Contract 2010 Survey
 

Not sure if this thread is already started, but the deadline for the contract survey is nearing. Jan 5th if I'm not mistaken. This is everyone's chance to ***** to the right people rather than to ether on here.

Topics that I added in the write-in boxes were COLA, COLA and more COLA for one. I'm a believer that financial incentives and disincentives should be used to persuade the company to do or don't do certain behaviors; for example I believe Draft should be paid greater than Volunteer, maybe at 200 or 250% vice the 150 so it makes it a disincentive for the company to resort to it and an incentive for our guys to wait for the call. I'm not even averse to VLT being at straight time if DRF was at this higher rate.

Feel free to post your ideas so if someone likes it they can add it to their survey and take the time to email or call your friends to ensure they have taken it. It's kind of like voting on the contract; if you don't participate there is no justification for complaining.

No scheduling improvements on your agenda? These will increase pay for each day worked.

Min pay per day
4a2b language

QOL -- Mandate Good Pairing building

I'd rather not die a year after retirement. Right now you have to be near the top in your seat to stay healthy.

Increase the pay scales :) - leave everything else alone! Every time we negotiate what we think are better work rules we get hosed :mad:

Also - let the ALPA lawyers, we are paying for, scrub the contract (not done last time around) before it is sent to the crew force for ratification :eek:

I agree and those were also part of my inputs, but rather than cut and paste the whole survey I took I mention a couple things close to my heart and how others do the same to get discussion started or motivate action rather than the usual status quo.

Another thing close to my heart is maintaining the age 60 retirement option without penalty.

Tag?

That was the biggest point I made during the survey, any TA that doesn't maintain age 60 retirement without penalty gets a no vote from me.

SHHHHH no talking about contract improvements unless under the cone of silence. ;)

I agree 100%!!! We have proven TWICE that we have no idea how to negotiate or "improve" work rules without getting it stuck to us in the end. Give me $$$ Today and I'll improve my own quality of life.

Lawyers? Yea, our lawyer, My Cousin Vinney, will square off with the company's ten Harvard law grads. Yea, let's just stick to pay rates!

I hear this one quite a bit. Let me pose a question to you.

Let's say the company is willing to give you a pie that is worth an extra $30/hour per crew member and in return we raise the retirement age to 65.

If we say no way, we want to keep it at 60, the company will come back with an, "ok, we'll keep it at 60 and give the crew members a $5 / hour pay raise".

Will that be ok with you? If you are 59 years old, that may work for you (if you really leave at 60). If you are 55 or less, you are probably screwing yourself; especially if you get to age 60 and decide to work an extra year or two. (Look at the current evidence. How many are actually leaving at 60 now?)

If you are in your thirties or forties, there may not even be an A plan when you get to retirement age and then you will have really boned yourself out of years of earnings.

Don't be a single-issue voter.

In your example the guy 55 who wants to work an extra year or two will be screwed because anything under 65 would be penalized. We need to incentivize early outs not punish it. We should not reward staying in longer.

No increase past 25 years of service. No penalties for leaving before 65. Heck I would like to see pilots with 25 years of service be able to get out before 60 with no punishment. And yes I would be willing to pay for it. If no one is actually leaving it should not be that expensive right.

I'm not going to go into what weight I give my priorities or the specifics of what I will settle for. I'll leave that info for the MEC and NC to collect and use. One thing needs drastic improvement - Scheduling/Compensation.

Smart changes in this area can increase pay and QOL. They are not rocket science to the MEC and NC in place today. Apparently it was for Mr. "Hidden Money". After all, how hard would it have been to put "A380, or any other larger aircraft, rates shall be" in the contract? Or a clause that "an aircraft cannot be flown unless a pay rate is agreed upon". I wish someone had found the time to read at least other ALPA contracts before working on CBA 2006. Simple errors would have been avoided.

you're hearing it again. NO.

You're assuming too much. I think your numbers are way off.

I also think your idea only appeals to a minority group.

I think we'd be best serve to not even open the retirement section of the contract. Otherwise the 10 Harvard Law grads will see it as a great opportunity to outfox the "my cousin Vinney" ALPA lawyers in extracting something from us without us realizing it until after ratification. If we enhance any benefits for staying over 60, even FEWER folks will leave at 60, affecting everyone's seniority.

I vote for a penalty ...
 

Personally, I'd like to see a penalty for every year a guy stays past 60:

Maybe ... 2% x yos - (1%/yr past 60)

... I bet that would get rid of the JJ and FH types that are siting in our seats long after they've had a great career and have a great retirement! Or maybe we could find those guys a hobby and/or a family life? :D

Oooops, FH says I'm an age bigot? :confused:

Mark

Go ahead...

I'll believe it when I see it, but continue...

I'm not going to get into the giant turd sandwich that is age 65, but by keeping it at 60, it preserves options. I'm 42 right now, been at Fedex 8+ years, and as of today, planning to get out at 62, my health willing. I might have had enough of being tired half of the time on the road at age 60, I might be senior enough to get great trips, max vacation, ect to work to 65. I don't know how I'm going to feel in 18-20 years, do you? If we let the company change the retirement age to 65, we still have those options, but with a penalty...that is something I'm not willing to do.


Don't know what your doing, but for me, I'm planning on not having a A-plan when I retire. If it is there(or any remaining parts of one), great, I'll have some extra scratch to do my 3 team parlays in the fall, but my plan is setting up my retirement without a A-plan.


Last I checked, its still a democracy, so please don't tell me how to vote, I sure as hell won't tell you how to vote...but I do like a good discussion. Here's to waking up tomorrow with a cotton tongue...
Happy New Year

Maybe I'm missing something here. If I am, I apologize.

Are you guys who are so adamantly against raising the age to 65 against it because of the assumed penalty the company will apply; i.e. 3% / year?

Or are you against it because it will cause the old guys to stay that much longer?

Seeing as how we were supposed to be having 200+ hit 60 this year and for the next several years, I don't know if paying to keep it at 60 is worth it. (IMHO) They aren't leaving now. Why fight (pay) to keep it?

I'd rather have the money now. Give me enough money and I can build my own quality of life. I have a long time left here. I don't expect to see an A plan by the time I get there so I'm not too concerned about early out penalties.

At every bargaining session, a company looks at it's employee negotiators and says, "Here's the pie. Split it up however you want."

The employee group says, "yea, but we want a bigger pie".

Guys , do you really think we have what it takes to get a bigger pie?:rolleyes:

I am against it because I may want to retire at 55 or 58 or 60 or 62 or 65. Right now I would pay a penalty for the 1st two. Not pay a penalty for the next 3. That is good. No penalty for leaving at 58 would be better. Penalty for leaving before 65 would be worse.

Certainly not if we don't think so ---- and more importantly, try to get it.

I don't want us to enter negotiations with our tails between our legs.

No penalty would be awesome. Would I give up a 40 or 50% pay raise to get it? Nope.

And how do we enter negotiations without our tails between our legs?
I'll tell you how. Every pilot on the membership list has a minimum of three months savings. Every pilot. Has our union EVER addressed this with this group? How many of us do you think has that savings now and how many do you think will have it in 2011 or 2012? It would be nice to think all that volunteer and draft $$$ is going into a contingency fund but.......:(

Yes. You're right.
My idea of voting No for the current contract and the LOA was in the minority also.

Unfortunately, I'm not feeling real secure with the viewpoints of the majority anymore.

I would guess that maybe 10% of our pilots have enough $$ to last 3 months without working. And, every time I hear that down the road the A fund might be gone, I have to wonder why it would be gone. The only answer I can come up with is that we will be weaklings at some point in future negotiations, and give it up. Just like now where collectively we are weaklings during our 4a2b punishment.

Now your talking like your on a bender, do you really think that the company would give us 40% raise? Look at the raise they gave us in 2006, and what they did to the optimizer. If they gave us a 40% raise, with the way they would schedule us, we'd be overmanned by about 2000, and the ones that were left would all die by age 55. I voted yes for contract 2006, trusted our leadership, last time I'll do that. Voted no on the LOA, because I actually read the thing, and have a basic understanding of Econ 101, which, unfortunatly, 62% of our membership don't.

I would enjoy 3 months off (even without pay). What do you think the odds are I could just ask my ACP for the time off?

Survey completed. My negotiating team speaks for me!

No, I'm not on a bender....not yet, anyway. Give it a few more hours.

The 40 or 50% pay raise is, of course, hypothetically speaking. But, when our leadership sold us this last contract, with all of the hidden money, what would that have been worth if we would have just said, "No thanks, we'll just take an hourly raise."

Remember, VS, we're on the same team here.
P.S. I like the Avatar. Still trying to figure out where that is. Don't tell me. I'll figure it out.
Sugarloaf?

The point is the retirement age is currently 60. Anything over 60 is lowering the bar. Could they offer me enough money to change my mind, sure but it would have to be enough to cover the penalty for when I leave at 60.

Agency shop and 4a2b need to go away.

Big hourly pay raise. If working here is going to suck, I want more money. Actual W-2 money.

Oh, and an A plan buy-out option (partial or full) would be nice too. :)

Bingo! That's what I needed to hear!

Now, time to start mixing the drinks.
Happy New Year.

Can someone quote the contract that states the retirement age is 60? All I can find is the "normal retirement age" but it doesn't specify what that is. Is the company being benevolent by allowing us to retire at Age 60 now with no penalty?

The company will make us spend a TON of negotiating capital to get rid of 4a2b - especially if arbitration comes back in their favor.. They can save $75+ million a year by hiring and then "needing to furlough them due to overmanning....."

Same here, this is my last post today, then I'm going to clean up and get my best friend Jack(nickname Gentlemen) out of the pantry...

Somewhat agree, but if we get a good raise, we gotta have the scheduling improvements with it, otherwise the company will kill us in that area. As for "hidden money", only one I've seen in increasing the pay for training, which being in LA, is a nice bump twice a year. Other than that, notsomuch "hidden money" in my bank account.

Wholeheartedly agree, just some good banter back and forth while watching football. I've told my thoughts to the Negotiation committee via the survey, and my MEC rep thru emails. Hopefully others have done the same.

BINGO!!! Spent many couple New Years Eve there, just hanging at the Widowmaker. Kind of wish I was there right now, but hanging out in shorts on Dec 31 isn't too bad either...

Its in the Pilot Benefit Book


Pilot Benefit Book
Retirement: Pension Plan and Non-Qualified Plans: Retirement Dates

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You may commence retirement benefits on any of the dates described below after you have completed application requirements. Refer to “Making Application for Benefits and When Payments Commence.”

Normal Retirement Date
Your normal retirement date is the first day of the month coincident with or next following the date on which you attain age 60, after:

Completing five years of credited service for vesting, or
Reaching your fifth anniversary of Plan participation.
If you retire on or after your normal retirement date, you are eligible to receive an unreduced monthly benefit.

Do us a favor and take no concessions.

So that not being in the contract, can the company change it at will?
The Company has included pilots in certain benefit enhancements which were not included in the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. However, the Company is not obligated to continue providing these enhanced benefits should they be unavailable or discontinued for any reason. Refer to the 2004 Pilot Benefits Book and the Collective Bargaining Agreement for a complete description of the benefits the Company is obligated to provide.

RETIREMENT (Pension Benefi ts)
A. General
1. The Company shall continue to provide retirement and related
benefits through the Retirement Plans1 and under the terms and
conditions of the Retirement Plans, as in effect as of the date
of this Agreement, except as specifically provided herein. The
terms and conditions of the Retirement Plans, insofar as they
affect pilots, shall not be changed, except as provided in this
Agreement or by the written agreement of the Association. The
Pilot Benefi t Book (“PBB”) shall be updated in accordance with
Section 28.A.7. to refl ect changes made by this Agreement and
any other changes made pursuant to Section 28.A.5.

If you ask for 'bottom rung of the ladder' quality openers - you can NEVER go up. You get what you negotiate. If we want a 50% pay increase because that's what we've lost under 4.A.2.b., then tell your LEC, the MEC and the NC. If you're happy with a 3% annual pay raise, I feel pretty confident the Company will be happy with that, too.

DO NOT UNDER ESTIMATE YOUR VALUE TO THE COMPANY!!! We are the cash cow. Express has allowed FDX Corp to buy Freight, Kinko's, label Ground, sponsor the Orange Bowl, NASCAR Racing #11, FedEx Cup Golf, some portion of Formula 1 Racing, purchase NEW B-777F's, and expand globally without limitation. We've put our name on two stadium/arenas and starred in a major motion picture. We're a brand name that's recognized globally, and the common term used when somebody wants something shipped quickly and reliably. In the worst economy since the depression, FDX Corp and FedEx Express have still posted quarterly profits worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Leadership is disappointed when FDX net profits fall below $2 BILLION annually. I suspect we're one of three major US airlines in the black right now, and one of the others is our competition.

Personally, I want it all and I want it now (I actually took that line from my wife). With 4,600 crew members headed in ONE direction, we can achieve what WE want, what WE deserve, and what WE negotiate. Ask for a second rate contract, and that's exactly what we'll end up with.

Things that anger me (and this isn't all of them) -

Penalizing a crew member for staying past 60. How 'bout making it REALLY worth his while to leave (enhance our retirement package)!

Suggesting we pay 'cruise pilots' 2nd officer pay. HEY - let's start with paying them Captain's pay. Think that might help you upgrade faster?

Feeling like calling in fatigued is a 'crew' problem. If a crew member becomes fatigued on a trip - it's a TRIP problem. Keep the crew in the field or re-build the pairing, but the penalty for calling in fatigued should be on the Company and CRP, not the crew member. NO dockage of our sick bank, and the crew retains trip guarantee!

Deadheads not in accordance with the CBA. If Corp Travel can't get us scheduled IAW the CBA, re-build the pairing so it's contractually legal. If the deadhead rates First Class and the airline only has Business - find another airline!

SHALL means SHALL - not maybe!

The range is open - start shootin'. And . . . have a great NEW YEAR.

Nakazawa

I highlight several sections in red, including part of your original quote, for reference.

These provisions of the contract, combined with the fact, nowhere does the contract "specifically provide" a definition of the normal retirement age, cause me to be less sure of the "iron clad" nature of our age 60 retirement.


In fact, I believe this sections present more questions than answers. It is possible, the company could interpret the recent rule change (age 65) to fall within the the first highlighted section below. Also, if their cost analysis was consistent with the principles set forth in the second highlighted section below, the Association's first notification would be during the review of the "updated" PBB (third highlighted section). I realize this is a pessimistic and maybe unrealistic view of how the contract might be interpreted, but I also thought 4.A.2.b would be implemented much differently than its current form.


But, I'm sure the company would never take advantage of ambiguous language in the contract to increase the bottom line:rolleyes:, so I'm sure we can all rest easily until we are able to "fix" the language in the next contract.:eek:




Section 28.A.5
All of the Retirement Plans’ terms and conditions shall remain unchanged insofar as they affect pilots, except as specifically provided for herein or except as required by law. If an amendment to the Retirement Plans or the PBB is required by law, if there is more than one alternative available under the law with respect to such required amendment(s), and if the effectuation of either alternative would result in similar cost to the Company, the consent of the Association to one of the alternatives shall be required for such plan amendment. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Association’s consent shall not be required for any amendment described in this paragraph if more than one alternative is available under the law but the effectuation of one or more of the alternatives would result in increased cost to the Company over the other available alternatives.




Section 28.A.7
No later than April 28, 2007 (180 days after October 30, 2006, the date of signing), the Company shall provide the Association with proposed updates to the PBB reflecting changes made as part of this Agreement. No later than 60 days after receipt of the proposed updates, the Association shall meet with the Company and provide comments. As soon as practicable thereafter, a PBB that is mutually satisfactory to the Company and the Association shall be distributed to the pilots. The Association’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The foregoing to the contrary notwithstanding, the failure of the Association to timely approve such updates shall not prevent the Company from distributing the updates to the pilots in accordance with the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §1104(b). The parties acknowledge that updates pertaining to benefit changes that are scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2008, may not be available for inclusion in the 2007 update to the PBB.With respect to any future updates to the PBB, the Company shall prepare and distribute to the pilots updates to the PBB, as required by 29 U.S.C. §1104(b). The Association shall be given the opportunity to review and approve such updates; the Association's approval of such updates shall not be unreasonably withheld. The foregoing to the contrary notwithstanding, the failure of the Association to timely approve such updates shall not prevent the Company from distributing the updates to the pilots in accordance with the provisions of 29 U.S.C. §1104(b).

How about being able to retire at 25 years with no penalty regardless of age.

Personally, I want it all and I want it now (I actually took that line from my wife).


This might be the quote of the year. Buyer beware. They actually learn this behavior when they are as young as 5, as I'm finding out.

Nakazawa is the man!
:D

I think you are right to take EVERYTHING from now forward with the attitude: "how can they sXXXw us with this language".

In the case of Age 60, we are safe. The sections you highlight are the ones that specifically retain ALL benefits and provisions of our pension plan as of August of 2006. The section you highlight in 28.A.5. says "consent" can be waived only for specific items that have to meet a couple of litmus tests.

The first, an largest hurdle is: "If an amendment to the Retirement Plans or the PBB is required by law" this is where Federal Law is changed, making a provision or clause in FedEx's DB plan in effect "illegal". This section provides the avenue to affect such change. This section has been used already in CBA 2006, ask any R&I Committee member.

The fact that MAX retirement age has been raised does not reflect a required change to our DB plan, simple as that. If the Law said that Age 65 is the Earliest a covered employee could receive benefits, then our CBA would have to be changed to reflect a legal plan.

This is a great discussion and I hope everyone will continue to read the CBA and participate. We will only get what we are prepared to bargain for and likewise we will only give up what we are willing to give up, which I hope is NOTHING!:)

One year when Ohio State was way ahead of Michigan and late in the game OSU scored another touch down and went for two points instead of the traditional extra point kick. After the game a reporter asked Woody Hays why he went for 2 when they were so far ahead late in the game?
Woody's reply "because I couldn't go for 3!".

Even though I'm from Michigan, I like the way Woody thinks. :D