JollyF15

Nice letter. The "Evil Company" is the cause of all of our problems. The Bid's being CNX'd really had very little to do with:

- FDX MEC ignoring the majority of us who were againist retroactivity, But hey I'm glad we did the "Right Thing"

- The over staffing in our FE seats by people who don't have lives outside FedEx and apparantly don't play much golf either

- Our outstanding LOA's that people are just jumping all over

But what do I know. I haven't been here long enough to have my opininion count for much, and I trust those I pay dues to will support us collectively and always "do the right thing." Maybe DW should "do the right thing" and come back to the line with the rest of us low lives.

************************************************** ************************************************

Chairman's Message
January 26, 2008



The cancellation of the majority of the crew position awards from Postings 07-02 and 07-03, and the subsequent issuance of Posting 08-01 have understandably caused some consternation and ill will among those directly and indirectly affected. And while the MEC and ALPA staff continue to work to ensure the process is addressed in compliance with our contract, some background might be beneficial regarding what the MEC believes were contributing factors in management’s decisions.

Management contends that a combination of developments led to the award cancellations and new posting, including a soft domestic market, the cost of fuel, and the transition from 3-man to 2-man aircraft. The MEC also believes that the ongoing optimization of the pairings is a factor as well. An additional important piece of the puzzle was the change to the regulated age. It is this last piece of the puzzle and management’s decisions relating to the timing of the change that the MEC believes are at the core of the misjudgments that have precipitated the realignments now underway.

Along with ALPA, FedEx was a participant in the age 60 FAA Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC), a regulatory, industry and labor group that in 2006 examined the potential impact that a change to the regulated age might produce. The ARC was tasked with advising the FAA whether to proceed with change. The result was a split decision with FedEx management abstaining. As has been extensively communicated over the last year, the position of your ALPA leadership was that a change to the regulated age was a near certainty and that the change would occur soon. ALPA leadership also believed involvement in the process was critical to mitigate any potential negative consequences. Events have borne out the validity of that position.

Management apparently reached a different conclusion and Postings 07-02 and 07-03 were issued in the second half of 2007. After the bids closed, but prior to the crew position award cancellations, the union became aware that management was going to take steps to mitigate what it now saw as a pilot staffing problem. The MEC communicated its position that the bids should stand, especially the FDA component of 07-03. Ultimately, most domestic crew position awards were cancelled in accordance with our contract and Posting 08-01 was issued.

The MEC believes that as painful and disruptive as the award cancellations are, this action is probably the best business decision in the wake of the questionable logic that resulted in the issuance of Postings 07-02 and 07-03. With the remaining excesses yet to come in the DC-10 and 727 later this year, it is likely that many pilots, if trained for awards now cancelled, would themselves be excessed by more senior S/O’s. This is permitted by our contract as pilots are able to use their seniority, if excessed, to obtain almost any seat they can hold even if it creates a subsequent excess. Additionally, depending upon the length of time a pilot has been out of a seat, training may be significantly reduced. The cost of the resulting two training cycles, absent the award cancellations that have been announced, would be wasted, and many pilots would likely find themselves back in their previous seats.

The MEC believes the best course of action for management would have been to acknowledge the imminent change to the regulated age and adjust their bid postings accordingly. Since that is not the course that was taken, the cancellations and new posting appear to be the only viable alternative to address the situation contractually and economically, as it minimizes the impact of additional training events.

The MEC is acutely aware of the disruption and hardship that a crew position award cancellation can bring. The MEC will continue to be proactive in our dealings with management and is hopeful that our advocacy will be taken more seriously in the future.

PicklePausePull

For all you nea-sayers, the MEC just admitted exactly what some of us have been saying over the past few weeks...that they were actively involved in the basis for the overstaffing (age 60 rule change) and that they recommended to the company that the FDA portion of the bid remain, thus further eroding seniority and quality of life. All of the remaining issues such as oil, 3-2 manned aircraft, and markets were well known by the company before the 7-02 bid.

Now, you still want this bunch of guys on the property?

Who needs a union that advocates on behalf of the company and the few at the top, at the direct expense of the remaining (and majority) of the crew force!!!!

Talk about a parking lot deal! Unbelievable that we have to pay dues for this! It's time to recall or sue!

AerisArmis

What DW neglects to point out is without retroactivity, none of this would have happened. And..... he is solely responsible for it. He really does need to go and now. If he's scr**ing us, we expect it, if he's not, we think he's about too. He's a union president with no credibility, no loyalty, no trust and there are many with a deep dislike for him on a personal level for what he has personally done to them. It's time for him to admit it and step aside and let someone else try to pick up the pieces.

FDXLAG

There is leadership: Not our fault everything turned out exactly like we wanted. We told them it would happen. Walk it off.

Hopefully he is done helping us.

slaveship

"The MEC will continue to be proactive in our dealings with management and is hopeful that our advocacy will be taken more seriously in the future."


His last sentence is what bothers me the most. This statement represents a level of oblivion that those in leadership positions are supposed to NOT allow to happen. It's a total lack of integrity. Draw your own conclusion.

Wildmanny

EXACTLY. I felt the same thing! Hopefully our advocacy will be taken more seriously in the future? Whatever. This is such a crock! Again, I'd like to know exactly what he was advocating for us, because I have a feeling that he might actually be advocating for himself. Time to go.

WM

Boom Boom

Well put.. But I don't think his ego would ever give in...

nightfreight

There has been a lot of talk about over 60 guys staying. It really doesn't bother me that they choose to stay, for whatever reason. It's the law, and thanks to DW and gang, they are allowed to bid back. My issue is with our MEC, and particularly, DW.

This message, once again, blames the company for the problem. No mention of allowing 150-170 guys back in the front seats. No problem with giving away city purity (and allowing more optimization of our schedules).

I don't blame the company. There job is to maximize profits and get the most of us. It is our job to make sure we aren't optimized to the point where we aren't dead by the time we retire (more likely now).

I agree that DW has completely lost our trust and needs to be gone yesterday...

LivingInMEM

Our overmanning has nothing to do with 3 to 2 seat conversions. Look at the last posting FCIF and count cockpit seats, the totals are: '08 - 819 seats, '09 - 823 seats; '10 - 855 seats. That is straight cockpit seats and does not include that the MD-10/11 and B-777 will be manned at a higher ratio due to RFO requirements.

Our overmanning and bid cancellations, etc can be attributed to rules that allow the optimizer to gain efficiencies, to open time disappearing so quickly, and mostly to retroactivity and the upcoming perceived lack of retirements. They say we are approx 200 pilots fat, and I think that is about how many retirements we could have expected over the next year and change.

They can blame whatever they want on the company, but pushing for 65 and retro at a time when the economy was slowing down and FDA's were showing up was not in the crewforce's (as a whole) best interest. There may never have been a perfect time for that to pass, but I know this wasn't even close to a good time.

cma2407

I was wondering how long it would take for that post--the one that has now been removed--to evaporate without a trace.

Strong words don't last long 'round these parts...