What a 58 YO UPS pilot thinks about the TA
 

Unfortunately, as it has been past history with IPA pilots, they will look for their wallet gains and not the meat and potatoes that which is what is important in this contract. We will get screwed big time if this TA passes. I’m sorry for the guys who are looking at the “bonus” check and not at things like article 13. Please visit www.ipaontop.org and www.suttonhotline.com to get the other side of the story. I hope FEDEX pilots are intelligent enough not to fall in the same trap the UPS pilot group has fallen into.

Here’s what this gentleman wrote:

Subject: For your consideration

A Perspective

For those who don't know me, my name is GD, a 58 year old IPA
member hired in 1988. I am and have been since hired a DC-8 Captain so
excuse me in I don't "Scribe Eloquent".

Let me start by saying the retirement package in the current TA is sorely
lacking for our older members. Where is the industry standard A-Plan, (the
industry being overnight package delivery), healthcare after age 65,
prescription drug coverage, etc? Having stated this now allow me to say if
the retirement were to be changed a resounding NO vote on this TA is still
in order to protect younger and less senior members.

To our younger members who want to vote yes, shame on you for finally
getting closer to the pay percentages you deserve and leaving some of us
behind. To our more senior members shame on us for not recognizing the wants and needs of our younger members. To our yes leaning senior members who say if we don't pass the TA we will lose what we have, shame on you for not having faith in our young brothers to do the right thing.


Now on to the E-Board: Shame on you for presenting a TA without FULL
RETRO, but instead a SCHEME TO BUY VOTES. This is right out of union busting 101 and If this TA passes this scheme will be the single largest reason our association will remain ineffective for years to come. Throwing money at particular demographic groups is a management tactic to divide that should be rejected by negotiators. Endorsement by our leadership to pit one group against another is irresponsible. SHAME SHAME.

Briefly lets look at some reasons to reject this TA. Section 9, page 89,
Art. 13 Scheduling (prohibition of open time pickup) has no place in a union
contract. If as Counsel suggests it is illegal (which in some jurisdictions
it's not) then it doesn't need to be placed in the TA; Period. This is a
huge deal. Section I.1, page 84, Art. 13 Scheduling (24 hour check in). Many
of us have worked under a 24 hour check in and regardless of what our road
show people say it is in no way good for our pilot group. It is a huge deal.
Section 11, page 90, Art. 13 Scheduling("The Company may at its discretion,
open time) DEMOGRAPHICS, UNION BUSTING. This is a huge deal. "The Company shall have the right to" appears 15 times in this TA; 6 times in ART. 13 Scheduling. "The Company may" appears 75 times in this TA; 24 times in Art. 13 Scheduling. If the company "may" trust me when I say THE COMPANY WILL. Do an Adobe search and read about "Base Trip Lines" in Art. 13. I have one year left and great seniority. My schedules should be OK, not so for the bottom 50% of each seat. Spend some time with this TA; the reasons for
rejection go on and on.

I hear the argument that the open markets not profit drive our
negotiations; Partially true. Our negotiation points must be drawn up with
profits as part of the equation and it must be fair to both sides. If the
company makes 1 dollar and we want 95 cents of it, probably not fair, but if
we want 3 cents of that dollar, OK. The passenger industry, not the
overnight package industry, is in turmoil. Yes there are a lot of unemployed
pilots out there, but what percentage of business is management willing to
give up when, and we will if we reject this TA, go into a 30 day cooling
off. The business lost will be huge and it will be permanent. UPS management
is not stupid.



Our current E-Board members on an individual level are probably quite
altruistic, but on a collective level seem hell-bent on destroying this
association. They have negotiated this TA as a divided group, from weakness
instead of strength, with misstep after misstep in daily operations and
negotiations. If we reject by 50.1 % is that our doom, No. It will buy us
time, time for the current E-Board who have done the best they can to do the right thing and time for us to put the people in place who can take us
forward.

Young guys, nominate who you want, vote for who you think will take you
forward after some of us are gone, BUT make sure you elect someone who to
whom words mean something. For reassurance and a message that is and always has been knowledgeable and calming in times of turmoil I suggest you go to www.suttonhotline.com Welcome back old friend, we've missed you.



GD

this from another UPS pilot
 

Found the following when doing a search of the TA for the word "discretion":

Pg 46 The Company, at its discretion,

Pg 122 will be granted or denied at the Company's discretion.

Pg 127 The Company may, at its discretion,

Pg 128 The Company may, at its discretion,

Pg 129 The Company may offer . . . at its discretion.

Pg 177 The Company may, at its discretion,

Pg 198 at the discretion of Crew Scheduling.

Pg 198 approved at the Company's discretion.

Pg 199 will be at the discretion of Crew Scheduling.

Pg 222 At the Company's discretion,

Pg 223 The Company shall have the discretion

Pg 224 the Company shall also have the discretion

Pg 238 However, the Company may, at its discretion

Pg 239 The Company may, at its discretion,

Pg 240 may be awarded at the Company's discretion

Pg 241 The Company shall have the discretion

Pg 242 The Company has the discretion to approve

Pg 242 The Company may in its discretion

Pg 272 at the Company's discretion

Pg 286 by the Company in its sole discretion.

Anyone who's been here any amount of time knows you can substitute "at
the Company's discretion" for "in the Company's best interest". Or,
to put it more bluntly, "not in the crewmembers interest"!

I can only hope that for the future of all pilots UPS and FDX that this TA gets the big NO. I still can not believe that your MEC agreed to some of these terms. As give and take tactics are part of negotiations, it only sounds like IPA gave, gave, gave. Please stand up for our industry and vote NO!!

UPS will get a lot in terms of productivity. The pilots will get a cost of living compensation five years late and a tougher set of work rules. Signing bonus is another term for "we'll pay you a portion of what we should in terms of back wages and ask you to like it".

Video Files
 

The www.ipaontop.org website has a great addition to it. It has 4 video files that are worth reviewing and will make the latest post [by EB member CD] on the IPA paper seen in a different light.

Yes CD is very sharp, but no match to UPS negotiators. Especially if she never read the Grievance committee data base. I have been told by several current and ex members of the grievance committee that they have called to let her know of several loopholes and past grievances won that have been ****ed away by this TA. The NC or the EB NEVER went and read the history of cases won and lost by the last 14 years of grievance. They never consulted the IPA hourly workers who work this stuff day in and day out. That was a huge mistake since the people who negotiated the contract for UPS [professional negotiators] are also the ones that work grievances for the company!

Zoro

Latest email from FU Frat****
 

Dear Crewmember:



This e-mail will briefly address the issues surrounding a NO vote --and the new work rules.



The fear & uncertainty of a NO vote:

Q: What do we do next if we vote NO?

A: That's up to you/US. The world will not end.



Whoever is in charge will have to re-sculpture what they can without giving ground. They will need to draw from all groups within the IPA.



A NO vote can do this for us. Some TA language will remain unchanged, but the landmines and loopholes must be addressed. It is possible to accomplish these goals, all it takes is your vote AND your willingness to only give 100% to UPS; no more no less. The NO vote demands this from our leaders.



The fear of the unknown in regards to world events has always been with us and shall now remain with us forever. The war on terror has raised more concern lately, but now that we’ve been officially drawn in, it will never go away. Every business will be affected and a pseudo norm will follow (like in Israel, etc). It’s happening as we speak.



What is certain is that if we vote YES, we are stuck with these rules, loopholes and landmines until 2014 (Using UPS' historical negotiating lengths). In my opinion, a NO vote risk is worth the changes we need.



For those hired in the last 5-years, is the $40,000 worth the inability to become a captain for years longer than our FDX counterparts? How will you make up the $250,000 they will make compared to you (current base line salaries) during their time as captain? Again, is it worth it? In long term gains, I would say no.





THE NEW WORK RULES & LAND MINES:



Land Mine #1: We now have two levels of safety.

Reserve crewmembers and line-holders picking up open-time for just about ANY reason may be left with only FAR rules... the new rules may not apply to YOU.

Article 13A preamble on page 157 (PDF p.152): “(vii) The trip construction rules provided in this article shall only apply to construction of flying lines unless expressly stated to the contrary”

Simply, all the rules in Art 13 that are used to build trips do NOT apply to building or re-building trips after the lines are built (duty limits, rest minimums, etc). This could lead to FAR limits or UPS imposed limits. If that’s not what UPS intends, then why would UPS ask for it? We now have two levels of safety in this TA. Moreover, the IPA has claimed that at least 50% of our group has sat reserve these last few years at one time or another.



Land Mine #2: The Scheduling Matrix & Operational Matrix.

FDX management was slapped with a cease and desist order from the FAA. With that order from the FAA to FDX, a YES vote to this TA will have given up much of our captain’s authority. Click here to read this letter. It will also walk you through how the deadheading rules work at FDX; including emergencies.



There are other Land Mines to address, but these two are the easiest to explain, they affect the majority of the membership and affect the airline industry in whole. I now want to draw your attention to other issues.







WORK RULES OVERALL:

The new work rules in this TA are improvements in many cases to what can be done today... but the gains are really only on paper & NOT in the real world.



The best way to explain this is via an analogy.



Analogy:

You have a neighbor bully who comes over every day at 1pm and punches you in the face five times. After negotiating with the bully's parents, he shall now only come over once everyday before noon and punch you in the face four times.



The claimed 'wins'.... the "gains" are:

The time of the day the bully can come over has been restricted.

The number of times he can come over in the day has been reduced.

The number of punches to the face has been reduced by 20%.



Real world gains:

You get punched in the face one less time every day.





The negotiated terms are better, but you are still getting a meatball face in the end. These new rules are a gain on paper, but little to no true gains in the real world; just like the "gains" in this TA. The IPA can claim victory in many areas like this, but in the end you still get a bloody nose.



I've pasted examples below of what can legally be built in the future that point this reality out. The goal of the examples are to show the viewer that the claim of new "gains" & restrictions are false and really only on paper.



Some have asked:

Q: Franco, how do you know that these rules actually work they way they do?

A: I helped build them; thus, I know how they work and what makes them useless: the loopholes. I have not been in favor of the loopholes and have stayed silent until the TA was official. Now it's up to you/us if you think the loopholes & rules are worth the trade elsewhere.



The IPA has spent over a half a million dollars to "educate" us, but they have missed pointing out the loopholes in many cases. I think we need the whole picture to best weigh these "gains." These are the same loopholes UPS ALREADY knows about; you should know them too.



In the end, UPS will not hire as many as it should or could and these work rules do nothing significant to help IPA growth. Moreover, much of UPS' current & future expansion will not result in the same kind of growth for the IPA. That's because UPS will reduce international flying lines and seat positions in SDF. They will migrate that flying to ANC and ONT (MD11, Z and 747). Some of ONT and MIA domestic flying may be diverted into SDF. Some or most of EU flying from Z & A300 will probably go to MIA due to cheaper ticket costs & frequency of flights from Florida and/or Central & South America. Furthermore, be leery of the assumptions used with any new staffing numbers presented to us to show major staffing gains. Without a guarantee in writing, those claims cannot be relied upon. Assumptions are not things guaranteed by this TA. Either way, this slow growth in comparison to UPS expansion will affect both domestic and international pilots regardless their seniority via bidding options.





He who loses wealth loses much;

he who loses a friend loses more;

but he that loses his courage loses all.

~ Cervantes



Respectfully,

Franco

100 % IPA -- 100% UPS



p.s. Even if you don't think the examples below apply to you, please look at the text below it. It does apply to everyone.

To see how the rules can legally work, including loopholes, please visit:

http://IPAonTop.org

examples with FDX comps......
 

DAY --- EXAMPLE #1 DUTY LAYOVER
FDX

a) ONT - HNL 7:40 FDX mandates a 36-hr layover by the 5th layover.
This is from an arbitration FDX pilots won (based on a tafb calculation).

18:00
b) DH CML HNL - NRT 10:00
12:00
c) NRT - Asia 12:10
12:00
d) Asia - Asia 12:10
12:00
e) Asia - Asia 12:00
15:00
f) Asia - ANC 13:00
12:00
g) DH P3 ANC - ONT 7:00

tafb = 155
No block was greater than 7:59
155 tafb = 41:20-hrs credit

155 tafb = 6.5-day trip (24-hr days)

This can touch 7 to 8 calendar days




DAY ---- EXAMPLE #2 DUTY LAYOVER
FDX

a) DH P3 ONT - ANC 7:41 FDX mandates a 36-hr layover by the 5th layover.
This is from an arbitration FDX pilots won (based on a tafb calculation).

18:00
b) ANC - NRT 9:25
12:00
c) NRT - Asia 7:59
12:00
d) Asia - Asia 10:00
14:01
e) Asia - Asia 12:00
12:00
f) Asia - Asia 12:00
12:00
g) Asia - NRT 7:59
24:00
h) NRT - ANC 8:50
12:00
i) DH P3 ANC - ONT 7:00

tafb = 198:55
No block was greater than 7:59
198:55 tafb = 53:50-hrs credit

198:55 tafb = 8.3-day trip (24-hr days)

This can touch 9 to 10 calendar days




Do not be distracted by those hiding from the truth by name calling.
Do not be distracted by those hiding from the truth by questioning if UPS will build such pairings/trips.
UPS has proven in the past via the Teamster Team drivers, Menlo and other situations to pull rabbits out of their hat to avoid contractual rules & compliance. The new network in Asia is fluid and growing by upwards of 15% per year; things can and will change.


Q: Why have I presented these examples?

A: The IPA has said during road shows, round tables and Hotlines that they are the official and correct source of information. They have put in print via the Flight Times and literature sent to our houses the same assertions while beating the drum of major improvements in international rest. These claims are not exactly true. International growth will affect domestic schedules and seniority.



When asked if a trip scenario is possible that would refute this misinformation they peddle, they stay silent. Others attack on a personal level since they can not refute the truth.





In these two examples, all the new rules were applied including the new “patterning rules”.

You can see that the IPA’s official claims of reduced occurrences of 12-hr layovers are inaccurate.



And for those wanting to compare our 4th contract to FDX's 1st contract:

NEITHER trip is legal to build at FDX.

Again, the trips are legal to build at UPS using the TA rules and current rules, but not at FDX.



What about the IPA's claim of new restrictions placed on 24-hr layovers? The next example will show you that this is not the case. Again this is legal to build at UPS, but NOT legal at FDX. The P3 DHs are from the new rebuilt bid packages.






DAY DUTY LAYOVER
FDX

a) DH P3 (747) ANC-NRT 9:00 FDX mandates a 36-hr layover by the 5th layover.
This is from an arbitration FDX pilots won (based on a tafb calculation).

Also exceeds FDX's max tafb of 313-hrs.

18:00
b) 9:00
24:00
c) 6:00
24:00
d) 9:00
24:00
e) 7:59
12:00
f) 9:00
24:00
g) 7:59
24:00
h) 7:59
24:00
i) 7:59
24:00
j) 7:59
24:00
k) 9:00
12:00
m) DH P3 (747) NRT-ANC
9:01
No block was greater than 7:59

336-hrs tafb = 89:36-hrs credit

336-hrs tafb = 14-day trip (24-hr days)

This can touch 15 calendar days






The IPA has also claimed that this TA has more restrictive Double Crew rules.

The fact is that only the 747-200 with bunks can be Double Crewed today. In the TA that restriction has been removed; thus, the new language is less restrictive and more productive for UPS.


The IPA has also claimed that we have better IRO rules compared to FDX.

The FDX rule for single IRO legs is as follows... If you report between 10pm and 5am local and are scheduled with more than 1-leg, then the MAX block hours is 10-hrs block.
The IPA TA must fly at least 11-hrs in one of the legs if flying more than 1-leg; thus, the new language is less restrictive and more productive for UPS.


Our IRO rules favor UPS (are less restrictive for UPS) as compared with FDX; that weak return on investment for the IPA is then translated to slower hiring & upgrades. We will become more productive which leads to slower hiring as UPS grows. Basically, the growth will be spread across many of those already on property today; reshuffling the work.





Overall Affect:

The examples I present can be built and will usually result in the same or less quality of life for both international and domestic pilots as UPS builds its Asian network.



The relief given to UPS in areas it needs to help them grow will help UPS, but it will not drive hiring & upgrades in the same fashion & vigor as UPS’ growth. This is not a good return on investment in my eyes. Is it to you/us & our families? A simple NO vote and our commitment to each other will secure our futures.



Respectfully,

Franco Fratangeli

100% IPA – 100% UPS

http://IPAonTop.org

What c and d are you talking about?

Zoro,
Have you read all these pages and sections? I did a search too and the only stuff I came up with was things having to do with open time or adding hotels, etc.
For example, on page 46 it is talking about having 8 gateways with short and long layover hotels. Then on page 47 it says "The company, at its discretion, may add additional long and short layover hotels" IMO, I don't think this is the end of the world. Like I said, when I did the "discretion" search, I didn't find anything that would be detrimental to a crew if the company did "whatever" "at it's discretion". If I missed something, please let me know.

Grievance settlements reversed or ignored by TA
 

Grievance settlements reversed or ignored by TA:

pg. 149, Article 12.K.1.c.; Not included in TA is language secured on
detailing how Relocation Packages would be distributed when crewmembers
in
excess (insures all allocated packages will be used).

pg. 163, Article 13.A.2.; Not included in TA is language secured that
detailed how reduced report could only be used if something occurred in
previous duty period(s). Cannot be used as advance scheduling tool.

pg. 210, Article 13.D.5.b.; Reverses 2 settlements.

1. SVT conflict with carry-in trip. Present contract does not allow
adjusting days of dropped trip in previous bid period (THAT adjustment
period closed some 8 weeks earlier!)

2. Present contract does not allow adjusting days in same bid period
prior
to vacation when vacation conflicts with carry-in trip, but has days
between start of new bid period and vacation (i.e., vacation 2nd week
of
bid period conflicts with carry-in trip from previous bid period. Trip
was
dropped when awarded previous bid period line. Company can adjust days
in
previous bid period).

pg. 216, Article 13.D.10.g.; Reverses System Board of Adjustment
decision.
Vacation conflict with BOTH carry-in trip and new trip in same bid
period
as vacation allowed pay and credit for BOTH trips, minus any overlap,
in
current contract.

(Note: 2 previous items, pgs. 210 216, can be utilized 2 to 3 times a
year, in every seat, every fleet and every domicile, with a little
seniority and biddy savvy.)

pg. 222, Article 13.E.5.e.(2.) a. & b. .; Ignores System Board of
Adjustment language on flight cancellation after arriving at an
"in-transit" stop. Language secured said company would have a
reasonable
amount of time to assign crew, or they'd be released into crew rest.
No 1
and 3 hour rule applied.

pg. 223, Article 13.E.8.; Implementation Team resolution further
defining
"Crew Swap" not included in body of TA. May be attached elswhere.

Please pass this on to your fellow crew members.

Fraternally,
SDFZ Cpt. XXXXXX
former Grievance Committee member and chairman