A Question You Need to Answer Before You Vote
 

Is the following scenario possible (based on the wording in the TA) if we agree to this TA?
Yes or no.

We get a 3% raise and a 1% signing bonus based on a year in which 4.a.2.b was in effect, the company gets the FDA's.
We are out of section 6 negotiations.
"Warming talks" continue.
The economy goes south this fall and the company invokes 4.a.2.b. with the modifications included in the grievance settlement in the TA.
Since bases with less than 100 pilots are excepted, along with the 777; the pilots at HKG, Cologne, and LAX, and the 777, fly 90+ hour lines. The company also builds MD lines out of LAX and uses MEM based pilots to fly these extra lines, much like they have done out of ANC in the past.
Next March we don't exercise our option to extend the TA, and enter section 6 talks again.
Summer of 2012 it becomes apparent that the company is not bargaining in good faith so we seek relief from the NMB.
The NMB tells us to pound sand, that we've only been in section 6 negotiations 4 months, and to get back to the table.
November of 2012 a new administration is elected that is not as labor friendly as the current one.
A new NMB is appointed in Feb 2013.
The company continues to drag its feet and we end up going back to the NMB in the spring/summer of 2013 seeking relief.
The NMB, favoring management, doesn't help us.
So we arrive at the middle of 2013, or later, with no new contract.
That's 2 and 1/2 years since the amendable date and all we have gotten is a 3% raise, a 1% signing bonus based on a 4.a.2.b. year, loss of leverage, and a much less friendly environment for negotiations (vis-a-vis, a non-labor friendly administration and NMB).
The company has it's FDA's and is able to pad the corporate bottom line, via 4.a.2.b., on the backs of the pilots - again.
Is this possible?
Yes or no.

As an aside, if the NPRM is such a show stopper, how did the Pinnacle pilots reach a complete agreement a few weeks ago, with language that allows the reopening of affected sections after the NPRM is released?

Hummm ? It's possible..........

Hate to tell you, that is all possible whether or not you vote yes or no.

Actually might be worse if you vote no (the 4a2b part) because no lines will be restricted, the entire 727 group could once again get the shaft is what I see. At least there is some low end protection, I do see where some could get no change, meaning stay in the high BLG world.

Lots of supposition, so what are you saying? If your scenario is true should we vote no if the answer is "yes" to your scenario? If the economy tanks I would think we would take the extra 3% raise and extend the deal, because I would not think we would want to talk to them in those circumstances.

Lastly, are we going to let an unfair, unequal and especially an unjustified application of this section get used again? I hope we are better than that as a group. Not counting on that one though.:rolleyes:

As contrasted against:

We reject the TA. Nothing material happens for at least six months after the new NPRM rules are out. During that time, the company hires more and then the economy turns south, so we are way overstaffed and we go back into 4a2b with NO changes. The bad economy leads to a Republican in the White House. We are negotiating for pay raises and improvements in a bad economy and an administration that is less labor friendly. We end up with no gains at all. In the meantime, the company has opened Paris and Hong Kong anyway, under current FDA. No problem getting Captains to bid, as there are no raises anyway. The new hires jump at the chance and all seats are easily filled.

In the alternative you seem to favor, we have gained what, exactly?

That is the reality, and a "no vote" is not going to change that. In fact, it is likely to make it worse. All the "yes" votes will be ****ed that we passed up the opportunity for some improvement. The "no" votes will still be willing to stand up for improvements either way. How many of the "yes" votes would push for action that would accelerate the process before the NPRM is settled out if we vote against this deal? I am not saying that is right, or that I agree with that sentiment. I am just stating the reality of our situation, expanding on 4a2b's statement. This board is not reflective of the majority.

The reality is that 4A2b will never be fixed unless we take a stand. Letting it slide just this once is not taking a stand, especially since all of the give backs in this TA are ours. No where in the Terms of Service does it say that this board is reflective of the majority. Everyone here will readily admit that a 3% raise and a 1% signing bonus has 40% of the pilot group drooling and this TA will probably pass. But it obviously makes you feel superior by continuing to post that the minority is represented here so wipe the drool off your keyboard and go ahead.

There is no "superior" about it. It is a statement of fact that bears repeating so people will not be deluded into a false sense of empowerment. It is easy to forget reality when you are surrounded by a group of people that think the same way. I am sorry that you are offended by that. I never said that I like the reality. I just stated my opinion of the situation. You are free to attack my opinion, but attacking me is really off base. From what you have written, you appear to agree with my opinion on the situation, though.

Seems to me that the Q is....is this a fair and amicable deal for us? Forget about the questions about NMB, economy, etc.

I feel we give the Company a lot, they give us chicken scratch. Based on that principle, I think it stinks. Later down the road when hindsight is in play, I figure that rejecting this TA was the proper thing to do. But what do I know?

Actually If we check the record you will find you are agreeing with my assessment as I said on day 1 this will pass. ALPA voting is family fued not jeopardy. The majority is right; while not necessarily being correct.

However if you are talking about your assessment of 4A2b being worse if this fails you are wrong. This TA preserves weak language that the company will exploit as they see fit. The 85% language and restriction on fleets basically falls into the parameters of how they utilized 4A2b last year. The only thing we give up by agreeing to this TA is a chance to use the leverage the MEC admits we have to fix 4A2b.

...psst

They aren't opening a domicile in CDG.

The French govt is not playing along.

HKG and CDG are already covered in the current FDA LOAs.

If they just wanted to open CDG they'd do it right now under the current agreements.

They truly want something different than what they have right now.

They want COL and more senior FOs in HKG.

I think this is still TBD.

Clarification
 

My point in starting this thread is that this vote, IMHO, is about leverage...
1) Staying in section 6 negotiations, 2) the current NMB, 3) the FDA's, etc.
Leverage will drive how soon a complete CBA can be reached.
If you believe that the quickest route to reaching the goals we spelled out to the MEC and NC going into contract talks is by giving up the above leverage (and that we are being compensated enough for giving them up at this time), and thus, essentially placing section 6 negotiations on hold for at least a year, then vote yes.
If you think that the fastest route is to maintain our current leverage and force the company back into section 6 negotiations, then vote no.

Granted this board is known as "the 20 angry pilots" but, since the TA was announced I have only met one person (during hub turns, flying and jumpseating) who is leaning towards a yes vote.

4a2b needs a front end fix in addition to a backend one. Quantifiable data and gates, not just "We feel we may furlough."

Agree 150%!!!
Still a big fat no for me!

Months before the last FDA LOA was voted on, I only met one that was voting yes. And, IMO that didnt turn out well!

They might if FDX has a CGN LOA. Sooo Frenchie want to play ball now? :eek:

I keep hearing this argument and it really doesn't hold any water...Yes it is true the Captains will hold it no problem, but the FO seat will go wicked junior, and the company doesn't want that at all...Remember when we had the excess bid? It was more of a seniority realignment bid, the company could not furlough because without that bid, ANC would have been gutted and a ghost town, and so would HKG...The company doesn't want Junior guys/New Hires in an FDA because furloughing becomes a real problem for them...And you really think a new hire can afford to live overseas on the current LOA at 50 bucks an hour?? Fail... As long as 4a2b is not fixed, entry and exit, I am voting NO!

If this thing fails, which in all honesty I think it will pass...that doesn't mean it's shot down completely, we kick it back and make the company fix some things. I guess we will see how important the FDA's are to them...

You know, I was thinking earlier that when I post other scenarios other than the popular views here, that I am accused of "fear mongering", yet all of the posts on this board that oppose the TA are arguing based on the FEAR that we are losing some bargaining chip and associated issues. THAT, my friends, is the real "fear mongering" going on here.

I notice also that if someone posts a something in support of the TA and does not have a lot of posts that they are, essentially, branded as a "troll", yet when someone shows for a first post that is against it, they are worshiped around here.

Finally, I notice that those opposed to the TA are quick to attack the individuals who are arguing a counter view, and not just against their positions, while those who have indicated support for the TA have only argued against the ideas, and have not resorted to name calling.

Think about it.

Yes all of your post have been so civil I wonder why anyone dare oppose you. But feel free to dismiss the angry 12 or 20 since you are from the loyal majority.

PS the MEC admits the CGN loa is a bargaining chip why cant you?

Really? Maybe you haven't read the latest update (11-03):

7. Bottom line, we feel there is no more leverage in the FDA, especially when options exist to do business otherwise. We are not fear mongers, just the facts as we see them. Will FedEx use those options if this LOA is not approved? We can’t answer that. We are positive though, that our Company will continue to do business in effort to improve the shareholders’ returns.

Man, that is a big question. Here I was thinking it was just can I change my vote?!? :D

Perhaps I just read between the lines where they said if this goes down they will just open it anyways and use SIBA for the FOs. Silly me that is not leverage.

Second part has been answered. First part, I never "dismissed" anyone, just, as I said in another post, pointed out that there is a risk of a false sense of unity on this forum.

All of this is a great example of this:

How facts backfire - The Boston Globe

That is true just because it would cost fdx more pilots and more money to open an FDA without a new LOA it should not be considered leverage. Because um help me out here....

Sorry, I should have finished my thought. I think it would cost a little more, but not a significant amount, particularly when balanced with other aspects in this TA. Not enough difference to constitute leverage of any significance.

So - it's leverage just not significant leverage?

But in another thread you worry that the cost could reach the point where they hire the Irish pilots to take our place, right.

It has been answered, but is the answer correct? That is the big question. I would have to say that it is an incorrect answer.

Supposedly on the last FDA LOA our NC didnt think there was leverage. I believe they were dead wrong. Even though we have a new group negotiating, the same mistake can be made again.

I would submit that even if we do have leverage, the company could possibly tell us to take a hike anyway. A control thing. I could be wrong, but it is not out of the realm of reality. If that is the case, so be it. Ones vote should be principled, tempered with reality. I would go with the principled angle until reality has proven to be a sure thing.

There is always going to be a cost at some point that makes that happen. Personally, I think they are more likely to go with the SIBA type option before they do that. My point is that it just does not cost that much more to do that.

The company does want to open a EMEA FDA. And while they can do it using SIBA at the current service level (They are already doing this), how much will it cost to use SIBA and grow service? New cities, new routes all on the current SIBA system........probably too costly.

I think doing a SIBA operation does cost quite a bit. Average $5000 per DH per trip. It adds up. Also, more pilots needed for SIBA for hotel standby, and hotel costs in base with SIBA as opposed to an FDA. As far as Irish pilots flying our international stuff; it would already have been done.

My point is that I do think it will cost much more to do it with SIBA. Is the company willing to do it? I dont know, but I would rather them do SIBA than us sign off on a deal that doesnt address the multitude of things that need to be addressed now, at the same time as the FDA and payraise offers.

Everyone has their opinions, which is good. Only in the end will we see which opinion had more validity. Life in general, and the last FDA LOA in particular, bear that out. And I would say that the 32% guys last time were correct in their "no" opinions.

Agree with you 100%. The LOA benefits the company more than it does the pilots by allowing them more efficiencies in manning and scheduling, plus regulatory benefits through tax equalization and the ability to involuntarily move pilots.

If they choose to not open the FDA and continue with SIBA, I think that's a win for us because it will require more pilots to operate, especially as they expand the Euro markets. However, if that option is too expensive and they chose to open the FDA under the CBA, I think that wouldn't be bad for us either. The Section 6 move package is a much better deal than the LOA. Plus you can live anywhere you like. As far as taxes, you're on your own but I've talked to some expats and they said it's not that bad especially since you get the US exclusion.

Once again, we don't need the LOA; they do. They came to us wanting to improve the current LOA. And that gives us leverage to keep negotiating a better contract for EVERYONE.

SG

I'm not sure how you come up with the idea that SIBA doesn't cost that much more than the FDA proposal.

Have you actually looked at the SIBA lines? The inefficiency of SIBA is staggering. Why do you think it goes so senior? I added up all the A300 SIBA Euro trips(Asia SIBA trips not included) and came up with some numbers to chew on from the MAR A300 SIBA lines:

Highest paying trip 78hrs, with 6 days of actual flying.

AVG trip value = 65hrs
AVG trip length = 10.16 days
Avg days actually operate FDX flt = 4.43 days

On average, that's 65 hrs of pay for working 4.43 days!!

So as you can see, a crew works less than 1/2 the days on the average SIBA trip. The other 56% of the time, is spent D/Hing and recovering(?) in hotels. Those averages don't even include the CDG STBY trips.

We're talking about an operation that could probably be done with at least 40-45% less pilots, with an FDA. THAT is where the big savings to the company comes from. Not, just the $6,500 avg in D/H fares, the cost of hotels, per-diem, ground transportation, etc. that alone, will more than pay for the allowances offered in this TA.

The new FDA LOA for SIBA flying is not even close to cost neutral. Again, we're giving much more than we're getting.