benefit to that provision that was a fundamental part of the enhanced work rules.

No one ever mentioned the changes to the Training dates - how you no longer get placed in sub and the trip/R-days gets dropped - all the R-days gets dropped if it's a single block.

Very little mention as to the value of the VEBA and $25K/pilot HSA. Do the math on this and see how much of our contract went to these two issues alone (let's see 43.2 Million for VEBA and another say 1000*25K=25M, about $70M - wow! Didn't think that "cornerstone" was the "CORNERSTONE" did you?

We all got talked in to fighting for work rule pay changes (trip rig, capture, etc) vice straight up pay rates. Well how many guys regret that now? We'll see how much the optimizer washes out the trip rig changes.

Those are a few at the top of my mind. Now of course ultimately it's my fault - I had the entire CBA at my hand before voting - I should have read it more clearly. Just goes to my belief that you can't really trust these guys and the idea of putting your faith in the NC and the briefs isn't justified.

Jaxman187

Nice post Tuck. I'm a sucker too!

BrownGirls YUM

Speaking of name-calling and since this thread has morphed into a CBA discussion, I thought it interesting that I was attacked and called an idiot (not that it might not be true) for bringing to light the fact that the new trip rig changes will reduce ones effective sick leave and vacation by 7% should either of them be used for knocking out TAFB trips. I was amazed at the flack I got at the mere suggestion that the reduction might amount to a concession.

Adjusting trip rigs: Good
Adjusting trip rigs without a corresponding adjustment to vacation and sick leave: Not-so-good.

That said, I would not have wanted those posts blasting me on that subject modified one bit. Those guys thought I was an idiot at the time...maybe they still do...maybe I still am...but this isn't High Tea with the Queen, here. It's more like a round of beers with the boys...if a couple get a little rude, big deal. Grow some skin. Now, when REAL NAMES show up here involuntarily, then maybe it's time for a little moderatation. But in most cases, I think we need to grow a little skin.

EDIT: Somehow in my sleep-deprived stupor, I thought I was posting under the "call for purple moderators" thread. Oh well, I'll just leave it. That's what I get for having two thread windows open at once.