subicpilot

Nice post, Jungle. Right on.

Toccata

Change the word "do" to "sacrifice". That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We have long ago buried the "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few" mindset.

If personal sacrifice is needed, what group would step up? Or, based on earlier posts, what individual would step up (e.g. retire to help the junior guys)? The guy with 25 years in and his high five - willing to go ahead and retire to prevent a junior guy being out on the street?

You're looking in the wrong place if you're looking for personal sacrifice. Some have already experienced the sacrificial brotherhood in action at other airlines.

Want someone more concerned about you then themselves? Try the Mission Field, maybe.

Lousy post - sorry. I'd love examples of an individual sacrificing something (not time - not buying a round - too easy) for his fellow pilot. Might change my mood and outlook.

(e.g., I'd love to bid this line, but it just works better for you with your kids - I'll keep bidding this other crappy one instead.... let me PDO bump you off this trip so you can be home for Christmas..... I'll donate my VEBA back to the Union - unfair for me to get it now..... we're in 100% agreement - reduce our lines/pay to keep the junior guys here..... well, I was gonna have to retire anyway a month ago......)

FDXLAG

Spur,

IMO the section of the contract has been quoted many times in this thread. We have a min BLG of 65, the company can only go below that to prevent furlough. The company has not said they are going to furlough. If they are going to furlough it is my opinion that they will have to go to a min BLG of 48. If they are not going to furlough the BLG is 65 unless we change the CBA. Can they arbitrarily say we need a BLG of 62 to prevent a furlough, IMO, no, unless the union rolls over.

Sec 23.A.8
The Company shall notify the Association in writing if it anticipates a furlough or a recall. Upon written request, the Company shall meet and consult with the Association concerning possible adjustments to provisions of this Agreement (e.g., construction of bid period schedules and reducing or eliminating volunteer and draft flying) that may avoid or mitigate the effects of a furlough.

We are guarenteed (in my case) 22 days vacation a year. Can the company say the price of oil is too high so you only get 15 days this year? Yes. Would it be legal? Only if the union rolls over. And I am 67% confident they wouldn't.

FreightDawgyDog

"Based on the sentiments I've head and read from Age 65 crowd here at FDX, I have zero doubt they will push the MEC to work for a furlough once the BLG gets reduced. What's the point of them sticking around for five more years if they working for 25-35% less pay? I mean, it IS all about the money...their money. "

Bingo and bingo! Don't forget these guys will retire before the next contract so they don't take a hit for retiring before Age 65 as well. Another win/win for them and a loss/loss for those not in their special group. If we are counting on this group to act unselfishly we are wasting our time. If JJ wants to hang around just to spite guys who wish he would go so that others would not have to sacrifice for him I think that says a lot. He is the perfect example of this particular segment of the S/O population. He has a full retirement that he started collecting years ago, knew the rules going in on Age 60, advocates the change anyway and expects us all to sacrifice for him to the tune of possible furloughs and a 30% pay cut. And he is one of the more reasonable in his group. I'm with the guy that says anyone who stays when they have a full retirement needs to know we don't appreciate being forced to bear the burdens their selfish behavior has wrought. These guys didn't care about stifling hiring and growth for 5 years when they were fighting for the change so they would get 5 more years at the top and I don't think furloughs and pay cuts will matter to them either. Hell, JJ may do it just to prove a point to a guy who's opinion he didn't like. Happy New Year everyone. In 5 years when these leeches are gone I will throw a party! Of course after 5 years of stagnation and pay cuts, it may not be as big as I would have liked!!

FDXLAG

No.

"The standard airline industry response to significant over-staffing is furlough. Our history stands in contrast to that model. While the possibility of furloughs can never be ruled out indefinitely, we have never furloughed pilots at FedEx and I don't plan to start doing that now."

The company has not met the requirements to go below 68 min BLG by telling the association of their intent to furlough.

iarapilot

That is correct, IMO, concerning at least the tax equal part of the LOA. Now, throw in 100# shipments every month along with a relocation deal that allows you to move more stuff over, and I think more guys would bite.

As far as the Company wanting involuntary displacement to an FDA; I am sure they would love it. If that is what they might try to get from the Union, I say no way never, as a matter of principle. It is not right to make a junior guy pack up his life and move overseas to benefit the corporate interest of a company. Especially a company that is rolling in the $$ with a bright future. That would be selling the pilot group out for corporate interests. If they would offer a decent deal, maybe people would bid it.

Flaps50

I think this talk about furlough is being blown way out of proportion. Based on my ACP we really aren't over manned by as much as we think (he said 100 in early December, throw in age 65/economy add maybe 200 more - FDAs). I certainly don't think a reduction in BLG from 86 to 60 and 68 to 48 would be in the cards. That would be a overall reduction of 30% when we are at the most probably 5% over manned do to age 60, and the economy. Now throw in the FDA planning and that cuts that number even more.

I guess I'm not to worried about it at this point based on one FCIF that stated furlough wasn't in the cards at this point.

rjlavender

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. You might be right 99% of the time, but I am the 57 year old "baby" at this point. Yes, I have been furloughed and, yes, I went directly from furlough into a two year strike which cost me and others ten years of our careers. I guess I could use that to rationalize hammering the junior pilots when I had the opportunity, but that does not even enter my mind. Since those days, I have been writing and trying to persuade others about how to prevent the internal competition and animosity that we are now experiencing. You probably read some of the material, yourself.

The problem is not with pilots who are older than you, it is with PILOTS. Given your state of mind, my guess is that, when the time comes, you will follow tradition just like everyone else and do the same exact thing as your current senior counterparts. Seven plus decades of every-man-for-himself example cannot be wrong. The ALPA structure is built to protect the incumbents and the status quo, and that structure will not go down without a fight, no matter how many careers and lives are damaged in the process.

If you want to do something different, consider demanding that the FedEx MEC disavow the Agency Shop provisions in the CBA. These provisions ensures that no creative thinking shall exist within the "system" and that you will have no effective say in what goes on. It's a long shot, but disavowing Agency Shop might just break the political gridlock that has become ALPA, and force MEC members to stand on their own two feet in dealing with the real world.


...............

FreightDawgyDog

chirp, chirp

Toccata

No disrespect - but motivation for that was to help the crew force?

My plan was to go prior to 60 - and helping the seniority of those below me was certainly not the primary reason - nor the secondary. In fact, don't even believe it was on the list. Sorry. How did I miss that?