FlynLow

Health care will change with the new health care provider coming on line, or at least it will significantly change for me in my area that I live, the new provider is much better deal over all, so that might not help me at 46, but it will in the future when my time comes.(or are we going to trade it away for some pie in the sky deal later...)

Pay raises, again, we got more than what we started out with on the first offer with the company, so we did gain, especially with what lack of real leverage we had, in my opinion.

The NMB has never allowed a contract deal to be done that had more than 15 percent pay and benefits bonus in the first year, they have considered that unfair to the company. Makes more sense in that regard to continue to sign short contracts...PM on that if you don't understand where I've gone with that.

B fund was an increase...yeah, I would have liked more.

Many legal language changes were made, that gave the company some less wiggle room on the A fund. Again, any lawyer can break any contract, but there was some work done to take away avenues to screw us on our A fund. They did what they could based upon the recent events in the busting of the airline pension plans of the last several years.

The VEBA and HSA while only immediately effecting the "53" y/o crowd doesn't go away and is a start that will impact all of us, unless you see we are going to give that up on the next contract.

We'll see on the other changes, trip rig, etc, how they will pan out. Again, my perspective on what we did and didn't get, and it wasn't perfect, but I still feel going in the right direction.

We need unity and leverage to make the stuff continue to improve. History is important, but always remember they work on nuetralizing any gains we make in loose contract language, as we have all seen.

As a 46 year old guy, I don't feel I was screwed, my retirement is heading in the right direction, my healthcare got better, my retirement healthcare looks positive, and my pay went up. That is a macro view.

My sub policy still sucks, training scheduling and pay issues still suck, and they degradation of our schedules still sucks, our lack of cargo screening still sucks, our lack of security training and or future cockpit doors on 777's still sucks, so yes, we have a long ways to go.

IMHO

koz2000

ummmm yeah, I'm going to ask you where you got this one. Have you been to our cockpit defense course? It was better than the FFDO hand-to-hand training IMO. Even the FFDO instructors knew who the FedEx guys were as we were better off than every other carrier. If you don't like our program, go to Artesia.
Could the cockpit defense course be stepped up a bit? absolutely. But we need to make sure that pilots don't have to go on disability after the course.

FlynLow

Actually was in the test class for our Cockpit defense course. It is hands down the best in the industry. I advocate it every time I can with anyone that listens.

HOWEVER, It is not paid training. It isn't required. It is probably going to be shut down unless we can find another way to entice more to attend.
It should be paid required training, and like training at Artesia, how you prevent injuries is to allow people to go at it, at a pace that matches there physical endurance at that time. IT SHOULD BE PAID AND REQUIRED TRAINING.

We don't have training yet on common strategy, that is required at pax carriers, and only "guidance" in the cargo world. That goes into much more detail than what we are currently doing.

The main issue is not devoting money to security training, because it isn't required to comply with federal law in the cargo world. Under the recent legislation that was passed for all cargo security programs, there is now required training that must be given, but I'm afraid it will end up being diluted and turned into another, click click CMI type of course. The basic security training we just started just scratches the surface of where we need to go.

ALPA is pressing this issue at the national level, and if you want more info on that, PM. If the law requires more, then there will be money dedicated to it. So to answer your question as to "where did I get this one?" It is in comparison to what is being done on the pax side and what is being done on the cargo side. Vast differences. And we should be doing more, especially since we are flying into some very interesting places these days.( and getting more interesting as time goes on)

fdx727pilot

Then in your infinite wisdom and many years experience in reading contracts, tell us, what is the money in VEBA for, and since it has nothing to do with HRAs (the actual name of the plan "Health Reimbursement Account",) why it is only a good deal for those over age 53, which seems to only be a limit on HRAs. Seems like it benefits everyone. Why are you guys crusading against VEBA?

Of course, you guys could similarly argue that the A-plan only benefits those who retire, and therefore is only a benefit to those senior pilots in a position to retire, and is inherently prejudiced against young and junior pilots. I don't hear many folks saying "Lets do away with retirement, as it only benefits old guys."

Tuck

FDX27Pilot - I emailed ALPA contract specialists on the retirement health care several months ago and this is what I got:



1) all pilots who had a seniority number on 8/25/06, who had attained
age 53 before January 1, 2007 and who were expected the meeting age and
service requirements for coverage under the Retiree Group Health Plan on
their attainment of age 60 or older were eligible for an HRA. Pilots
who met these eligibility requirements had $25,000 deposited into a VEBA
trust fund on 1/22/07 and is available to pilots beginning at age 59 provided they are retired. This money continues to be available past age 65. If
the pilot should die, the money is available to his spouse. Any monies
remaining in the account after the pilot and spouse have died is
forfeited. The funds are being managed by Putnam Investments and are invested in a Money Market fund. These funds will be available on the later of the pilot's retirement date or age 59. The funds can only be used for reimbursement of a pilot's and his eligible dependents' out-of-pocket eligible health care expenses, e.g. monthly health premiums, co-pays for office visits and prescriptions drugs, Medicare Parts B, C, and D premiums.
No provisions were made in this contract for pilots under age 53.

2) the $43.2 million was contributed into a separate VEBA for
supplementing pilots' cost for post-65 medical coverage which will be
managed by an ALPA VEBA Board. This is separate from the $25,000
contributed to the above group of pilots. The Company will continue to
fund this VEBA by contributing 50 cents for each paid credit hour for
each pilot having a seniority number

So yes they both use the term "VEBA" but are very different separate animals . I really hate posting inaccurate info too.

FLYNLOW - I'm not seeing any real positives to the change in health care insurance plans. I live in a fairly large area and I fully plan on staying with the same doctor I'm with now. The only changes are my premiums will more than double in 2008 and my copays will go up. Check with your buds at the other carriers - we are, without a doubt, far worse than UPS and SWA and maybe one of the worst health care coverages in the industry among majors.

What were the specific changes in the A plan? When I asked if we would put a similar paragraph in the contract about tying our A fund to management's A fund (much like UPS put in theirs) I got the answer that "oh, that's already in there - it's not in writing but trust us it's in there". Maybe true but I'd love to read it - so please put down the verbiage that tightened it for us.

FLMD11CAPT

Micro, when was the last time you volunteered for a job at "our" Union that required you to actually do something besides read your mail and vote?.....or are you just another sideline rock thrower? Disparage BC all you care to...but at least he was in the arena swingin' the sword, not sittin' in the stands pretending. If half of the Bit#*ers out there saved their breath and actually got involved, rolled up their sleeves and did some real volunteering maybe we could make even more progress than we have to date. Savey?

FDXLAG

Infinite wisdom is a little strong and we can change many years experience in reading contracts to many years of reading. Veba was the result of push polling by the MEC:

Wilson Center:

(Sarcasm alert) Some retirees are experiencing exponential growth in their health care cost due to the membership trusting the company; they are eating cat chow and selling their grand children into forced labor. If possible should we help them?

Me: ugh, OK (Sarcasm off)

In theory a good deal for all as it does promise the same benefits for all. Reach medicare eligible age and start tapping into veba. I have no problem with veba, accept the funding should not have been a regressive tax where the new hire pays 2% and the 58 year old WB capt pays 0.25%. In the same document we figured out a pretty good formula to split up the bonus why not use the same formula for the VEBA tax. In reality very few of the membership under 50 will see much good out of it as the medicare laws will drastically change.

HRA's are another animal completely. It is a specific cash up front benefit, protected from inflation that only goes to a chosen few of the membership. If you believe in the single pot of money theory that 25 to 40 million came out of everyones pay check (or B fund). It was particularly disingenuous since there was no provision to reduce the benefits if the pilot continued to work after 60. Change this 25K so that everyone gets a shot at it upon reaching 59 and I would have no problem with it.

If you want to talk about A funds, yes I do consider it a SOP to the over 50 crowd (that includes me now). Ask anybody under 40 if they think the A Fund will be there in the current form when they reach 65. I personally would rather see more money in my name then more promises. Heck I don't consider my military retirement safe.

Don't talk about union unity (not you, talkin to flyin low now) and have special provisions in the contract for special people. Or special hose jobs in the LOA for less special people.

Micro

Gee you sound just like the MEC and MEC Officers: "If you don't like it why don't you run for office" or "Why don't you try and change things". For your info I did have a job with the union (pilot to pilot) when it started. I did roll my sleeves up, got involved, and tried to change things. Look at other posts here and on Alpas webboard. The outcome- NO CHANGE. It appears from your post, that if someone takes exception with this union or the people in it, YOU take it personally. Get off your high horse and tell us what you've done.
I happen to think the negotiation committee did a crappy job on this contract (ask the bus guys how their schedules are...and wait till the "screws" are turned up on the rest of the schedules) and the LOA's. Then the negotiation committee and the MEC had to hard sell both products to the crewforce. I didn't say these guys didn't work hard, they just produced poor products and I'm glad their leaving.
I won't continue a personal battle with you because it's off subject. Comment on the topic. Provide new options on negotiating, new names for negotiators, whatever (even PM me if you have to) but I'm not here for personal battles with you.

FLMD11CAPT

No personnal battle at all Micro, but when somone flames a guy by name who spent the better part of 5 years training, preparing, gathering data, listening to the vocal minority cast stones from the sideline, take max heat from the company, lands a better (than before) contract in a measured, professional way and gets "don't let the door hit you in the A$$ on the way out", I think it's a cheap classless low rent shot. As for your question about my involvement: currently Pilot to Pilot, previously Comm Chair (1 year), Previously Block Rep (2yrs). As to the hard sell on the CBA, the voting #'s don't bear that out. They performed the statutory road shows and infomercials and said "read it, We think you will like it". Judging from the membership vote (turnout as well as passing majority) I think they were right. As to the recent LOA, you and I are in agreement. I voted no. I agree the MEC and NC did a poor job of pulsing the CF on their desires and failed in the fundamental responsibility of keeping us up to date. I do not, however, think that failure wipes out the NC's entire body of work over the past 6 years. Finally, well, Gee, I am saying get involved (more than P2P). Because it takes more involvment than that to effect real change. And it sure beats just throwing ones hands up and saying I tried, its hopeless. For sure that will result in no improvement.

ConnerP

Perhaps ol' BC needed a volunteer to sharpen the sword or a volunteer to point out that he picked up the butterknife instead of the sword.

I think there was a very hardsell on the LOA. BC did himself no favors with his comments. I appreciate his efforts but it was time for him to move on. He may have a soulmate in Lloyd Carr! Go APP ST.

Conner