FDX 777 Bid
11-19-2008 | 05:52 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
screw it...let the 777 pay caravan rates....noone on this board who wants to fly it can hold it....let the senior guys bid it and then get a huge paycut...we will fix it later when WE can hold it(if u like that sort of thing)!
11-19-2008 | 06:56 AM
#62
Fill'er Up Again
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 1
From: Scarebus Captain
I think I am figuring out FEDEX... The junior guys care about the greater good, while the senior guys care about the senior guys... (Like the MD-11 FOs that stood their ground and not flying extra during negotiations; while many senior folks voted for the LOA because it doesn't affect them)... I hope when I am senior that I have a junior group like these folks (us)..
Disclaimer: I have flown with some awesome senior guys who do care about the greater good!
Disclaimer: I have flown with some awesome senior guys who do care about the greater good!
11-19-2008 | 08:32 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
CONTRACT LAW....Offer Acceptance and performance
offer=777 bid
acceptance=people bidding the 777
performance=initial crews trained
if we bid it and get trained the arbitrator has no other option but to side with the company....just the facts
offer=777 bid
acceptance=people bidding the 777
performance=initial crews trained
if we bid it and get trained the arbitrator has no other option but to side with the company....just the facts
11-19-2008 | 10:48 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,098
Likes: 0
From: MD11 FO, ANC
Ok, the bid is out but there are no pay-rates. Does this aircraft "justify" higher pay? Don't get me wrong, I want all we can get but put yourself in the arbitrator's seat and consider the data:
1. The 777F is 21% HEAVIER than an MD11
2. The 777F will carry 11.8% MORE payload than an MD-11
3. How much farther will a B777F fly than an MD-11? Answer - More hours than your hemorrhoids can handle.
So, what's the history of the FedEx contractual pay-rates?
The MD-11 pays the SAME as the A300/A310
The MD-11 is 73% HEAVIER than an A300
The MD-11 carries 86.7% MORE cargo than an A300
The MD-11 pays the same as the A310
The MD-11 is 107% HEAVIER than an A310
The MD-11 carries 126% MORE payload than an A310
Final ruling - The 777F will be paid at the same pay-rates as our current book wide-body rates with the bulk of the extra money being made in block over-ride or some other concocted ULR yet to be designed addendum. The big bonus as I see it is minimum days worked for max days off due to extremely long legs.
Remember, the A380F was a radically different aircraft than we currently operate. It was significantly bigger, carried significantly more payload, and was cutting edge technology.
The 777F is nothing more than a gutted 777-200LR and the 777 family has been around for nearly 14 YEARS.
I personally do NOT see the enchantment with this airplane here at FedEx. It's new here, but it's been around the block. Great jet, but the way some talk, you'd think you were going to get to fly some Kelly Johnson prototype. The biggest reason I am glad we are getting them is SENIORITY MOVEMENT. I hope all the senior folks chase it for whatever reason they want.
JMO
1. The 777F is 21% HEAVIER than an MD11
2. The 777F will carry 11.8% MORE payload than an MD-11
3. How much farther will a B777F fly than an MD-11? Answer - More hours than your hemorrhoids can handle.
So, what's the history of the FedEx contractual pay-rates?
The MD-11 pays the SAME as the A300/A310
The MD-11 is 73% HEAVIER than an A300
The MD-11 carries 86.7% MORE cargo than an A300
The MD-11 pays the same as the A310
The MD-11 is 107% HEAVIER than an A310
The MD-11 carries 126% MORE payload than an A310
Final ruling - The 777F will be paid at the same pay-rates as our current book wide-body rates with the bulk of the extra money being made in block over-ride or some other concocted ULR yet to be designed addendum. The big bonus as I see it is minimum days worked for max days off due to extremely long legs.
Remember, the A380F was a radically different aircraft than we currently operate. It was significantly bigger, carried significantly more payload, and was cutting edge technology.
The 777F is nothing more than a gutted 777-200LR and the 777 family has been around for nearly 14 YEARS.
I personally do NOT see the enchantment with this airplane here at FedEx. It's new here, but it's been around the block. Great jet, but the way some talk, you'd think you were going to get to fly some Kelly Johnson prototype. The biggest reason I am glad we are getting them is SENIORITY MOVEMENT. I hope all the senior folks chase it for whatever reason they want.
JMO
that's the only fact the arbitrator really should need to hear - IMHO.
(we really ought to be taking the company to court over that maneuver in the first place)
or.......
give 'em the "widebody" argument, but make up for it in workrule changes to be able to use the 777 as an Ultra-Long-Range aircraft - right now, under the current CBA, they can't do that.
either way, the company is gonna have to pony up more than just an "MD-11 equivalent" payrate to utilize the 777 like they intended to utilize the A380.
11-19-2008 | 11:16 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,395
Likes: 0
From: B-777 Captain
Sample pairings all go to PVG because of it. Company wants to go to CAN but needs the ULR work rules. Let's talk.....
11-19-2008 | 11:17 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,184
Likes: 0
From: leaning to the left
11-19-2008 | 11:19 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
From: MD11 CPT
while all your factoids are nice, the bottom line is the company pulled the ol' "bait & switch" negotiating the A380 payrates all the while knowing they were gonna cancel it and replace it with the 777F.
that's the only fact the arbitrator really should need to hear - IMHO.
(we really ought to be taking the company to court over that maneuver in the first place)
or.......
give 'em the "widebody" argument, but make up for it in workrule changes to be able to use the 777 as an Ultra-Long-Range aircraft - right now, under the current CBA, they can't do that.
either way, the company is gonna have to pony up more than just an "MD-11 equivalent" payrate to utilize the 777 like they intended to utilize the A380.
that's the only fact the arbitrator really should need to hear - IMHO.
(we really ought to be taking the company to court over that maneuver in the first place)
or.......
give 'em the "widebody" argument, but make up for it in workrule changes to be able to use the 777 as an Ultra-Long-Range aircraft - right now, under the current CBA, they can't do that.
either way, the company is gonna have to pony up more than just an "MD-11 equivalent" payrate to utilize the 777 like they intended to utilize the A380.
The whole weight argument seemingly doesn't bode too well, especially considering the knowledgable and fair arbitrators roaming about
, but seems to me the work rules issue regarding long haul is pretty strong in your favor. Play it for all it's worth, because we already gave away heavy crewing although they aren't using it. So...you can always say, look how they blew it over at UPS .
11-19-2008 | 12:02 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 531
Likes: 0
From: Bent Over
Aren't these arbitrators appointed by the President. With the new administration taking office we may get a more work force friendly arbitrator. I'm not so sure that this is a lost cause.
11-19-2008 | 12:03 PM
#70
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Why Blame the Company for our Union's Shortfalls
I disagree with your premise.
You assume FedEx was going to CNX the A380 for the 777 from the beginning. I contend the company is merely executing provisions of the CBA offered to them.
Through the incompetence of our NC, and BC in particular, our crew force is forced to deal with this situation because BC and his team were hopelessly over matched by the FedEx negotiating team. This is a team that negotiated a contract with a rival (the USPS), and made the USPS more profitable and improved its performance. At the same time, FedEx was able to better utilize its aircraft, charged a high enough premium to allow for more internal jobs and increased its profit margins.
Our NC failed to execute one of the crew force’s major demands last time around – enforceable, unambiguous contract language. I will contend “A380 Pay Rate” is unambiguous, but tying a higher pay-rate and better work rules to a particular aircraft is naïve and amateur. If we had a professional set of negotiators like the company, I would hope pay rates and work rules would be tied to ULR flying, If they were, we would not be having this discussion.
It is wrong to blame the company for this situation. Why should they pay us more for then 777 when the CBA says A380? Strategic shortfalls by a “Busch League” NC led to this problem. As I highlighted in a previous post, lack of improvements to Section 1 lead to a horrible LOA. Once again, FDX crewmembers find our representation lacking. The company is not at fault here. The fault lies solely with our MEC and their lack of vision, naïve, incompetent leadership and strategic mistakes. Just because our Union holds their meetings in a Holiday Inn Express, that does not make us competent labor lawyers. Also, the lawyers at ALPA are found lacking again, again and again. (Delta, United, US Air, and Northwest). Our MEC and ALPA in general must change it ways and hire professionals. Hopefully, a more qualified NC would noticed the strategic blunder of tying pay rates and work rules to a particular aircraft rather than a type of flying and they would be able to strengthen the contractual language of our CBA.
while all your factoids are nice, the bottom line is the company pulled the ol' "bait & switch" negotiating the A380 payrates all the while knowing they were gonna cancel it and replace it with the 777F.
that's the only fact the arbitrator really should need to hear - IMHO.
(we really ought to be taking the company to court over that maneuver in the first place)
or.......
give 'em the "widebody" argument, but make up for it in workrule changes to be able to use the 777 as an Ultra-Long-Range aircraft - right now, under the current CBA, they can't do that.
either way, the company is gonna have to pony up more than just an "MD-11 equivalent" payrate to utilize the 777 like they intended to utilize the A380.
that's the only fact the arbitrator really should need to hear - IMHO.
(we really ought to be taking the company to court over that maneuver in the first place)
or.......
give 'em the "widebody" argument, but make up for it in workrule changes to be able to use the 777 as an Ultra-Long-Range aircraft - right now, under the current CBA, they can't do that.
either way, the company is gonna have to pony up more than just an "MD-11 equivalent" payrate to utilize the 777 like they intended to utilize the A380.
Through the incompetence of our NC, and BC in particular, our crew force is forced to deal with this situation because BC and his team were hopelessly over matched by the FedEx negotiating team. This is a team that negotiated a contract with a rival (the USPS), and made the USPS more profitable and improved its performance. At the same time, FedEx was able to better utilize its aircraft, charged a high enough premium to allow for more internal jobs and increased its profit margins.
Our NC failed to execute one of the crew force’s major demands last time around – enforceable, unambiguous contract language. I will contend “A380 Pay Rate” is unambiguous, but tying a higher pay-rate and better work rules to a particular aircraft is naïve and amateur. If we had a professional set of negotiators like the company, I would hope pay rates and work rules would be tied to ULR flying, If they were, we would not be having this discussion.
It is wrong to blame the company for this situation. Why should they pay us more for then 777 when the CBA says A380? Strategic shortfalls by a “Busch League” NC led to this problem. As I highlighted in a previous post, lack of improvements to Section 1 lead to a horrible LOA. Once again, FDX crewmembers find our representation lacking. The company is not at fault here. The fault lies solely with our MEC and their lack of vision, naïve, incompetent leadership and strategic mistakes. Just because our Union holds their meetings in a Holiday Inn Express, that does not make us competent labor lawyers. Also, the lawyers at ALPA are found lacking again, again and again. (Delta, United, US Air, and Northwest). Our MEC and ALPA in general must change it ways and hire professionals. Hopefully, a more qualified NC would noticed the strategic blunder of tying pay rates and work rules to a particular aircraft rather than a type of flying and they would be able to strengthen the contractual language of our CBA.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
