FDX TA-An opposing view
02-25-2011, 03:48 AM
#101
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Busboy
Nope. I think YOU misunderstand. I think I speak for most dissenters, when I say that we understand completely that this is a bridge contract. Sounds like a great idea, if it's not possible to negotiate a complete contract now. But, if we're going to give the company what they need, then put something in it that is of equal and lasting value to all FDX pilots. Like, maybe a real fix to 4A2b, or something along those lines. The idea of getting 3% now, instead of later, just doesn't do it.
The problem is all of these things take time to negotiate require the sections that they are in to be opened and TA'd in their entirety. The LOA's that were incorporated have been done for months and in some cases almost a year.
To do what they are trying to do (which is novel and I believe smart) you just didn't have the time. A bird in hand with improvements for everyone and more to come soon (remember this is a start not a end to negotiations) in my opinion is better than 3 years of negotiating.
Last edited by Good Beer; 02-25-2011 at 04:11 AM.
02-25-2011, 03:58 AM
#102
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 97
Also the idea that the negotiating would survive a rejected TA is laughable. Look back at the history of rejected TA's and most have the committee resigning (here come the throw the bums out lines 
).
They would have no leg to stand on at the negotiation table and zero credibility with any mediator. Conversation would go something like this:
NEG com: We need to define entry requirements for 4a2b
Company: What do you mean, it worked great no one was furloughed, your junior guys aren't complaining.
Neg com: Yes they are, everyone is ****ed off
Company : How do you know, you couldn't even get a contract extension passed
Neg Com: but..
Mediator: He does have a point........
Nothing is accomplished except wasted time and energy.
). They would have no leg to stand on at the negotiation table and zero credibility with any mediator. Conversation would go something like this:
NEG com: We need to define entry requirements for 4a2b
Company: What do you mean, it worked great no one was furloughed, your junior guys aren't complaining.
Neg com: Yes they are, everyone is ****ed off
Company : How do you know, you couldn't even get a contract extension passed
Neg Com: but..
Mediator: He does have a point........
Nothing is accomplished except wasted time and energy.
02-25-2011, 04:37 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by Good Beer
Great, good idea, I'm sure the negotiating committee and all of those working on our side didn't think of it (fixing 4a2b, real time trip trading ect).
The problem is all of these things take time to negotiate require the sections that they are in to be opened and TA'd in their entirety. The LOA's that were incorporated have been done for months and in some cases almost a year.
To do what they are trying to do (which is novel and I believe smart) you just didn't have the time. A bird in hand with improvements for everyone and more to come soon (remember this is a start not a end to negotiations) in my opinion is better than 3 years of negotiating.
The problem is all of these things take time to negotiate require the sections that they are in to be opened and TA'd in their entirety. The LOA's that were incorporated have been done for months and in some cases almost a year.
To do what they are trying to do (which is novel and I believe smart) you just didn't have the time. A bird in hand with improvements for everyone and more to come soon (remember this is a start not a end to negotiations) in my opinion is better than 3 years of negotiating.
And, your argument of needing to open sections and TA them in their entirety, makes no sense. Sec. 4, was opened and 4A2b was addressed in this TA. Just not satisfactorily.
Look, we spend our dues money on polling the membership before negotiations and even more on the road-show/voting process. If all we're expected to do is rubber-stamp everything our NC puts out for us to ratify, regardless of if it meets ANY of our goals...Why bother? Let's do away with polling, ratification and for that matter, the MEC. You're right, it is a waste of time and energy.
02-25-2011, 04:39 AM
#104
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 566
This whole thing reminds me more of the offer the company made with the postal contract. Lots of people saying "no way, we should hold out for more".
How did that work out?
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...tml#post204201
How did that work out?
http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...tml#post204201
02-25-2011, 04:49 AM
#105
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Busboy
They certainly had time to negotiate the company's needs.
And, your argument of needing to open sections and TA them in their entirety, makes no sense. Sec. 4, was opened and 4A2b was addressed in this TA. Just not satisfactorily.
Look, we spend our dues money on polling the membership before negotiations and even more on the road-show/voting process. If all we're expected to do is rubber-stamp everything our NC puts out for us to ratify, regardless of if it meets ANY of our goals...Why bother? Let's do away with polling, ratification and for that matter, the MEC. You're right, it is a waste of time and energy.
And, your argument of needing to open sections and TA them in their entirety, makes no sense. Sec. 4, was opened and 4A2b was addressed in this TA. Just not satisfactorily.
Look, we spend our dues money on polling the membership before negotiations and even more on the road-show/voting process. If all we're expected to do is rubber-stamp everything our NC puts out for us to ratify, regardless of if it meets ANY of our goals...Why bother? Let's do away with polling, ratification and for that matter, the MEC. You're right, it is a waste of time and energy.
I don't see how this has morphed into a win just for the company.
There are no concessions in the TA and only improvements for our pilot group. Not all the ones we want and will get, but improvements non the less.
02-25-2011, 05:07 AM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Good Beer
They cut and pasted a previously negotiated TA into that section. Much different from reworking a new amendment from scratch.
I don't see how this has morphed into a win just for the company.
There are no concessions in the TA and only improvements for our pilot group. Not all the ones we want and will get, but improvements non the less.
I don't see how this has morphed into a win just for the company.
There are no concessions in the TA and only improvements for our pilot group. Not all the ones we want and will get, but improvements non the less.
You keep ignoring CGN as a give back. We are giving up European SIBA, the most senior flying we have, for things the company wants. We are reducing the number of pilots required on the property. That is a give back. You either think the company wants an LOA or they dont, I think they do, you obviously think they dont. As far as your little dialogue above, try this one:
NC: Looks like we need to talk about some serious issues before we get that FDA LOA passed.
Management: What you guys cant even get a contract extension passed.
NC: We told you morons that the way you implemented 4A2b would forever change the way the pilots trusted you greedy rat turds and would prevent us from ever slipping in vague language into a contract again. Now do you want to get down to business or do you want to continue Eyropean SIBA? Call us we will be at Ruth Chris.
02-25-2011, 05:26 AM
#107
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
You keep ignoring CGN as a give back. We are giving up European SIBA, the most senior flying we have, for things the company wants. We are reducing the number of pilots required on the property. That is a give back. You either think the company wants an LOA or they dont, I think they do, you obviously think they dont. As far as your little dialogue above, try this one:
NC: Looks like we need to talk about some serious issues before we get that FDA LOA passed.
Management: What you guys cant even get a contract extension passed.
NC: We told you morons that the way you implemented 4A2b would forever change the way the pilots trusted you greedy rat turds and would prevent us from ever slipping in vague language into a contract again. Now do you want to get down to business or do you want to continue Eyropean SIBA? Call us we will be at Ruth Chris.
NC: Looks like we need to talk about some serious issues before we get that FDA LOA passed.
Management: What you guys cant even get a contract extension passed.
NC: We told you morons that the way you implemented 4A2b would forever change the way the pilots trusted you greedy rat turds and would prevent us from ever slipping in vague language into a contract again. Now do you want to get down to business or do you want to continue Eyropean SIBA? Call us we will be at Ruth Chris.
As far as requiring less pilots to staff an FDA, you are right it would. But seeing as how we are hiring, and should be for a while (unless Glenn Beck is right and the up-down-squeeze-in-out or whatever he talks about is around the corner) thats a mute point because if this is voted down, new hires will be going to HKG and they'll know full well what their getting into.......right.
Last edited by Good Beer; 02-25-2011 at 05:46 AM.
02-25-2011, 05:47 AM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Good Beer
Besides, I thought from your previous posts that you were against being a greedy, socialist, obstructionist, AFL-CIO, Union type that is running this country into the ground.
02-25-2011, 05:48 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Good Beer
Funny that your argument hinges on protecting the flying of a very small number of super senior pilots at the expense of every pilot at the current and future FDA's (MD11 HKG is coming regardless). The opportunity afforded to those who want go live in Germany for 4.9 years in my mind outweighs the 60+ year olds padding their FF numbers with Delta. BTW it has been repeatedly stated that Airbus SIBA would continue out of Paris with the 757 in CGN.
As far as requiring less pilots to staff an FDA, you are right it would. But seeing as how we are hiring, and should be for a while (unless Glenn Beck is right and the up-down-squeeze-in-out or whatever he talks about is around the corner) thats a mute point because if this is voted down, new hires will be going to HKG and they'll know full well what their getting into.......right.
As far as requiring less pilots to staff an FDA, you are right it would. But seeing as how we are hiring, and should be for a while (unless Glenn Beck is right and the up-down-squeeze-in-out or whatever he talks about is around the corner) thats a mute point because if this is voted down, new hires will be going to HKG and they'll know full well what their getting into.......right.
No my argument hinges on wether you think the company wants an loa or not. You cant answer that question can you? I am all for giving up SIBA just not for the price you are willing to settle for; a 3% raise everyone agrees we will get eventually anyways.
And they can put all aspects of the LOA in force in HKG tomorrow if they want too. Does not require a vote.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 02-25-2011 at 06:00 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
