FDX - Reserve improvements next contract
03-09-2008, 07:54 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by Albief15
Good discussions...
A former block rep, CK, once told a guy who was complaining it was hard to drop R days for trips "...you only have to be junior once....after that it is a choice..." Kind of funny to watch that guy seethe, because where you sit on the seniority position for that seat determines your thoughts on the issue.
A senior guy's perfect world is reserve holders cannot touch an open time trip--that is for LINE HOLDERS to work their schedule.
A bottom feeder's perfect world is any trip is up for grabs, and picking up trips while on reserve should be fair game. First come, first served...
Now you are seeing how tweaking one section of the contract can severely irritate other pilots. I'm not trying to get preachy...but pleasing everyone is a b1tch. Adler is at least pointing out some ideas...and I'm enjoying the discourse. Had an ACP once mention that moving to Memphis was how to make this job great, and if you couldn't swing that then don't complain...(and this is wickedly paraphrased...) A commuter might want to take a swing at someone for that attitude, but the Collierville crowd would respond "dude--do you think we moved here for the Lake?"
So...with that "it ain't always perfect for ME" mentality addressed, I'll throw out just a couple of random thoughts...for discussion...
The improvements in the last contract on duty rig probably don't help the Memphis crowd--out and backs and hub turns out of MEM still pay 6 hours. On the other hand, the improved rig helps even little old 727 FO me...as I bid 2,3, or 5 days trips as a commuter when I can hold them. I AM getting more money per day under the new rules...even though I am not a widebody guy. This typically means an extra day for me at home per month. So--did we screw the Collierville crowd, or throw commuters a bone on this one?
When I got here after the postal contract was signed I heard complaints about the weekend flying and lack of weekend layovers. Now, with DH tickets more costly, I see more and more W/E layovers...with an extra hour or so of pay due to the trip rig. What do you want for domestic pairings? Week on/week off DDH or a layover for 60-85 hours?
Next--does anything think "domestic solve" would have gone easier on us with another contract? If you think our previous NC which has been so heavily scoffed for getting outfoxed by the optimizer boned it, what parameters do YOU proposed to protect your quality of life on the trips? GPEs and trip rigs were two tools used--what else do you suggest? Min layover times with financial penalities for shortening? What do YOU have up your sleeve?
Next...if you want our work rules fixed to protect our quality of life, who do you think would be the very best person to present those arguments? Now...I don't mean you say "some high priced lawyer..." I mean, I want to hear "John XXX from XXX and XXX, who negotiatied the awesome contract at XXX airlines in 1998". Its easy to sit around and wish for a super hero. Do your research, and give us NAMES. I personally think a guy with lots of SIG experience would be about ideal, especially with some experienced aviation and labor attorneys in his camp...but I am interested in your SPECIFIC recommendations.
Finally--I voted for the last contract. So did 94% of you. If you think that was a failure, then look in the mirror and ask what you are going to do differently this time. I didn't think the last contract was a failure then, and I certainly do not now. I eat my mini snak, enjoy the trip rig, and occassionaly even get a good deal on substituion. My position on issues subsequent to the contract are well known...and when things didn't go MY way I got ****ed enough to dive into the fray. So brothers...what are YOUR ideas and what are YOU going to do? I certainly can't do it all, and cannot do a thing alone...
A former block rep, CK, once told a guy who was complaining it was hard to drop R days for trips "...you only have to be junior once....after that it is a choice..." Kind of funny to watch that guy seethe, because where you sit on the seniority position for that seat determines your thoughts on the issue.
A senior guy's perfect world is reserve holders cannot touch an open time trip--that is for LINE HOLDERS to work their schedule.
A bottom feeder's perfect world is any trip is up for grabs, and picking up trips while on reserve should be fair game. First come, first served...
Now you are seeing how tweaking one section of the contract can severely irritate other pilots. I'm not trying to get preachy...but pleasing everyone is a b1tch. Adler is at least pointing out some ideas...and I'm enjoying the discourse. Had an ACP once mention that moving to Memphis was how to make this job great, and if you couldn't swing that then don't complain...(and this is wickedly paraphrased...) A commuter might want to take a swing at someone for that attitude, but the Collierville crowd would respond "dude--do you think we moved here for the Lake?"
So...with that "it ain't always perfect for ME" mentality addressed, I'll throw out just a couple of random thoughts...for discussion...
The improvements in the last contract on duty rig probably don't help the Memphis crowd--out and backs and hub turns out of MEM still pay 6 hours. On the other hand, the improved rig helps even little old 727 FO me...as I bid 2,3, or 5 days trips as a commuter when I can hold them. I AM getting more money per day under the new rules...even though I am not a widebody guy. This typically means an extra day for me at home per month. So--did we screw the Collierville crowd, or throw commuters a bone on this one?
When I got here after the postal contract was signed I heard complaints about the weekend flying and lack of weekend layovers. Now, with DH tickets more costly, I see more and more W/E layovers...with an extra hour or so of pay due to the trip rig. What do you want for domestic pairings? Week on/week off DDH or a layover for 60-85 hours?
Next--does anything think "domestic solve" would have gone easier on us with another contract? If you think our previous NC which has been so heavily scoffed for getting outfoxed by the optimizer boned it, what parameters do YOU proposed to protect your quality of life on the trips? GPEs and trip rigs were two tools used--what else do you suggest? Min layover times with financial penalities for shortening? What do YOU have up your sleeve?
Next...if you want our work rules fixed to protect our quality of life, who do you think would be the very best person to present those arguments? Now...I don't mean you say "some high priced lawyer..." I mean, I want to hear "John XXX from XXX and XXX, who negotiatied the awesome contract at XXX airlines in 1998". Its easy to sit around and wish for a super hero. Do your research, and give us NAMES. I personally think a guy with lots of SIG experience would be about ideal, especially with some experienced aviation and labor attorneys in his camp...but I am interested in your SPECIFIC recommendations.
Finally--I voted for the last contract. So did 94% of you. If you think that was a failure, then look in the mirror and ask what you are going to do differently this time. I didn't think the last contract was a failure then, and I certainly do not now. I eat my mini snak, enjoy the trip rig, and occassionaly even get a good deal on substituion. My position on issues subsequent to the contract are well known...and when things didn't go MY way I got ****ed enough to dive into the fray. So brothers...what are YOUR ideas and what are YOU going to do? I certainly can't do it all, and cannot do a thing alone...
...and yes it all depends on your perspective in life.
But, while the crew force will always be "half senior" and "half junior" by definition, it's my understanding the majority of MEM based pilots are commuters (...at least 2 to 1).
...and doesn't the union have a responsibility to ensure it's working towards the collective desires of that majority?
Last edited by DLax85; 03-09-2008 at 07:55 PM. Reason: typo
03-10-2008, 06:25 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 221
Purpledog ,Your THE role model for MEM FedEx Pilots
Not exactly. I don't fly DPs. I don't bid into seats that would force me into a less than optimal situation as a commuter. Those situations were forced on us after the fact via the optimizer.
DPs are a great barometer for unity and it is obvious that we are well below 2992. I can't even speak that word until the crew in the front office is sent packing.
03-10-2008, 06:44 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by DLax85
Albie --- as always, great stuff.
...and yes it all depends on your perspective in life.
But, while the crew force will always be "half senior" and "half junior" by definition, it's my understanding the majority of MEM based pilots are commuters (...at least 2 to 1).
...and doesn't the union have a responsibility to ensure it's working towards the collective desires of that majority?
...and yes it all depends on your perspective in life.
But, while the crew force will always be "half senior" and "half junior" by definition, it's my understanding the majority of MEM based pilots are commuters (...at least 2 to 1).
...and doesn't the union have a responsibility to ensure it's working towards the collective desires of that majority?
03-10-2008, 03:21 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,988
Originally Posted by purpledog
I don't bid into seats that would force me into a less than optimal situation as a commuter.
Assuming (AGAIN!) that you already have some seniority and you're not in a shrinking fleet with less lines each month and senior citizens dog piling on top of you.Staying senior in your seat requires you to gain some seniority first and that ain't happenin' real fast for some of us in light of recent events.
Reality check please.
03-10-2008, 06:23 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Originally Posted by Albief15
A senior guy's perfect world is reserve holders cannot touch an open time trip--that is for LINE HOLDERS to work their schedule.
A bottom feeder's perfect world is any trip is up for grabs, and picking up trips while on reserve should be fair game. First come, first served...
Now you are seeing how tweaking one section of the contract can severely irritate other pilots.
A bottom feeder's perfect world is any trip is up for grabs, and picking up trips while on reserve should be fair game. First come, first served...
Now you are seeing how tweaking one section of the contract can severely irritate other pilots.
How about looking at each facet of our system and trying for improvement regardless of who it does or does not help? Let's look at reserves, and then say "how can we make it better?" Then we can look at retirement and say, "how can we make it better?" Then we can look at scheduling and say "how can we make it better?" The reason we will never gain anything is because we are worried about commuters vs non-commuters, junior vs. senior, instructors vs line pilots, line holders vs non line holders (apparantly the newest one), etc. Every one of those is a choice, a pilot can be any combination of the above as he/she chooses, and many of our pilots will cover a multitude of the above throughout their career. Talk about amateur politics: if a commuter gets to be NC chairman or MEC, then commuters will win; if a reserve holder gets to be NC chairman..... How about just worrying about the term "Fedex crewforce" and assume that anyone on the crewforce has the opportunity to be a commuter, or a reserve holder, or a retiree, or whatever else we are talking about. We'll never get people to stop looking out for number one at the expense of the rest (DP's, etc) as long as we give them reason to think no one else is looking out for them.
Is there a valid reason why we can't have reserves pick up an open time trip after 9am - since that is who it will go to anyway - why should the schedulers care who gets it? And what improvement elsewhere in the contract will we give up if we try for that.
For those of you who are worried about the givebacks, it's all about being COST neutral, not contract neutral. We could change a hundred things with the next contract if it didn't cost the company anymore than it does now. So, for purple, how about we let the company keep the sodomizer going (since changing that would be cost negative for the company) and let's just focus on gaining all of those cost-neutral changes that were brought up earlier for the Res holders.
And to add a couple, allow reserve holders to trade away R days for a trip instead of having to drop, then pick up (i.e. drop the R-day then find out the trip was not available due to earlier timestamp.) Or how about treating secondary lineholders who get assigned r-days the same as reserve lineholders. Why can secondary r-line holders not get leveling from training in lieu of R-days, or for vacation?
For what it is worth, the company doesn't have to worry about us turning on ourselves when we can't even get past page 1 of this thread without that happening.
Last edited by LivingInMEM; 03-10-2008 at 06:36 PM.
03-10-2008, 07:38 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
The truth of the matter is, in negotiations, common sense and fair play have no seat at the table. If we ask for something that costs the company nothing, we are still expected to give up something for it.
03-10-2008, 09:02 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 169
Originally Posted by fedupbusdriver
The truth of the matter is, in negotiations, common sense and fair play have no seat at the table. If we ask for something that costs the company nothing, we are still expected to give up something for it.
03-10-2008, 09:31 PM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by MajorKong
That is not true at all! When it gets down to an arbitrator, like it always does, they view this as reasonable.
03-11-2008, 05:33 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
I listened to a presentation given by a company representative about the last contract. He inferred that for each section, they go in with the current cost of that section in mind (and what they are willing to increase to) - and as long as they can maintain the same cost (known as const neutral) - anything is good to go. Meaning, as long as they get the same productivity for the same cost, it doesn't matter to them.
Why is it that we only consider what WE have as capital to be used? Why would the company give up its negotiating capital and risk protracted negotiations (and potential lost customers - don't think our competitors wouldn't take advantage of a potential loss of service) by arguing against something that doesn't cost it anymore money than before? This is one reason why we may want to have some professional reps at the table - because we are too emotionally involved to see both sides of the table and what each has at stake. If they were to hold their ground against a cost neutral change, we would be able to take advantage of that and expect compromise on some other issue - a potentially cost negative issue for the company.
Why is it that we only consider what WE have as capital to be used? Why would the company give up its negotiating capital and risk protracted negotiations (and potential lost customers - don't think our competitors wouldn't take advantage of a potential loss of service) by arguing against something that doesn't cost it anymore money than before? This is one reason why we may want to have some professional reps at the table - because we are too emotionally involved to see both sides of the table and what each has at stake. If they were to hold their ground against a cost neutral change, we would be able to take advantage of that and expect compromise on some other issue - a potentially cost negative issue for the company.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
