L'il J.Seinfeld

The legacy of misinformation continues. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck... Maybe it actually is an industry leading contract?

RedeyeAV8r

Just remember "the Devil is in the Details".
Don't be fooled by hourly rates...........When our deal finally got inked it appeared we were getting a pay raise right off the bat. I made $1500 less on my W2 the next year in the same seat and I worked more. The pay raise (for me) didn't come until the 3rd year of the contract and it was minimal.......

In FDX's 1998 Contract......we were hoodwinked and gave up several workrules and duty limitations. We have lots of "At the descretion of the Company" and "when operationally necessary" language hidden throughout the contract.

We can essentially be made to work to the FAR limits. When our trips get revised in the field (Which is quite often. i.e. typhoons in ASIA, Ice storms in MEM or IND) we generally get no additional compensation when we "SAVE" revenue.

When it comes to Day to day QOL:, work rules are the most important to section ALL pilots...........

Read your TA thoroughly before you vote and if you have a question because contracts are often written to be vague..........ask you Negotiating Committee people......."What does this mean?"........Ask "Can the Company do this?"

Rememember if it is ratified..........you folks live with it.......probably for the next 7-8 years minimum

Freightpuppy

Redeye,
You mean FedEx screws you with scheduling too? According to some of our guys, you all are working in nirvana. I do agree with you that the devil is in the details. Unfortuantely, I think a lot of the "devils" won't come out until ratification....then it's like "ah ha....we gotcha!"

RedeyeAV8r

We are far from "Nirvana" with scheduling. As we approach the end game of Negotiations, MGT is tweaking our scheduling optimzer up to 3/4..........and we are really getting a taste of the "Lack of scheduling protections" in our current deal.

I am sure that on every property "Nirvana" no longer (if ever) exists when it comes to schedules.............unless you have Low expectations in the 1st place.

Freightpuppy

You just gotta love the games.

Zoro

All;

Is our EB really this completely out of touch with the needs and concerns of
the membership? UPS management has been far more up front about the pros
and cons of ANC (even as lopsided as their view is) than our own union! I
voted for Tom and supported him, but the new domicile could end up having a
bigger effect on many/most of our crewmember's careers than the new TA.
Doesn't anyone on our EB understand that at all? Do they not think an issue
of this magnitude is worthy of a vote?

Here are a few more questions to ask at the GMM:

Did we form a committee to study the ANC domicile's impact on the
membership?
Did we survey the membership to find out who wants to move there and under
what conditions?
Did we study housing prices vs. commute distance and call out times?
Did any ANC residents show up for the negotiations to give some expert
advice?
Did we get the company's long term plan for ANC, crews, planes etc. ?
Did we find out if UPS has studied moving SDFZ and ONT lines to ANC for Pac
Rim trips?
Did we find out if UPS ultimately gets 25+ 747-400s will they all be ANC
based?
Did we find out how many MD-11s and crews will be ultimately based in ANC?
Did we study to see if the 2 free and clear jump seats we have to commute to
ANC will support the load?
Did we get clear definitions on how often ACPs can schedule check rides just
to get a lift to ANC?
Did we find out how big a swing from ANC Capt to ANC F/O there will be if
the TA passes?
Did we at least attempt to gain scheduling concessions to make most of the
lines commutable?
Did we find out the Company & FAA's position on 2nd or 3rd year MD-11
Captains that may have minimal heavy jet time?
Did we explore/push hotel hot options to guarantee transportation of crews
while giving UPS its flexibility and avoiding missed callouts?
Did we explore 3 month TADs vice moves (this and the above may cost UPS less
than a move up and back)?
Did we ask members if they might rather relax 747 double crew rules for
trips from SDF rather than see the -400 based in ANC?
Did we ask if UPS would configure -400 conversions with 30+ upperdeck seats
to support mass moves back and forth?
Did we get UPS to stagger reserve and trip start dates so everyone is not
trying to commute on the same day?
Did we ask UPS why it thinks we will get double the % of crew that FDX has
to move to ANC for longer stays and poorer work rules?
Did we ask what benefits ACPs get when moving to ANC and why we should not
be entitled to a % of the same?
How exactly did we anticipate ANC in our scheduling rules without managing
to mention it in the TA?
How did we get UPS to negotiate international scope (that they did not have
too cover) but not get specific ANC language?
Did the EB at least bring up this subject at any TA GMMs and explain its
impact and why it is not in the TA?

Why did it take the UPS schedulers to post a note in our IPNN warning
crewmembers that a bid for ANC Capt could leave you in Alaska for YEARS? I
didn't see one word of caution to the membership from the union.

Why do I have stacks of books, CDs, Videos and Emails about the TA and all
we have from Tom about ANC the LOA and his statements like "It will take UPS
a long time to move all those people to ANC, you can cover specific rules
about it in the next Contract?" (That is a NS quote from a road show in
SDF).

If we can get detailed answers as to minutia like how decreasing summer
vacations will effect total hiring (not that I don't want to know that too)
then why can't we get answers to big issues like the ones above?

This is not like moving 200 guys to MIA (even as AFU as that has been). UPS
has announced that are going to send 400-500 crewmembers (MD-11 + 747-400),
that is 17 - 20% of the membership, 2000 miles from the nearest major US
city in the next two years. A few will love it, but for many it will be an
extremely remote, expensive, cold, dark, and very difficult home, for stays
that could last a decade. And yet we have more news from the EB about our
new uniforms than the potential ANC domicile problems and what they are
doing to head them off. (By the way we are going to be the laughing stock
of the industry over that tie.)

And that is just for starters! With virtually all of our growth in the Pac
Rim, we could have 1/3 of the membership in the ANC domicile in 10 years.
(I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but we are not buying 40+ MDs, 10+ -400s,
and 10 A380s to support Menlo and the Post Office) Any body in the bottom
thousand of our union think this is an issue for others to worry about?
Read the new ANC ACP's quotes in the latest UPS newspaper, management thinks
ANC will be the answer to all their desires, and the answer to all of our
new work rules. The ability to rapidly respond to changes and reschedule
crewmembers. Sounds great! Where do we go to get our wives and kids to
drink some of that Kool-Aid? Of course that ACP is going to live in an
$800K house and retire in a couple of years, so don't take it too seriously.

This makes the fiasco of Tom and Jim vs. Dean and Cindy look like childs
play. This is not a unity issue. Hell, we don't know enough about how the
membership feels to decide were our position should be! Maybe there are a
1000 guys dieing to move to Alaska, but based on the fact that we are
displacing 15 Capts on the very first bid I rather doubt it. Mabey a
canvasing of the membership after we get some answers? Short of those about
to retire in the next two years, this will impact everyone on the property
since their relative seniority will be reduced dramatically.

Maybe we don't need to vote the TA down based on this issue (but this is not
just a "small single issue"). Maybe we can address ANC issues in a new
stronger LOA that we all vote on. However, I think we should certainly
suspend TA ratification to give us some leverage while negotiating (the kind
of bold move you would associate with a USMC General).

Despite the public falling out and all the sniping on the B&G, Tom and the
EB are very competent and smart people; so I have to ask:

Is the EB playing ANC down just to get this TA to pass, or do they really
not understand the ramifications of this new domicile?

Either way the answer is not very comforting.

R,

EW

Lab Rat

ipaontop.org is not a good website IMHO. Nothing against the guy who started it, but this is the same guy who pulled a junior-high school style stunt by signing his name using the F-word while he was serving as VP for the union. Translated - he was supposed to be the professional who was elected to represent the IPA as VP.

Then, this same person resigned (after figuring out he would have been recalled) from his position, not just because of the signature incident, but also for socializing with the company negotiators after-hours in a bar.

The other website is fun to listen to, but it is also just one person's opinion of the TA.

The ONLY opinion worth listening to with regards to the TA is that of the person reading it. Read the TA and determine if you like it or not. If you like it -vote yes. If you don't like it - vote no. It doesen't get any simpler than that.

What is bad for one person may not be bad for another, and vice-versa. When someone says that the TA is good or bad for the whole group, then logic would dictate that it will pass/fail accordingly because the whole group will sense it and vote accordingly.

Everybody has an agenda. Vote your conscience and don't worry about what the other person thinks.

fedupbusdriver

Three questions from an outsider.

1. New uniforms?
2. BOW TIES?
3. What flavor is brown koolaid?

Seriously, Zoro brings up some interesting questions that IPA should address before voting on a TA. JMHO

Zoro

LR

Sorry to read what is perceived as your opinion only. The guy who resigned met in a bar with the company and so has every member of the EB board, past and present. Not only have they met in a bar, they have met to play golf with them. To imply that FuF was meeting with the company to make back room deals is a slap in the face of several people that have worked with him in the past and are working with him now. If there is anyone who would not sell out is this guy. Didn’t you read the email that was sent by Cindy D in which she says TN and CP had no bottom line the week they were negotiating the contract? I can post it here if you want. I also have an email that was forwarded to several of us anonymously in which one of the 2 guys who posted the contract months before we had a TA on their website got it from Chuck P our VP in the union. So please give me e break, FuF making deals behind the unions back? Go and ask somebody.

We as a pilot group believe we’re white collar highly educated guys-gals who are above everyone else. The company has eaten our lunch once again, they’re professional negotiations and we have a bunch of good hearted amateurs who took a 2 week course on negotiations, it shows if you read the TA. The nicest thing several management pilots and professional negotiators have told several UPS pilots is **** you. And that is the reason why we got rid of FuF? I can guarantee you we would have gotten a much better TA id FuF would had still been there.


Also, I have asked several guys who worked in the grievance committee {and some who work there now} what they think about this TA and what they say is just scary. We’re loosing so much stuff that it will take years to get these stuff back. I can guarantee you that several will be fired for calling fatigued and for mentioning an OT/JA ban.

Freightpuppy

Zoro,
Can you go to my previous post and answer my question? Also, can you list all the stuff we are losing? I am not trying to play games....I have less than a week to decide which way I am voting and I really would appreciate sincere answers to my 2 questions. Thanks!