You really worry too much.

I'm not particularly worried either way.

I do think that safety is not just the company's responsibility, though.

You are absolutely correct. It's not just the company's responsibility.

But a great safety program, should be thought of as a gain for both the company and all the pilots. Not as something the company is giving up.

That is a nice sound bite, but the reality is that the company is giving up the ability to take disciplinary action after someone crashes an airplane. That is not part of the industry standard ASAP boilerplate, but I sure would like to have that protection!

I applaud the company negotiators for including safety programs into the contract. However, I think it also behooves the company for their own economic reasons (insurance underwriters, FAA, and the FOM paraphrase, "Safety is a sound business practice.") I remember from last year's 6 months training the industry spike in aircraft accidents labeled as the "FDX effect". Therefore, I really don't see the company pulling Safety programs off the table because the membership voted this down because it is not the best FDX can do.

Truly, I do not wish to strangle the golden goose. But just like FDA LOA 4 years ago and "This is the best we can do." I didn't buy it then. I'm not buying it now. FDX negotiators are not dumb. They've gotten us to "bite" on TA's that turned out to really "bite". Why wouldn't they try the same dog and pony show and we'll show'm we are dumb enough to ratify it again? It is a formula that has paid many positive returns for them. I would be surprised if they DIDN'T try it.

The improvements for the company are significant (Operating FDA's at lower cost and significantly more efficient).

The improvements for the pilots are.....truly inconsequential.



FDA

I'd say your statement is the sound bite. To what lengths would you go and what would you say to convince people vote for this TA. Your posts are having the opposite affect on me.

It's clear they haven't wasted any negotiating capital on it in 25+ years.

It's the PRINCIPLE here bruddah!

There's no reason any pilot qualified to fly at FEDEX should have to "tough it out" for any length of time.

Buying into that mindset is a very, very slippery slope....think about it.

What other pay benefits in our contract would you like unadjusted for 25+ years?

...any other contract items we should "...tough out"?

Once again, it's the PRINCIPLE for all us....and 2 months of getting more than $700 dollar take home checks for all the new hires.

couldn't agree more that the Company should unilaterally raise training pay. Like anything in bargaining there has to be a supply and demand. In the case of training pay, it is probably pretty hard to convince the decision makers that they are getting some bang for the buck so to say by raising training pay.

I am also pretty confident that nobody on the property will allow the slippery slope you speak of to develop. The simple fact is, we have excellent first year pay and benefits that beats about everyone (mainly due to bankruptcy era contracts, but top rung nonetheless).

My main point in replying to the OP was that the stuff about food stamps is over the top and looks petty to say the least. I did say training pay should be raised, in fact in the next CBA it should include hotel rooms for training as a new hire in addition to higher pay. FDX should pony that up without a ta!

While I support our MEC, I think I'm going to vote NO on this one. From what I can see, this gives away ALL the leverage we have with the company. If we give them the FDA's [which I agree with], we will have nothing to bargain with the company. Why would they start to bargain with us for a new contract a year or two years from now? Listen folks: The people that our ALPA unit are up against are professional labor LAWYERS. These people DON'T CARE! They will do what they have to do to reduce our wages down to the minimum legal wage. They will have you flying 22 days per month for $70,000 per year as a 777 captain! That's what the company wants. The company considers us the same as the RJ Captains that fly in and out of Memphis.

We cannot allow this to happen. Union member or not, we need to come together; our salaries depend upon our solidarity.

I disagree completely. Don't forget, we went back to ALPA so we, too, could have a team of PROFESSIONAL LABOR LAWYERS! The company may want to do those things, but that is why we have our team, and we should follow their advice. If we don't, well, how many times have clients not followed their counsel (meaning attorney's) advice and had it work out well for them? Seriously.