We are all loyal union members here. We have to be because of the last contract. I don't think he intended to slam the LCAs just who the MEC is responsive too. If he did my apologies it was uncalled for; but thanks for getting the ball rolling.

PS

I don't think they got what they wanted as far as people bidding any of the seats. Hopefully they will fix more than the 757 LCA problem.

 

What was the resolution?

 

A grievance was submitted 6 days ago to the grievance chairman by a crew member, not DW. That crew member has not received a reply from the grievance chairman yet, even though he asked for a confirmation email for reciept of the grievance which was emailed to him.

 

Amen Lax. I have absolutely no problem with the LCAs getting passover pay if they can hold widebody. No problem what so ever.

What I was pointing out, if indeed the poster was referring to my post about the LCAs and IPs, was that it is too bad it took the senior guys getting the shaft to finally get the MEC to engage. They should be looking out for everybody (no doubt they feel they are) and not just the senior IP/LCA cadre though.

Read that message from the union and try to tell me that you can read it some other way. The "final" straw, apparently, was the IP/LCA issue (ie senior guys) that finally got them off of top dead center on this direct dealing/crappy LOA by from the company.

Thank goodness they have finally engaged, but it is sad that it took this to bring it about.

 

The MEC has stated many times over the last few years that a primary objective of our Union is to foster a stable business relationship with FedEx management. Now, as then, we believe that this is essential for both our members and our company to prosper long term. The MEC is willing to make the tough choices in pursuit of this objective(What exactly is he saying here? What tough choices specifically is he talking about?) and we have gone above and beyond to facilitate a positive relationship with management.(Who cares if we have a "good" relationship with management?) The most recent example of your leadership’s commitment is a new LOA covering FDAs in Hong Kong and Paris.(He cites this POS LOA as an example of our Union leadership's commitment to maintaining a good relationship with management? Why not, it made mgmt VERY happy we swallowed it hook line and sinker! At the expense of ALPA pilots.)
The MEC continues to support the smooth implementation of the LOA(I'd hate to see poor implementation if this is "Smooth") and understands that it is vital to all our futures that FedEx operations in China and France are successful. We also believe that these operations must be conducted by FedEx crews on FedEx aircraft. However, recent unilateral actions by management have raised serious questions from a growing number of members considering these new bases, and the MEC is now compelled to take action.(We didn't really WANT to do anything but so many of you malcontents complained that we felt compelled to do SOMETHING...even if it is lip-service!)
As was mentioned in a recent Message Line, limited extra-contractual activity occurs from time to time and is not always challenged. From free popcorn in Memphis to free access to the Subic air bridge for dependents, judgments are made by the MEC when assessing the potential benefits against the risk to collective bargaining.
In this instance, however, the cumulative impact of management’s recent actions concerning the FDA LOA and the ensuing bid has reached an unacceptable level.(WHat actions specifically caused them to FINALLY do something? They were fine with the 10,000 deposit sweetener just last week.) Intentional or not, management has pushed the limits of the MEC’s ability to balance the legitimate concerns raised by the membership and our desire to solve ongoing problems attendant to the opening of the new FDAs, including those related to the need to create an initial cadre of B-757 instructors and check airmen.
These issues were discussed at length during the recent MEC meeting. As a result, the Negotiating Committee has contacted management to inform them of the need to produce a negotiated side letter covering the unilateral changes to the FDA LOA that have been announced by management. Any substantive changes will have to be ratified by the membership. In addition, these discussions with management may necessitate an extension of the current bid to ensure all members have equal access to the FDAs subsequent to any LOA modifications. The Negotiating Committee has also reaffirmed that any crew position shortfalls in the FDAs must be filled by new-hires.
The MEC remains confident that the negotiated terms of the FDA LOA were the best possible at the time they were recommended for membership ratification.(How does the MEC believe this when it has been PROVEN they were nowhere near their "final offer"?) We sincerely hope that management is not using our good faith efforts(naivete, laziness and abandonment of the junior pilots) and the potential staffing shortfalls as an opportunity to unilaterally “sweeten” the offer. We stand ready to legitimately address any new concerns management may have through the collective bargaining process.[/QUOTE]

 

"Read that message from the union and try to tell me that you can read it some other way. The "final" straw, apparently, was the IP/LCA issue (ie senior guys) that finally got them off of top dead center on this direct dealing/crappy LOA by from the company."

I would guess that part of the final straw were 4 things:

-An SFS pilot writing a letter of reconsideration to DW about the deal sweeteners
-An SFS pilot submitting a grievance for same reasons
-SFS LEC holding a special meeting and drafting, unanimously, a resolution concerning the above.
-SFS Rep submitting resignation

I know it is a small base, but that could be construed as unity!

 

I think we have for a while thought of guys as "Subic guys" or "Anchorage Dudes" or "LA Guys.." We are FDX pilots. If its good enough for a "Subic guy", it should be good enough for any of us. Having had enough of being treated as somehow less important than the Germantown crowd, I think the other domiciles are starting to generate some backlash. Outside looking in, I think the MEC leadership just finally ran out of wiggle room and have taken too much pressure from the line guys. I can't say...I'm an outsider, but whatever caused the change--legimate concerns, pressure from our own union membership, or pressure from National....I'm glad we are now trying to do something about it. Kudos to whoever made it happen, and to those who now support the change.

 

Family ATM,
I've got a question, are we talking passover pay or pay protection? I believe passover pay is thoroughly outlined in the contract. I agree with someone making WB pay not wanting to downgrade to NB pay, so don't bid it. The same mantra has been spewed to the average line guy about this LOA. I do think that pay protecting a specific group of individuals is wrong, initial cadre or not. This pay protection would amount to $30,000+ per year for a MEM 757 CA. That's the same amount given to a CA or FO moving to CDG and signing the company agreement. Hardly seems equatable. I realize LCA's and Flex's do a very demanding job and most perform exceptionally. Unless there is a major modification to this LOA I think pay protection should be a low priority. I guarantee the company(mgt) is not getting the people they want to fill the seats at the FDA's either, but they seem perfectly happy getting who the get, the same will be true for the initial cadre of 757 Flex's and LCA's.

 

Hey, Unskilled,

You forget that there are a limited number of qualified individuals to do the PCA/LCA job. It takes almost a year to stand up a new instructor. On top of that, not very many guys go from wide body, glass cockpit F/O to the left seat of the jurassic jet, and even fewer of them become PCA's or LCA's after doing so. So how exactly is the company supposed to pull together, in very short order, a large enough group of already trained, glass cockpit instructors, put a fledgling program in place to stand up a new aircraft and new domicile? The only group to draw on is the bus or maddog, and how successful do you think that will be if that group is forced to take a pay cut? No one would do it. Pay protecting those guys for a couple years is a smart choice. That pay protection has absolutely nothing to do with the LOA. Even MEM based 757 instructors would be included in the pay protection.

 

Maybe the company should also offer the pay protection to any WB captain who wants to go to Paris. That would make it fair for all Captains and it might give us more Captains on the 757 with international experience.