golfandfly

Well, his goals are lofty, but why not? I don't understand the infatuation with the time value of a 3% raise. Do you know how much this actually equates to? Chump change. There are many things that don't involve hours of service that could be negotiated? Do we need the NPRM to complete:

1. A real fix to 4.A.2.b.?
2. Accepted fares?
3. Min pay for R day? This would protect reserves from the brunt of 4.A.2.b.
4. Real time trip trading?
5. Various other fairly low cost items but are bothersome to us?

Look, the company gets the FDAs. The guys, like myself, that plan on NEVER bidding a FDA get our bidpacks cut. I am getting a raise now, but I 100% believe I will get backpay anyway when we eventually sign a contract.

Unfortunately, I believe the TA will get approved. After the NPRM, what will be the company's excuse to delay negotiations? I'll promise you this, they will come up with something. I really can't understand how naive a bunch of well educated people can be.

For those that don't believe we have leverage with the FDAs. Ask yourself why the company is offering us a raise? The time value of a 3% raise is very small individually, but not so much when you have to pay it to 4,500 guys. They don't give anything away. I'd be Ok with an FDA LOA when it comes with a complete contract. And, going even farther, I'd be OK if we TA'd every section but those that really deal with the NPRM.

The system form as it stands is very beneficial for US based pilots. Are you sure you guys want to change that for a small raise? Do you think the company will be our friend and fix many irritants because they like us?

FDX1

Your points are well taken and certainly worth considering when evaluating the TA. The two MEC No votes I think reflect similar concerns.

I just don't look at the FDA's as a giveaway to the Company. I see some real significant improvements that will help our pilots that chose that flying. I also don't view this as a giveaway by (domestic) folks or as a loss of flying. That is exactly the point, WE ARE DOING the flying, and fear mongering aside, I don't want to give the company any ammo to go look for cheaper alternatives. We all know our international growth from Asian, SA, and the EU are the key to our increase in business. That growth will ultimately have a larger impact on my career, earnings, rate of upgrade and retirement than any of the following: accepted fairs, r-day value, real time trip trading, etc. (I do agree that these are worthy to be fixed in the near future, I just don't feel these items are even on the same playing field when compared with our companies growth and competition in the international (high profit) market. I want them to have the edge and am happy I play for FedEx vs. the competitors. I want to keep it that way!

That is why they get my YES on the TA.

DLax85

At what point in time do you think the company should put hard language into the Scope section of our contract which guarantees you/us this flying?

...or do you believe we should just continue to "memorialize" the flying and that is legally sufficient?

FDX1

Uh, is that a trick question? I'll bite, the sooner the better! But that is exactly my point, we don't have it at present and that is an issue that you need to think about when you vote on the TA.

But on to more important topics: APPLE just announced the new Ipad 2!!! Yee ha!!!

Apple - iPad - All-new design. Video calls. HD video. And more.

Internal gyro, video mirroring, face to face, cool cover...time to by my "wife" a new gift!

NoHaz

Expecting FDA contingent MOAB any day now ...........

golfandfly

Fair points.

However, are you saying that if we don't eat a $hit sandwich that they'll give it to someone else? Are we supposed to be in constant fear if we don't accept their deal that the Chinese/Irish (fill in the blank) will do the work? I am not afraid. If they do, it might finally ignite the crew force to grow a pair.

I think you should vote on how it effects YOU. I'm advocating being selfish. I am not planning on ever moving to an FDA. Not saying it won't happen, but at this moment, I am not interested in the least. While I think it's great to have a better package, those of us based in the US will see a reduction in our bidpacks. And, to me, is a huge giveaway.

I hope Fedex has the edge also, but that doesn't mean that I want to short change myself to make it happen. We could jumpseat on company aircraft instead of airlines, or at least fly coach. We could take paycuts or reduce our benefits. The current bidpack is one of my benefits now. Those that fly Siba type trips like the status quo. I like deadheads to Asia to fill in when they need a crewmember. Some like 2 week commuter friendly trips that fly intra Asia. It's a giveback, and if you want me to giveback something, I would like something in return. The time value of a 3% raise is almost worthless to me. It's not near good enough for me.

Again, when looking at a contract TA, I believe you should take care of your interest. The vast majority of the contract is of great importance for all of us. No matter where you are based, I think we all want to protect/improve retirement, vacation, quality of life, etc. I don't think it behooves the majority of us to give up a nice part of our bidpacks to help a few hundred guys that chose to bid an LOA. I'd be glad to help them when we sign our new contract that does more than a 3% raise and a quarter per diem increase.

And for the guy that said the ND voted YES because he wanted the immediate 3% gain. I have to say it is probably in his best interest to do so.

DLax85

Is that a trick answer??

You argue to vote "Yes" on this TA --- but then admit we should have hard scope language "the sooner the better".

How soon is Right Now??

This TA continues to lack any FDA scope language, so we are once again banking that "memorializing" the flying is legally sufficient if the company attempts to farm it out at a later date.

So once again, when should we expect this to be fixed?

Are we planning to live under the dark cloud/threat of cheaper alternatives forever?

Ask your NC --- they are not planning to "re-open" the FDA portion of this contract once negotiations resume.

If this TA is approved now, we will be living with these FDA provisions for 1~2 years...plus, 5 more years when the whole contract is approved.

FDX1

I think you misunderstood what I'm saying. I agree we should have a tighter scope clause for our international flying. We don't however, and if you accept the TA then we get our international FDA in Europe and possibly a larger base in Hong Kong. Scope isn't hurt. Fight the battle next time after the company is fully invested in our international pilot domiciles.

If we don't accept the TA we have a credible threat to our international flying that we can't fight because of our lack of scope.

Same idea, just looking at it thru different glasses.

DLax85

I think the clinking noise I hear is the "scope can" being kicked down the street hard.

Ok, I guess you are comfortable with supporting the "we are memorializing the flying" approach, all while agreeing that the flying isn't ours until we get a scope clause....???

Just wondering, isn't the HKG flying already memorialized after 3 years of FEDEX ALPA pilots flying it?

...and are you retiring within the next 5 years?

I'm just trying to understand the logic and the timeline.

Some guy

I had the same concerns about the lack of scope protection. I spoke with many, including the NC, and came to the conclusion that the threat of losing our flying to someone else is minimal; because if it was cheaper, more efficient and reliable to have the FDA flying done by another group, they would have done it already. Secondly, you believe that the new TA will, at least, "memorialize" our FDA flying. As DLax pointed out, we are already doing it under the current LOA in HKG, and we agreed to do it in Europe (out of CDG) as well. It's not our fault that they can't get along with the French. Additionally, we have and are currently doing the Euro flying with SIBA. So in essence, we have already "memorialized" that flying. Besides, I remember when the current LOA was being sold to us where DW, BC and the ALPA lawyers were all giddy with excitement because the LOA gave us such great scope protection, and after all, that's the best we could hope for. So according to ALPA, we already have it.

Fool me once...
SG