UPS avg. Captain pay with T/A
 

Trying this attachment feature, here goes. The IPA published this table in the latest edition of the union newspaper.

Hey, that worked. Here's one more chart.

Two points I need to make about our proposed pay. First, For captains it amounts to an inflation adjusted raise only if you use 1998 12 year captain #. Our company's profits have exploded, yet I and every other UPS captain have been left behind. First Officers benefited greatly in this T/A, however. The pseudo B scale is erased over 5 years, and $40 big G's are tossed their way to help get the Yes vote.

This T/A overall is a dog, and I have yet to meet someone who disagrees. We've given away so much already that even a No vote won't assure us anything in the future. I'm voting Yes nonetheless because waiting another year could be fatal for our group, as in another terrorist strike, Fedex settles with many areas below what we've got T/Ad, PEB possibility, etc. If this T/A goes under we only see microscopic improvements if any in a 2007 T/A. This group has made collective mistakes in the past, as it did when it rejected B. Miller's midterm T/A a few years ago. I hope we don't make another costly mistake. Fire away.

Priority:

Since when did you know what FedEx "settled on" prior to reaching a TA - especially the PEB nonsense?

Amen
 

Your reasoning is sound and perhaps it isnt as bad as we think it is.

PEB Nonsense
 

You know Art L. told us to fear the PEB. I believe he is right because there is no way Linda P or any other person in her positiion will sympathize with us. Nor would anyone in the public sector. I think many of us have lost touch with reality.

:confused:

There are certain to be surprises, on the low side, in any Fedex T/A. This could hurt us.

I'm not a labor law expert, but our hired labor consultant warns us that a PEB is a realistic possibility in our group's case.

Un freakin believeable!!!

P3. I just wish you would have said that you think this TA is good, thats why you are voting Yes, That IMO would be fine, but no, you say the TA sucks but will still vote yes because your scared...

I hope the IPA never goes on strike, If we did, UPS might threaten to fire us all for striking, and based on your spineless actions with this TA, I could see you being the first to cross the line... We wouldnt want you to lose you job now would we...


BBDC8

I can't quite understand the argument that states the TA is a dog, yet a Yes vote is called for because: 1. Terrorists may strike again. Pretty low odds on that. 2. FEDEX may get a lower offer. Seems they already are beating us in certain areas under their old offer. 3. Another year of Union strife. How would this be any different?
The TA could be fine tuned in a few areas and made much better, why not give that a chance. The downside is purely in the longer wait.

If there is a big downturn in business they will reopen and negotiate down before you can say "Bob's your Uncle".

As it stands we are waiting another six years to be where we should be now, if you discount the paltry retirement.

P3,
I'm not sure if you have read this inspiring and courageous post from the B&G. This is what being in a Union is all about, I'm worried about the outcome when this TA gets voted down, but I'm also not going to let UPS stick it to us again for another 8-9 years. The line in the sand is drawn... Read on...

Fellow Crewmembers



In a little less than a week, voting begins for one of the most important
decisions we will ever make in our aviation career. The precedent we set
will send ripple effects not only throughout our ranks, but to the industry,
and around the world. Our profession is at stake, as company executives have
exploited laws, bankruptcies, and contractual language to slowly deteriorate
what our fellow brothers who came before us fought so hard to obtain. As
grievance committee members, former members and co-chairmen, who have worked
under this administration devoting hundreds of hours, to defend our
contract, ensure benefits, and protect one¹s safety, we would be derelict in
our duties, should we sit on the sidelines and say nothing.



We believe the proposed agreement is concessionary not only to our current
agreement but to the Federal Regulations we operate under. Through many
outlets, we have been told this is the best we can do, and that we have no
leverage. We disagree! Negotiations is a two way street. We give and take
based on the needs of our demographics. Our current contract has high value
items that the Company desires. They will decrease cost, and increase
productivity. Under the proposed agreement, they have received them. The
question is, what did we receive in return?



The Captain verses First Officer IRO is a high value item. Currently, the
75/76 fleet is the only aircraft the Company is allowed to augment with a
First Officer. The language is aircraft specific. Therefore, the Company
could not augment the MD-11 with First Officer¹s. This led to the MD-11 MOU
allowing the Company to augment the crew utilizing Captains. Under the
proposed agreement, we have conceded the Captain IRO on the MD-11 to First
Officer. Further, Article 14 L conceded the augmentation of any two-pilot
aircraft certified for 300,000 pounds max take-off weight or greater
utilizing First Officers. What does this mean? Fewer crews and less
upgrades. With the recent announcement of the Anchorage Domicile for both
the MD-11 and the B-747-400, the Captain IRO issue is a high value item and
the Company really wants this piece. If we vote the down the proposed
agreement, the Company will have to staff the Anchorage Domicile with extra
Captains. Should the proposed agreement pass, the Company will have the
latitude to augment all wide-body jets with First Officers.



Article, 14 M of our current contract allows the Company to double crew the
747-200 for up to two legs. This double-crew consists of TWO CAPTAINS, two
First Officers, and two Flight Engineers for a total of six crewmembers.
Under the proposed agreement we will allow the Company to fly the 747-400
and A-380, with ONE CAPTAIN, and three First Officers for a total of two
legs, so long as one leg is over 11 hours. This is a net reduction of one
Captain and two crewmembers overall. Combine this with the increase duty
limit from 18 hours to 19:45; we believe this language is not only
concessionary, but dangerous. Having one Captain responsible for a plane
weighing over a million pounds, flying up to two legs, in just under 20
hours is an accident waiting to happen.



Under the current contract, staffing of any new equipment type, (i.e. MD-11)
was treated like that of a new domicile. Due to the lack of aircraft in
the beginning, crewmembers were being displaced from their lines for IOE (5%
rule). Under the proposed agreement, this will not happen. Article 14 N
allows the Company to withhold lines up to six bid periods (1 year) from the
arrival of the first aircraft. Should this agreement fail to pass,
crewmembers who have upgraded will continue to bid a line, and the Company
will be forced to displace. With the implementation of the 747-400 and the
A-380, this article is a high value item. Should we accept the proposed
agreement; the company will have the latitude to withhold flying for up to
one year. What does this do? Prolongs upgrades.



Currently, summer vacation drives our staffing model. Bids open September
1st, just one day after the final vote count. Under the new agreement we
have conceded a 20% reduction in vacation for the summer months. What does
this mean to us? Fewer vacations during the time of year our children are
home, and less upgrades. Should this agreement fail to pass, the company
must maintain status quo with the current summer vacation allotment. Again,
this article is a high value item.



The IPA was founded on Strength, and Unity. At one time we were the envy of
other labor groups, a force to be reckoned with. We had a motto, ³Leave no
one behind,² which included our hostages. Against the repeated
recommendations of the Jumpseat Committee experts, Captain¹s Authority was
placed on the negotiating table utilizing a jumpseat matrix. Once this
occurred, the FAA no longer viewed this as a regulatory issue, but a labor
one. The Company in turn, published MRB 06-02 which wiped away ³Captain¹s
Authority,² with regards to Priority 3¹s. The Union published a
clarification of the Company¹s intention in its IPNN January 27 press
release stating, ³The final say as to how many jumpseaters can ride on a
given flight, however, remains in the hands of the PIC.² These words turned
hollow as Captains who exercised their authority were threatened,
disciplined, and given time off without pay. As a Union we should have
fought for these pilots, their career and this profession. Sadly, we
didn¹t. Instead of negotiating their loss of pay into the agreement, we
left them behind.

We have been told that the jumpseat matrix is an improvement over current
contract language. We disagree. Captain¹s authority was protected under
the FAR¹s and FSAT 0206 and should not have been negotiated into our labor
agreement. We should have fought this issue at the regulatory level, much
like our peers at FedEx. If we accept the proposed agreement, Captain¹s
Authority will be jeopardized.

The purpose of a Union is to protect jobs and to ensure safety, not to give
it away. Voting for this agreement is not in our collective interest.
Accepting a concessionary contract with a Company that made $3.9 Billion in
net profits on $36 Billion in income last year is a move in the wrong
direction. Many of these regulatory issues we stated above will never be
regained. Upgrade times for First Officers will be lengthened, and
compounding of one¹s income will be lost forever. No other airline has a
safety record like ours, flying in 24 time zones, 200+ countries, 24 hours a
day 7 days a week. It is because of our hard work, skill, and expertise,
that UPS is so successful. The items mentioned above are high value items.
The Company would love nothing better, than for us to accept this agreement.
We equate it to trading in a Lexus for a Yugo. Therefore, we cannot support
the proposed tentative agreement as it is not in the memberships¹ best
interest.



Should we vote down the proposed agreement, the consequences will not be as
drastic as some would lead us to believe. The RLA is very clear on the
steps that must be taken to receive a PEB. With peak season, right around
the corner, the Company would be foolish to ask for a release. The NMB must
authorize the release, and at that time the PEB has 30 days to investigate
the dispute and report to the President during which status-quo remains in
effect. The parties may choose to accept the recommendations of the PEB,
negotiate their own agreement, or, after 30 days of the PEB report to the
President, exercise Self Help. As committee chairs, former chairs, and
committee members, it is our belief, we can do much better. We believe the
reward outweighs the risk. With the recent announcement of the Anchorage
domicile, the B-747-400, and the A-380, we would do ourselves a tremendous
service by overwhelmingly sending this agreement back to the table and
negotiate a contract that rewards our work, protects our safety, and insure
our jobs.

Look my friend, if any of that terrorist,gas, war stuff happens, UPS is going to be all over our sht wanting it back anyway. Stand tough for a little while longer. If you like the deal vote yes, but not out of fear. I think in the next day or so you may see something to make your NO vote a little easier:rolleyes:

One thing about the charts that you put up too is that while the 300k a year sounds great, it is the same buying power as you had in 1998, and will get this year if the thing passes. It is only the 223 rate adjusted for inflation, not an overall improvement in your style of living.

Lemme guess, Bob Miller's announcement that he's going to run?

vote on reality, not fear
 

Honestly, do you really think that the eventual T/A that passes is going to be a significant improvement over today's? Let me tell you something, what you're looking at in this T/A is 99% of what we'll see in an eventaul contract.

My vote won't be out of fear, it will be based on what my union's experts say (and 99% of us line pilots are not experts) and the reality that a delay does not equal improvements.

Vote no, and you'll be losing pay, retirement contributions, and heartache for another 6 to 12 mos. ANd in the end still be *****ing about the contract.

Just one man's opinion!

P3,

Guys like you are the reason that our union has NEVER in the past, and never will in the future, get ahead in contract Negotiations. We will always be substandard to FedEx and everyother carrier out there because you are not willing to risk it all for a better life. (You probably picked up opentime and accepted JA's for the past 4 years as well)

I think that our union would be stronger if we didnt have people like you in it... Management paperwork is readily available when ever your ready to make the jump. Oh thats right, your waiting till you can cast your vote and the contract is passed, adn then putting your paperwork in.


BBDC8

I think that we heard from someone else today
IPA, Good Day:cool:

Certainly a valid point, but I am willing to roll the dice. If we do no better, I promise not to ***** to you when I see you <G>

Since I’m “outside looking in” I have a question about the posted pay chart. I am all for pilots getting what’s rightfully due to them but do you current cargo guys/gals get just a little nervous seeing that 300k a year with terrorist, gas prices, and war?

I am just playing the devils advocate here, but during these times of gas prices, war, and terrorist attacks, UPS the company has made unbelievable profits. Sometimes almost 1 billion a quarter. That's profit! Not operating revenue!

The 300k you talk about is only for a few senior guys at UPS. The TA allows UPS to "stunt growth" in terms of Captain positions. The language in this TA will, I believe, hurt us the most. If this thing gets voted down, nobody will be on our side. The hourly pay is all anyone looks at. It goes much deeper than that! Think about it. If someone offers you 300k a year tomorrow you would take it. I don't blame you! However, in that same deal your position is no longer needed. What would you do?

I think it's something to seriously think about! JMHO

ta
 

BigBrown...

What, someone disagrees with you and all of a sudden he must be picking up opentime and ja? He should get his app for mgmt ready? ****????

Seems to me that you working in the training center brings you a few extra dollars every month. Why are you enriching yourself in this manner during negotiations? Have you sold back any sick for the last four years? Again, you're just padding your paycheck. Ever trip trade and have one more hour of pay? There you go again!!

My point is this...you can agree to disagree with someone else without attaching motives for the viewpoint. Attacking him and promising to "meet" him is far below the standards of union solidarity. Whatever the vote, we will all stand together in the aftermath. You're poisoning the life that we will all have to live whether this thing passes or not.

As far as BM returning, he is no better (probably worse) than TN. He personally lied to me on a fairly important issue. There are reasons he was turned out of office....he lost touch with the membership.

If we vote this thing down, we need new leadership and someone to bring everyone together, not just the moonies and the supporters of the present administration. BM is not the guy, neither is TN.

If I had gone over the edge like you did in your post, I would pony up an apology when I reread the post. We don't deserve that kind of treatment from mgmt and we sure as hell don't deserve it from our own union brothers....

JMO

Pilot7576

I don't think anybody is saying that the TA is an absolute gem, but I think people are starting to look at it for what it actualy is - a proposal and voting accordingly.

Sure, I was a definite "no" vote when it first came out, but after I separated myself from all of the b!tching and opinions floating around and actually read it for myself, my opinion changed. Do I love it? No, but I like it enough where I can live under it if it is voted in, and I don't see enough negatives to necessitate an overwhelming no vote. One has to weigh the positives and the negatives.

I don't care that a person votes one way or another, just as long as each person can separate fact from fiction, read it for what it is, and make a determination if you and your family can live under this. Majority rules, and if it is voted in we deal with it as a group. If it is voted down, we regroup together and work as a team to get something we can work under.

My personal guess, and I am not aiming this at you, is that many who say they are voting "no" will probably end up voting "yes". If you want my my opinion, those are the ones you want to watch when it comes to crossing a picket line.

OOTSK,

I respectfully disagree. As an observation, I think it has more to do with people picking up tons of open time during "normal" times, as well as people accepting JA's. Personally, I think if nobody picked up extra flying during any time, we would at least see more hiring, if not more upgrades as well.

What would I be nervous at, that it would break my company? They are doing quite well thank you, and at the point where they aren't and can't afford to pay this much, they can and will come to talk to us. Traditionally the pilots groups have been the first to give back and the most generous if it is needed as we have th emost to lose. I am proud of my paycheck and don't feel the need to wear a mask or back up to the pay window when it is my turn to pikc up my paycheck

Two great posts!

Whether this TA goes through or not, Bob is not the answer to our problems. We are the problem. We think we are smarter than our elected reps, hired consultants, and the company. The midterm agreement for the MD11 IRO is a good example. In hindsight, it was a pretty good deal. We would've had some things now that we wish we had in this TA. 125% OT, $39k for new hires, etc. We turned it down because we wanted to poke the company in the eye. Well, guess what? They got their IROs anyway and we were left holding the bag. We really showed them! My opinion only, but I see the same thing happening again if this goes down.

Telling people to grow a pair or calling them names because you don't like their opinion doesn't help build unity. This will only divide us further! Pass or fail, we will have to work together for a long time. This is a business deal. Keep your emotions out of it. If you think it's fair, vote yes. If not, vote no. Seems pretty simple to me.

Bingo, IPAMD11FO. Add to that an entitlement attitude of many of our pilots, and you get the kind of nonsensical, emotional ranting that's going on right now over this T/A.

pilot7576,
I never promised anything to anyone about "meeting" them anywhere... What are you talking about. Did I miss something or say something that may be interpeted as a threat? Let me know. Im not trying to threaten anyone if that is what you are talking about, this is a messege board not the "Fight Club" and if I did say that, I would issue an apology immediately... Please show me... I went back and read my post and didnt see anything like that...

Im disagree with P3 because he admits this TA is bad and then says he will vote yes for it anyway because he is scared.

Im glad you have decided that this TA works for you, I expect that you will vote yes and as far as Im concerned, (not that you care, but) thats fine with me. But to think this TA is a bad deal and you only motivation to vote yes is fear. I have a difficult time understanding that...

You seem quick to slander the IPA instructors for working in the training center. Do you really want us all to stop working there and let the Managers run every aspect of training????

I use my sicktime when ever I need it and NEVER fear any reprisal for doing so, If I use it all, that fine with me, If not and the rule is that you get a sick time check like everyone else, including you, that is fine with me too... Sick time is sick time, I use when Im sick... Period... I dont call in sick when Im not sick...

NO, I have NEVER traded a trip of anything... EVER... Ive ALWAYS been on reserve since Ive been hired here... and most the time, not by my choice...

Next question...

BBDC8

Sent by mistake to BBDC8

BBDC8...

Now you know how I'm going to vote? Talk about reading something into nothing! My examples of you in the training center/sick buy back/trading was not a slam at you, it was listing the different ways OTHERS can look at each pilot and say "you're not doing your part for the union." I'm not saying it's right or accurate, it's all perception.

Your comments about p3 voting yes and so must be a mgmt candidate is what drove my response. Perhaps it was tic, but you never indicated that. I am going to vote (yes or no) based on the total package, not out of fear. If the ta fails by a small majority, the new ta will be only subtly better than this one, and there is a chance it will be substantially worse. The two most important items to me are scope and scheduling...everything else is secondary. If you don't have scope, you don't have growth and if you don't have scheduling, you won't last long enough to enjoy whatever retirement we negotiate. Luby says scope is the best bar none; I have to trust that assessment because I'm not a scope guru. When CD comes out with the bid packs, I'll see if the scheduling will work.

Just as an aside, federal ended up settling on a ta that was less than the agreement that their nc refused to send to the membership for a vote. Revisionist history always looks good in arguments, but ask one of your federal friends to show you the copy of the letter that fred sent to the families during the last negotiations....the "with or without you" letter.

Just some food for thought. No matter how the vote turns out, we will have to stand together. Your post to p3 really doesn't support that unity.

JMO

Pilot7576

Careful tossing out those "concessionary contract" phrases in a room full of DAL, UAL, USAir, NWA, AMR pilots, you may get punched in the face. Does UPS make 4 bill. a year, yeah... And if every other employee feels the same sense of entitlement that we have exhibited over the next few years, this company will be bleeding. Big Brown will have the same problems that now plague other big companies, high labor costs, pension problems, health care issues, etc., just a matter of time.

The common denominator with those "other" big companies is not cost of labor but a failure to respond to the market and provide a properly priced, competitive product. There has been a lot of blame placed on the Unions, but it is well to remember that both management and the Unions entered into the agreement. It is also wise to remember that these agreements have long been voided, yet are still blamed for current poor performance. We have never approached peak Legacy pay rates and are still a long way off with the current TA despite tremendous profits.
The Legacy carriers are in a much more competitive market than FEDEX or UPS because the capital costs to enter the package market are very much higher than the passenger market.

The legacy carriers also incurred HUGE amounts of debt over the years as well.

And HUGE bailouts from da gubmint!

Very well said in a nutshell. Unfortunately people only see the now and forget other companies that once were on top. I can't tell you how many times I have heard "nothing is going to happen to UPS". I hope not but I'm also not going to hold my breath.

Great reasoning
 

In other words, Don't negotiate a good contract during record profits. .

I didn't say that. I started out by saying "don't call this a concessionary contract". Calling this TA concessionary is a slap in the face to guys who have gotten destroyed by 50% pay cuts, downbids, pension terminations, etc. Can you blame UPS for wanting to compare our contract to those at other pilot groups post 9/11? When times were good, we wanted to be paid like "airline pilots".

Exactly. When pax carrier times are good, the co. doesn't want to compare cargo pilots to pax but the pilots do. When pax carrier times are bad, the co. wants to compare us to pax but the pilots don't. We get mad when the co. wants it both ways, yet we want it both ways as well.

Guys..

The problem is perception and bias. During the teamster fiasco in '98 I actually had a ground manager tell me that ups pilots didn't deserve parity because "we only flew boxes and not passengers." An easy argument to rebut....why did delta pilots make more than airtran...were their pax more valuable?

It's not who or what you fly, it's the revenue generated by the flight. Through good times and bad for the legacy pax carriers, boxes generate more revenue than a plane full of pax. That is what those boxheads have to have drilled into their cardboard craniums.

We (ups/fedex) deserve everything that we negotiate, whether the legacies are doing poorly or doing well.

JMO

Pilot7576

Stuff
 

When I did my interview with UPS last year, my research came up with UPS carrying almost 50% of the cargo market inside the U.S. FedEx came in at 25%, and the other 25% carried by your local operators, ASTAR, etc.

I think there comes a point where a company can get too big for its own good but I don't believe UPS is there yet or will be in the near future. Something drastic would have to happen like China cashing in all the T-bills they own and causing the U.S. economy to tank. THAT would cause a ripple or two.

On another note, while wandering around the UPS ready room last night, the only buttons I saw attached to the shirt lapels of fellow crew members were Vote No buttons. Did not see any vote yes buttons. The final tally will be interesting.

but remember the silent majority.

The big question is how many of them will actually vote no.