Fr8 Pup

I am writing you to inform you of why I am voting NO on the Tentative Agreement. There were many factors that went into my decision. Two of the main reasons for voting NO are to show my displeasure with both FedEx and ALPA.
I was extremely dissatisfied with FedEx’s implementation and execution of 4a2b. Furthermore, if this TA is not ratified, it will send a clear message to FedEx that this pilot group is united and angry with the way we were manipulated during the economic downturn.
I am also displeased with ALPA. My displeasure with ALPA goes back to their age 60 vote, continued with their handling of 4a2b, and continues with this TA. ALPA went against the pilot group when they voted for age 60 and I do not see their attitude has changed since that vote. During the first 5 minutes of the recent video of CA Gustafson explaining the TA, he mentioned how the Negotiating Committee formed their position on this round of bargaining. There was only a 10-15 second blurb mentioning the NC took into account the Wilson polling data, ALPA’s NFA survey, and interaction with the pilot group. Watching the video, I never got the impression that the NC really used the data it had gathered from the pilot group. As with age the 60 vote, I feel this NC and ALPA did what they thought was best for the pilot group, not what the pilot group actually wanted. By not ratifying this TA, it would send the message to ALPA, ALPA represents the pilot group and should vote accordingly.
I have been on reserve since I have been at FedEx. I am looking for a vast improvement in reserve work rules in this next contract. I understand why work rules were not addressed in this TA. However, after watching the video I am not confident that the NC will actively seek improvements in reserve work rules during the next round of negotiations. The NC seems more concerned with 2% and 8.5% of the pilot group. CA Gustafson stated about 2% of the pilot group (apprx. 95 pilots) is the reason FedEx wanted a doctor’s excuse for sick calls after a reserve trip was assigned, sick calls for a training event, and sick calls after vacation. In negotiating, everything is give and take. It is unfathomable to me that ALPA would actually give up a bargaining chip for 2% of the pilots, especially ones who are abusing sick leave. Furthermore, I believe there was a considerable amount of time and energy spent negotiating a better package for FDAs, valuable time and energy that should have been expended on the original LOA. Per CA Gustafson, the FDAs will include about 400 pilots, apprx. 8.5% of the pilot group. Per the March ’11 SIG notes, there is a total of 791 RSV lines for March, apprx. 16.6% of the pilot group will be on RSV. I do not believe ALPA will be concerned with this 16% of the pilot group because work rule improvements for this group will not increase the 1.92% dues ALPA receives.
The two 3% raises during the life of this TA is satisfactory, however, I am willing to forego any raise to let FedEx know the pilot group is united and let ALPA know they need to listen to the pilot group. ALPA wants this TA to pass so they will a see 3% percent raise in dues each of the two years this TA is in effect, something ALPA did not receive from 2004-2006.

Malter

Can I have an AMEN!

drftddgr

As posted elsewhere I spoke to JG for about 20-30 minutes on the phone today. Before the video I was a definite no. After the video I was 60% no.

Then I emailed JG and he called back right away. Since then I came to the following:

Of the nine sections addressed, the only one of real significance is sec. 3. And the lump sum is not worth mentioning long term.

Of the LOAs and MOUs the safety programs are critical, 4a2b is critical, and the FDA is apparently pretty significant to the company.

IMO, the safety programs need to be addressed outside section six bargaining because they are too important to risk giving anything to get them.

The benefits of the 4a2b MOU are good but incomplete. Besides which they are included in our current CBA.

So that leaves us trading the FDA LOA for 3 or 6 percent with a "promise" or at least hope of better things to come.

That's not good enough for me. We'll get at least as much in section 3, plus a better lump sum, and stronger 4a2b language by rejecting this and holding out for a better TA. We'll also retain some leverage for scope, work rules, and
retirement.

so after all that i'm pretty firmly back to NO.

FDX1

Boeing Nugget,

By your screen name can I assume you were an Anchorage Nugget and now sit in the F/E seat?

DoubleD

Doubtful, The ANC "Nuggets" that were flushed to the panel had the many hired after them below them on the panel so... not on reserve. Thread creep.

Busboy

You were doing fine(kind of), until you got to this part:



Work rule improvements mean less productivity per pilot, at the same pay. Less productivity per pilot usually means more pilots. More pilots means more total pay, for the group. More pay for the group, means more dues.

Huck

Voting "no" to send a message is just getting your mad in front of your money.

Focus on the ball. How will the TA help or hurt your bottom line? It's all business.

And I say this as the original anti-Age 65 zealot. Search the archives of this forum.....

drftddgr

That's a good point but impossible to answer. If we accept this we get a short term gain but an uncertain future.

If we reject it we lose the short term gain but with a potential of much greater long term gains.

Is the 1+3+3% bird in the hand worth the unknown amount of birds in the bush. I think the birds in the bush are going to be worth more in the long term so I vote no.

MaydayMark

Please don't confuse the 1% retro check as a 1% pay raise? If it were, future pay increases would be compounded on top of that and I don't believe that is the case?

Going on ... with or without me (At least according to Mr. FWS!*?)

MM

drftddgr

No, I just threw it all in there together quickly. I understand the one percent is just a little catchup from October to now. A very little catchup all things considered.