FDX - History Repeating itself?
07-14-2008, 03:46 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 1 on big twin
Posts: 324
FDX - History Repeating itself?
Fellow FDXers
As a newbie here at FedEx (less than 2 years on the senority list), I try as much as I can to learn about the culture here and stay informed about what is going on at the company. In an attempt to get information from multiple sources, I was reading the July edition of Positive Rate and one of the articles sparked a question for me. I was hoping that someone with more time here could give me some additional perspective.
In the article Lessons from the Past... by the Comm Committee Chairman there is a discussion of some lessons learned from the Flying Tigers Acquisition. But here is what sparked my interest in reference to the company trying to modify the FCH to allow the operation of the four F-27s they had already purchased back in 1988.
" ..... Management made no attempt to address this through pilot representives of the time, the Flight Advisory Board (FAB), prior to the purchase. This tendancy to attempt to modify the workplace without input or investment from labor can been seen throughout our FedEx labor history.
When this change to the FCH was made in 1988, the pilots became incensed. FedEx offered a trade-off to appease them. A section was insterted into the FCH regarding the merger with, or acquisition of, another airline.
It stipulated that FedEx Pilots would have senority preference.
But shortly following this move, an FCH revision creating a bulletin process was voted on an passed by the pilots. This bulletin authroized the FAB to temporarily modify the FCH with provisions that would expire without going through the revision process. The removal of this process essentially eliminated the need for management to work with the pilots. Giving up this minimal process turned out to be a temendous mistake. Shortly thereafter, the bulletin process began to be used in such a mannter as to bypass the normal pilot-review procedure altogether. There were no more "official revisions" until 1993; however, the FCH was changed dramatically through these bulletins in the interim..... "
Now.. the question I have. How does the above history compare with the pilots voting to give the decision making (as part of a larger LOA Vote) on the FDA operations to Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman?
Do we feel that the MEC Chairman speaks for all of us as far as pilot representation? How about the VP?
I for one see the rules of the FDA changing dramatically before anything is added to the CBA. And I'm not sure those dramatic changes will be in favor of the all of the pilots on the senority list. Particularly after the FDA (s) is/are filled. Whenever that happens.
Again, I'm hoping to gain some perspective.
Thoughts?
JP
As a newbie here at FedEx (less than 2 years on the senority list), I try as much as I can to learn about the culture here and stay informed about what is going on at the company. In an attempt to get information from multiple sources, I was reading the July edition of Positive Rate and one of the articles sparked a question for me. I was hoping that someone with more time here could give me some additional perspective.
In the article Lessons from the Past... by the Comm Committee Chairman there is a discussion of some lessons learned from the Flying Tigers Acquisition. But here is what sparked my interest in reference to the company trying to modify the FCH to allow the operation of the four F-27s they had already purchased back in 1988.
" ..... Management made no attempt to address this through pilot representives of the time, the Flight Advisory Board (FAB), prior to the purchase. This tendancy to attempt to modify the workplace without input or investment from labor can been seen throughout our FedEx labor history.
When this change to the FCH was made in 1988, the pilots became incensed. FedEx offered a trade-off to appease them. A section was insterted into the FCH regarding the merger with, or acquisition of, another airline.
It stipulated that FedEx Pilots would have senority preference.
But shortly following this move, an FCH revision creating a bulletin process was voted on an passed by the pilots. This bulletin authroized the FAB to temporarily modify the FCH with provisions that would expire without going through the revision process. The removal of this process essentially eliminated the need for management to work with the pilots. Giving up this minimal process turned out to be a temendous mistake. Shortly thereafter, the bulletin process began to be used in such a mannter as to bypass the normal pilot-review procedure altogether. There were no more "official revisions" until 1993; however, the FCH was changed dramatically through these bulletins in the interim..... "
Now.. the question I have. How does the above history compare with the pilots voting to give the decision making (as part of a larger LOA Vote) on the FDA operations to Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman?
Do we feel that the MEC Chairman speaks for all of us as far as pilot representation? How about the VP?
I for one see the rules of the FDA changing dramatically before anything is added to the CBA. And I'm not sure those dramatic changes will be in favor of the all of the pilots on the senority list. Particularly after the FDA (s) is/are filled. Whenever that happens.
Again, I'm hoping to gain some perspective.
Thoughts?
JP
I'll put my assistants on it right away!
07-14-2008, 07:27 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 11 Capt
Posts: 509
Originally Posted by Jumbo Pilot
Fellow FDXers
As a newbie here at FedEx (less than 2 years on the senority list), I try as much as I can to learn about the culture here and stay informed about what is going on at the company. In an attempt to get information from multiple sources, I was reading the July edition of Positive Rate and one of the articles sparked a question for me. I was hoping that someone with more time here could give me some additional perspective.
In the article Lessons from the Past... by the Comm Committee Chairman there is a discussion of some lessons learned from the Flying Tigers Acquisition. But here is what sparked my interest in reference to the company trying to modify the FCH to allow the operation of the four F-27s they had already purchased back in 1988.
" ..... Management made no attempt to address this through pilot representives of the time, the Flight Advisory Board (FAB), prior to the purchase. This tendancy to attempt to modify the workplace without input or investment from labor can been seen throughout our FedEx labor history.
When this change to the FCH was made in 1988, the pilots became incensed. FedEx offered a trade-off to appease them. A section was insterted into the FCH regarding the merger with, or acquisition of, another airline.
It stipulated that FedEx Pilots would have senority preference.
But shortly following this move, an FCH revision creating a bulletin process was voted on an passed by the pilots. This bulletin authroized the FAB to temporarily modify the FCH with provisions that would expire without going through the revision process. The removal of this process essentially eliminated the need for management to work with the pilots. Giving up this minimal process turned out to be a temendous mistake. Shortly thereafter, the bulletin process began to be used in such a mannter as to bypass the normal pilot-review procedure altogether. There were no more "official revisions" until 1993; however, the FCH was changed dramatically through these bulletins in the interim..... "
Now.. the question I have. How does the above history compare with the pilots voting to give the decision making (as part of a larger LOA Vote) on the FDA operations to Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman?
Do we feel that the MEC Chairman speaks for all of us as far as pilot representation? How about the VP?
I for one see the rules of the FDA changing dramatically before anything is added to the CBA. And I'm not sure those dramatic changes will be in favor of the all of the pilots on the senority list. Particularly after the FDA (s) is/are filled. Whenever that happens.
Again, I'm hoping to gain some perspective.
Thoughts?
JP
As a newbie here at FedEx (less than 2 years on the senority list), I try as much as I can to learn about the culture here and stay informed about what is going on at the company. In an attempt to get information from multiple sources, I was reading the July edition of Positive Rate and one of the articles sparked a question for me. I was hoping that someone with more time here could give me some additional perspective.
In the article Lessons from the Past... by the Comm Committee Chairman there is a discussion of some lessons learned from the Flying Tigers Acquisition. But here is what sparked my interest in reference to the company trying to modify the FCH to allow the operation of the four F-27s they had already purchased back in 1988.
" ..... Management made no attempt to address this through pilot representives of the time, the Flight Advisory Board (FAB), prior to the purchase. This tendancy to attempt to modify the workplace without input or investment from labor can been seen throughout our FedEx labor history.
When this change to the FCH was made in 1988, the pilots became incensed. FedEx offered a trade-off to appease them. A section was insterted into the FCH regarding the merger with, or acquisition of, another airline.
It stipulated that FedEx Pilots would have senority preference.
But shortly following this move, an FCH revision creating a bulletin process was voted on an passed by the pilots. This bulletin authroized the FAB to temporarily modify the FCH with provisions that would expire without going through the revision process. The removal of this process essentially eliminated the need for management to work with the pilots. Giving up this minimal process turned out to be a temendous mistake. Shortly thereafter, the bulletin process began to be used in such a mannter as to bypass the normal pilot-review procedure altogether. There were no more "official revisions" until 1993; however, the FCH was changed dramatically through these bulletins in the interim..... "
Now.. the question I have. How does the above history compare with the pilots voting to give the decision making (as part of a larger LOA Vote) on the FDA operations to Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman?
Do we feel that the MEC Chairman speaks for all of us as far as pilot representation? How about the VP?
I for one see the rules of the FDA changing dramatically before anything is added to the CBA. And I'm not sure those dramatic changes will be in favor of the all of the pilots on the senority list. Particularly after the FDA (s) is/are filled. Whenever that happens.
Again, I'm hoping to gain some perspective.
Thoughts?
JP
For whatever reason....
Past...
07-15-2008, 03:58 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 425
P.s.p.
To sum up the answer in short ............... Pilots Screwing Pilots ................ That is WHY we are destined to repeat the history of this group. Your observations of past events are worth a read, and a serious answer.
That is the reason you cannot allow elected officials, whether in Labor Unions or other arenas, to have their way without some kind of "checks and balances" system. I resent the status quo way of thinking and do not accept the concept of "blind authority" to anyone.
Good Day .....................
That is the reason you cannot allow elected officials, whether in Labor Unions or other arenas, to have their way without some kind of "checks and balances" system. I resent the status quo way of thinking and do not accept the concept of "blind authority" to anyone.
Good Day .....................
07-15-2008, 03:53 PM
#6
Nice lookin' tree, there!
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11, old man
Posts: 2,198
Originally Posted by tennesseeflyboy
To sum up the answer in short ............... Pilots Screwing Pilots ................ That is WHY we are destined to repeat the history of this group. Your observations of past events are worth a read, and a serious answer.
That is the reason you cannot allow elected officials, whether in Labor Unions or other arenas, to have their way without some kind of "checks and balances" system. I resent the status quo way of thinking and do not accept the concept of "blind authority" to anyone.
Good Day .....................
That is the reason you cannot allow elected officials, whether in Labor Unions or other arenas, to have their way without some kind of "checks and balances" system. I resent the status quo way of thinking and do not accept the concept of "blind authority" to anyone.
Good Day .....................
. Sadly, your's is better.fbh
07-16-2008, 02:20 AM
#7
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,053
Originally Posted by tennesseeflyboy
I resent the status quo way of thinking and do not accept the concept of "blind authority" to anyone.
Good Day .....................
Good Day .....................
Hope some more start popping up soon.
07-16-2008, 03:16 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: ??WhoKnows??
Posts: 49
Great answer FlyBoy! We won't be expecting an answer from any of our reps, but good observation!
We can hope, but there has been little to suggest that the collective thought process here will change anytime soon. With the recent sheepish votes and lets move on attitudes, I can't imagine what it would take to get the 67 or so percent of the brain dead to get a clue. Hell Fire and Damnation? Wait, that's already happening in this industry.
HELLO?? IS THIS THING ON??
Originally Posted by skypine27
Hope some more start popping up soon.
HELLO?? IS THIS THING ON??
07-16-2008, 03:10 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 425
Psp
I am hopeful that others will "step out of the dark" and get involved. It is TIME to communicate with the upper echelons, and let them know what is being felt and experienced, beyond these message boards .............................
08-06-2008, 04:09 AM
#10
On Reserve
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 16
How many times do you guys have to bend over before you realize that you do NOT have a say in anything this union does?
These guys are going to do whatever THEY feel has to be done regardless of how you guys/gals feel,i.e. age 65. We were "polled" and it was unanimous, we did not want the rule change. Union response: tough, we know better than you guys. We're going to support it.
Lump sum option as a retirement option. It was one of the 5 cornerstones in the pre-negotiation survey's. Union response: tough, we know better than you guys. It's out!
It goes on and on. You really don't have a say around here because these guys really do feel they are smarter than us.
You need to VOTE people, Get involved. The number of people who never return a vote ballot is pathetic. The only time ANYone gets involved is around contract time. Sad.
I-96 was the beginning of the end. And if you don't know what that is, then shame on this union.
These guys are going to do whatever THEY feel has to be done regardless of how you guys/gals feel,i.e. age 65. We were "polled" and it was unanimous, we did not want the rule change. Union response: tough, we know better than you guys. We're going to support it.
Lump sum option as a retirement option. It was one of the 5 cornerstones in the pre-negotiation survey's. Union response: tough, we know better than you guys. It's out!
It goes on and on. You really don't have a say around here because these guys really do feel they are smarter than us.
You need to VOTE people, Get involved. The number of people who never return a vote ballot is pathetic. The only time ANYone gets involved is around contract time. Sad.
I-96 was the beginning of the end. And if you don't know what that is, then shame on this union.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
