Well said!

A few months ago I opined on this subject. We have had our A$$es kicked hard because we have made weakly worded pen and ink changes to our past contracts. Here we are today, reviewing openers and we are already changing "Happy" to "Glad". We need to start fresh. Every paragraph needs to be purposely written to say what we all will agree it says. No more intent, just words.

We should not be in any concessionary negotiating atmosphere. We have a lot of leverage and our MEC and NC should be prepared to use it with extreme prejudice. If we don't take full advantage of this post-4A2B environment with this contract, you can forget "Happy" changing to "Glad". It will be SS inked over DW.

Our NC has our support with some unity. Let's not lose what we have in the first inning of a long ball game.

 

Just like the first contract we had changed the vacation accrual rules. Before that contract all of your time with the company counted for vacation longevity. When you went to the line you had 3 or 4 years (or more) for vacation longevity. After a year or two on the line, you were getting 3 weeks vacation. After that contract was approved (overwhelmingly) your years before getting your seniority number did not count for vacation longevity. Several hundred crewmembers have been and will continue to be impacted by this, (one guy who was a ramp agent and then flew for corporate lost 15 years) yet there was no screaming and yelling when it happened. I was told that the savings from that change were rolled in to the new pay scales that were put in place by that contract. Didn't seem to turn pilots against pilots.
As long as the issue only impacts a relatively small number and the majority gets something in return, this group will approve it.

 

First off, you are correct in that credit for service has not changed, actually nothing has Changed until we sign a new Contract.

However, If we agree to change the current language from 60 (normal retirement age) to age 65 then if a pilot retires at age 62 you are now retiring 3 years early which is a 3% per year hit. Even if you have 25 + years of service. This would have a bad impact on further incentive for pilots to stay on to 65, I don't think any Line pilot wants that.

As far as internal hires go: About 6 years ago The Company (not ALPA) froze the Defined Benefit plan of all employees (except those covered under a Contract i.e. Pilots). That means whatever benefit they had accrued at the time (a snap shot) was what they were going to get when they retired. In other words they would keep what they had accrued but would not accrue any further DB benefit. Again, The Company did that to Internals, not ALPA.
Also I believe (do note quote me here) Under ERISA laws the company cannot take a retirement benefit away that was previously earned (only future benefits, which they did). So an internal hire should receive at retirement whatever they earned under the General FDX DB plan as well as whatever they earn under the ALPA DB plan per the contract from Date of Hire as a Pilot.

 

Too bad there's a MEC resolution floating around, signed unanimously by all members, endorsing the changing of the regulated age to 65.

Don't think that won't get shoved across the table.....

 

I would like to see that resolution, care to share?

What is the chance any TA will be ratified by this group if it has the AGE Change?

 

I think Huck just chucked a Turd Grenade into the Forum. I'd really like to see that resolution. I for one, don't believe it.

 

I listened to the MD of Training at the last contract negotiations brag that he was able to keep his section of the contract "cost neutral" for the company - which was his direction from the company. Cost neutral for the company means lose for the pilots as sure as no pay raise for any job means lose relative to the economy. Take from the flexes and give to the LCA/standards was the method back then. That's the same as the company taking away your 401k, increasing your pay, and calling it a pay raise.

Do you think these are the only groups that are losing. How about when we give up the commuters, or anyone else? If we stand aside when they take from a group that we are not a part of, who speaks up when they take away from our group?

Having the Negotiating Committee play Robin Hood (or present-day politician) and steal from one group to give to another is not what I would call advancement. I know that business is business and concessions have to be made - but concessions have to be made by BOTH sides. I wouldn't mistake gains made from concessions to gains made due to the improving business model and the role that the pilots play in that. Don't brag on the advances here and there, while hiding the concessions whether they be ULR pay or FDA LOAs.

 

Ding, Ding, Ding!!

This is how this stuff works folks. Does anyone know what JG and the MEC want to trade for the "improvements" they're asking for?

 

I'm not usually a single issue voter but ... if the retirement verbiage changes from, "normal retirement age remains age 60" ... I WILL VOTE NO!

 

My point exactly and I am sure the MEC knows it!