iarapilot

I dont know if I am the only one who feels like our Chairman, and other Union leaders, are being a little to "soft" or compliant when it comes to semi supporting, or not outright raising the BS flag, concerning some of our Companies positions. An example is the latest message line..

Another equally important factor why we are not dealing with pink slips is the commitment of the most senior FedEx pilots to protect the most junior. Next time you have an opportunity you might want to read Sections 4 and 23 of our member ratified contract that require the reduction of Bid Period Guarantee across the board and other possible actions before any pilot is furloughed.

First, am I to assume that it was the senior guys who made the above statement possible? I voted in favor of the contract (yes, I did!) and I am not one "of the most senior members"! I believe it was a "member ratified" contract. So why is it a "commitment of the most senior..."?

As far as my semi supporting comment; I certainly dont want to see anyone furloughed. Having said that, why would the Union not be dead set against this by stating so, and the reasons why. Gotta be proactive! My reasons would be that furloughs usually result from mismanagement and/or a large collapse in the industry. I see the first, but not the second. As management said, the future is bright. The mismanagement part is just that. I see that as their problem, for now, not ours. For our leadership to not take a firm stance against the ideas of furloughs or bid line reductions when these ideas are first brought to light is just not being proactive. The Company is looking to gauge our response, and I dont think our response was adequate. We are making a boatload of money, unlike our passenger brothers and sisters.

While we are encouraged that management is optimistic about the future, their handling of the bids from late 2007 and early 2008 remains problematic and does not indicate a well thought out plan going forward. In my opinion of course, the mismanagement was also on the part of the Union for negotiating such a cr@ppy LOA! I sure wish those that drafted the "red letters" and "proponents of hysteria" correspondence sent by our Union basically telling us to vote for the LOA, it improves scope, best we can get, etc., etc. would fess up and say that they screwed the pooch on that one. That would go a long way in restoring my confidence in their ability to represent us.

So where do we go from here? Our MEC is actively engaged through the Negotiating Committee and our Representation attorneys in an effort to get management to commit to a coherent plan for the future. I would say the same is needed for the MEC, a coherent plan. Our attorneys should have filed a lawsuit when the company was adding items to our LOA, unilaterally, when the FDA bid was still open. That would have been the proactive thing to do. And, maybe, the Company wouldnt pull that kind of bologna in the future.

If we succumb to the temptations of putting individual self interest ahead of working together...... Unfortunately, I dont have much faith that this wont happen. At least in the foreseeable future.

I just felt the need to vent. Some of the previous MEC messages have torqued me in the same way. I am wondering if I am the only one who sees things like this!

fr8av8r

We have and do on a regular basis...DP's anyone?

Dadof6

It may be you, but it's not JUST you--without getting too touchy-feely, I share the same thoughts. Breaking with tradition, I actually scanned the ALPA magazine last month...lo and behold, saw an article touting FDX pilots taking on Hong Kong and Paris...what a great deal the LOA was...I wanted to write a quick note to the editor telling them that the LOA was so great, we couldn't get enough of our 4700 folks on property to bid HKG FO, we were going to hire off the street to fill it. Propaganda in its truest form it was, and it made me nauseous to read it. (Then I burped and thought of something more useful to do with my time--like taking a nap!) Not sure who "they're" trying to impress, but those in the know, know differently. Sure hope the LOA "do-over" shows tangible improvement over v1.0 (as negotiated, typos and all), v2.0 (1000 lb shipping), v3.0 ($10K housing loan), and can't remember what other versions I've seen. Dudes...let's GET IT RIGHT this time! Oh, and who's bidding the 777 at normal WB pay? Not a problem for myself, Mr. Juniority, but I think I remember something similar with the original 757 cadre.

fr8av8r

Read the same article (insert barfing smiley here). With the cancellation of the Paris Domicile and the attendant vacancy bid awards, I bet there is no upcoming "Version X.0". Just my opinion...

FDXLAG

What the chairman meant to say:

If it wasn't for the actions of the most senior members and your MEC over 200 of our most senior pilots would have moved out of the way and FEDEX would not have any over manning issues.

DiamondZ

We have a winner.

Gunter

If you have read my posts you know I am not happy with Retro or the LOA.

But, that said, you and I should acknowledge the most senior ensured the anti-furlough sections in the contract are as robust as they are. Just as BC and DW allowed a poor LOA to be floated out for a vote, they could have floated out a lesser contract. This section is one of those that could have been different.

Whether it would have been right or wrong to do so is not my point. My point is we probably would have ratified a lesser contract if it had come our way.

DW wants to be thanked for those sections. No problem. A very heartfelt Thank you is order and you have it from me. If you read between the lines you can see he also would like us to treat his over 60 buds with more respect. I'm sure they have been writing him about the angry FOs. I support that too. We should treat everyone with respect unless they are a non-member.

But the LOA is still crappy.

Speaking of the LOA--Its inadequacy is about to give the company fits. We will not fill HKG. It will get a little better since it has to for the company to operate the domicile. The company and the union messed up with this one. Don't expect them to admit it. They know...

Gunter

Don't expect him to admit that tidbit either. No matter how right it is.

iarapilot

I do agree that the "furlough" section of the contract is pretty good. And, I applaud the negotiating of it. But, I dont necessarily give sole credit to "the most senior" guys for it. We are a team, eh!

FDXLAG

One could argue that the spread between high and low line increase from 11 to 13 hours weakened the anti furlough language in the last contract.