I know that and you know that and under tax equalization Fedex would have to pay. That is called leverage but lets not confuse the yes voters with facts.

P9,

The company has weathered 140 plus dollar per barrel oil, the worst economy since the great depression and the age 60 to 65 change. They did it without furlough and still managed to make money.... or at least scramble to show a paper loss. How can the economy get much worse? And during this whole debacle the Chinese and Indian economies have hummed along. Remember all the future growth is in the international market. Since the company has said that international is our future....let's get something for everyone out of this.

Obviously this is barring an un-forseen disaster...... in which case all bets are off, but then we will have bigger things to worry about anyway....:eek:

WAKE UP!

ptarmagan is an MEC plant. I was told this today while eating lunch with someone who works at Kirby.

No basis??

Why did the company even approach us for this TA/bridge/extension at all??

Because they just wanted to offer us a 3% pay raise, per diem bump and some safety programs??

To get probation extended by 2-3 months???

If it weren't for the FDA improvements --- which they need to attract FOs for the upcoming bid --- would they be offering any of this to us now?

You may legitimately want to argue the value of the FDA bargaining chip is less than what others on this board feels it's worth, but to say "...I think the idea that the FDA is some sort of 'bargaining chip' is very naive" is just plain....just plain...well --- ignorant.

You think it's worth nothing?

Let's just drop the FDA portions, keep the rest and hold the vote next week --- I'll vote "Yes" right now.

I'm a bit stunned about how far some MEC & NC reps are going to be apologists for the company's offers.

They didn't. Did you not read the NC email? We approached them, unless the statement that "We decided to pursue a TA, which provided immediate improvements without giving away our opportunities to continue bargaining – albeit outside of the formal Section Six process. This TA represents exactly that." means something different than the plain language.

Random TA Observations
 

- Yesterday I watched (in its entirety) the DVD that the MEC/NC mailed out. Overall, very good background. However, the bit about "this 3% raise helps you out now" didn't impress me much. In fact, it sounded like a JG Wentworth television commercial with the people yelling "It's my settlement, and I want it NOW!" I know that there were a lot more important things on my own contract wish list than a very minor pay raise. And yes, I know all about the time value of money, thank you. A pay raise is not the most pressing concern I have. I don't want to be "made whole" from 4a2b; "they" won, several of "us" won, but a lot more of "us" lost--big time. We got bigger fish to fry, IMHO.

- Second thing. If I heard him right, I do believe JG said that after the company invoked NPRM delays as a reason for not negotiating much else, he brought up the FDA improvement notion to the company, not the other way around. Which would explain why they were thrilled to get that whole enchilada, for only 3% for the rest of the crew force. "Sure, we'll even (finally) do the right thing, and make the housing allowances mo bettah, and pay for some schooling." When FDA rumors gained traction last fall, I was opposed to a new stand-alone "super FDA LOA," and I haven't changed my mind. Yep, there are some other nice safety programs in there, but I see this TA as that previously-rumored stand-alone LOA with some other chaff thrown in to muddy the radar picture.

- Reading the hard copy of the TA today, I also noted the following:
Section 3--Why is A-380 still listed? Talk about rubbing salt in the wound...
Section 3--Can we finally delete the S/O column from our wide-body table? If not now, then when?
Section 5--Per diem improvements of a nickle and $0.20? Why did we spend time and negotiating capital on that, instead of getting real-time trip-trading or accepted fares fixed?
Section 18--The NC wants the option (like the MEC currently has) to forego flying currency? Didn't hear that one mentioned in the TA. Truthfully though, if TA v2.0 (whenever we get it) is significantly better than this one, I will consider your time on terra firma well-spent.
LOA on FDAs in EMEA and HKG--Spain could be a future FDA. Reserve callout is 2 hours in CGN--better live very close. Good money for housing and schooling.
MOU on ASAP (Safety Program)-- Call me crazy, but that picture of 3 people smiling on the Threshold Investigation slide of the "Just Culture Algorithm" is just bizarre. Wonder what they're thinking? "Man, can you believe this knucklehead's story?" Check it out--it's near the back of the hard copy. Somebody with some common sense (on the management side) should have screened out this one. Or are they sending a message? Hmmmm.:rolleyes:

Anyway, to summarize, count me as a very informed, but very committed "No" vote. In a prior life at a different company, the pilots had the sad duty to vote down (over 85% against) a true stinker of a TA. But it was done. The MEC was fired, the NC was fired, and eventually (6 months later) a much better TA was approved (over 70% in favor). We do not need to go that route. I appreciate the current MEC, and the NC. I think overall they are doing a good job, and I greatly appreciate the improvements in communication. But I do not support this TA. I think if it is voted down, this same NC can go back after new rest rules are out and get a TA v2.0 that we can (hopefully) all support. I'll be happy to wait for that 3% and the safety programs.

Great post and I couldn't agree more except... your last paragraph. I would also agree with that except for the new "hard sell" I see now from the MEC. I thought this was going to be "yeah, we passed the TA and sent it to the membership to vote on, nothing more". Did I just dream that or did the MEC say that very early on? Now I'm getting DVDs, videos from lawyers, emails every day, mailings, polling (which I scratch my head at, why now? I thought the vote would be the only "poll" needed now), etc, etc... New band, same old song. Thought it would be different this time. Guess not. Sad really. As you can see, NO vote from me.

Jethero,

Thank you. I too wonder how someone can rail about how lousy this TA is, and then turn around and say that they "like" the negotiating committee and that they think "they" are doing a good job. The job of the NC is to negotiate with the company and bring forth, for membership vote, a contract. Pure and simple. If, what they present to us is that bad, I suggest that they are doing a bad job and should be replaced. The same might be said for the MEC, especially the 10 guys who voted to present this TA to the troops.

JJ

They did explain the 380 rates. Why expend the effort to redline that section and then the company decides to pick up some 380 freighters? We were told for years that the 757 wouldn't work with our cans and we would never get them. Probably the same idea on the SO. Why bother deleting it right now?

Section 18 and currency - A good example would be an accident investigator. Very easy to go non-current while participating in an AIB. This just makes sure the guy gets paid.

Don't dilute the arguments.

Tell me where my history timeline is wrong:

FDX decides they want to put MD-11 in HKG and want to open up another FDA in CGN.

Negotiate with the union and quickly come up with an acceptable LOA.

Union decides that after 4A2b that a vote by the membership on a FDA only LOA might not be a smart idea.

The company and the union quickly agree on several modification to a new TA but decide that work rules have to wait for 2 years because no one will be able to figure out until Aug 2013 how rules announced in Aug 2011 will impact us.

The Mec decides that 3% is enough to buy enough yes votes to essentially pass a FDA LOA and some other cost neutral changes. So they weakly endorse the TA.

The MEC and the NC decide that maybe a hard sell is required after all.

Now is there anything in this timeline that is wrong or misleading? Is there anything that would make you assume that the FDA LOAs arent at least some leverage? How about you gunter, whats my agenda?

Spain???? Where did you hear that one??

Maybe. You make a lot of assumptions. If this is voted down, what sort of environment will we be negotiating in? Will the economy be in good shape? Will it be worse?

All the more reason to vote it down on the basis alone of 4a2b language improvements, thanks for the insight!!!!!

NO NO NO!!!!

We get it 3% is enough to help you weather the storm. Of course if they can get rid of 70 or 80 lines because the fdas are open will we be better off or worse if the economy goes south? 4A To be or 4A not to be that is the question.

Personally, even though it is far from perfect, I would take the TA language rather than the current language if we go into 4a2b again. What is your logic?

If the economy goes down significantly the FDA's would likely be a moot point because the flying would not support it. Also, I am not sure that the amount of pilots required changes. Those bases need reserves you know. I think they improve reliability for the company more than anything else.

So now who is making wild supposition on what ifs. I suspect you live in a cubicle if you do not know it takes 3 to 4 times the bodies to SIBA a line than it does to fda a line.

The real basis for future negotiations is our current contract. We've only added a few items. We really didn't significantly change our current contract.

From what I've "heard", is that the negotiating committee is leaning toward not accepting the second year of status quo (the second 3% raise) and resume negotiations after one year. True or not, I don't know.

However, let's assume this is the case. We are basically giving up any leverage we have for a 3% raise. Historically we get the back pay anyway. So, the reality is this: Are we willing to sign this agreement to gain the Time Value of Money of a 3% raise? Assume the inflation rate of your choice, but it just isn't a significant amount of money.

For those of you that don't think the FDA language doesn't provide leverage, ask yourself why the company is offering us a pay raise. Can they get the flying done anyway? Sure they can, they are now. It's incredibly inefficient and expensive. Take a look at the bidpacks if you need the proof.

Are you planning on bidding an FDA? If so, I'd vote for it immediately and tell all my friends! But the majority of us are not. Did you realize that these bases will eliminate much of our bidpacks? If intra Asian flying is done by HKG crews, do you think you'll see as many long pairings (single commutes)? As many short notice DDh pairings? A-300 and 757 crews, do you think you'll continue to see European flying?

The fact is that the FDAs will have a real negative effect on MY flying. And the vast majority of US based pilots. So we are willing to give this up for the Time Value of Money of 3%? Really?????

My logic is simple....

NO

What's the worse that can happen, they already boned us with 4a2b....

We saw they're worse hand.

We got nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

The worse that could happen is to go into 4a2b without the negotiated 4a2b LOA. Sucks having to fight for the same ground twice.

what do we have to lose? We have significant safety gains, FDA improvements, 4a2b inequity protections (incorporated LOA ), and yes 3% for 2 years to loose.

Blame the negotiators?
 

JJ. I disagree with this assessment. The negotiating committee negotiates the best deal they can in the current economic/political climate. The memberships' actions provide the leverage(or not). I contend that a no vote provides leverage for the next round of negotiations.

Wrong.

A no vote sends a the message that the negotiating committee and the MEC do not know the minds of the pilot group, and therefore have no place negotiating a contract in the first place. Whether this is true or whether this due to a failure of communication won't matter.

For any meaningful neg to go forward would probably require an new neg committee and possibly MEC...tick..tock..tick...tock no leverage just wasted time, and time is money.

I know many of the righteous and angry folk on here will jump on the first line as being exactly the message they want. Still doesn't make it a smart or prudent choice. Putting your mad before money.

Have you seen any data on how this new 4A2b LOA will change anything. Why doesnt the NC tell us how much more money the Bus and 72 Bidpacks would have had if these rules were in effect. They wont cause the answer is not much. The 85% rule and under 100 seat rule will allow them to schedule us under 4A2b almost exactly like they did last time.

Which I guess is good news for you and the other 100 hour a 4A2b month hkg bubbas.

This paragragh allows them to establish a new FDA in addition or replacing the ones listed above (HKG, CGN, CDG). MEC Chairman has to agree.

I just thought it was noteworthy since (ground) labor costs are a lot cheaper in Spain than in the other countries mentioned. If I were in those positions, I would sure look at Spain as a jumping off point for places in Africa (the "A" in EMEA).


FDA LOA , A.2.
Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, or Belgium.

OK, I'll buy that...
tx for the clarification!

This has been asked before.

Why is the company willing to make this agreement?? They love it. They get their FDAs.

The company knows the "time value of money" just like we do and the only reason they are giving the 3% raise to us now is that getting the FDAs is a ridiculously great deal for them.

Wrong. I support the negotiating committee. I don't support the LOA. I don't want them to have carte blanche and be able to negotiate and approve a TA. The membership (us) have that right. There is no need to fire them, just send them back to the table. If they choose to quit, so be it. I hope they don't.

Time is money? Man, I've heard more about Time Value of Money since a college econ class. What's it worth? Let's say that a captain will make an extra 7K/year from the LOA (less for an FO). Maybe 5K/year after taxes. Let's say that it takes 3 years to get a contract.

History says we will get back pay. Probably equal to 3%/year based on the past. So what is the time value of this 15K? There are assumptions that need to be made to make a guess, but it will most likely be extremely small. So we are willing to gut our US based bidpacks for this chump change?

1. I would be happy to see the new safety programs as a stand alone issue. They should be.

2. Per diem increase. This is real chump change.

3. Afghanistan override. Unless you are a pathfinder pilot, odds are that this will be worth virtually nothing.

4. 4.A.2.b. You think this is adequate?

5. So it comes back to the Time Value of a 3% raise. I'd rather keep SIBA flying and have US based pilots doing the international flying that will be picked up by the FDAs. If you aren't planning on bidding an FDA, this is a terrible deal.

What if it is not that the FDA is such a great deal for them, but they have other motivation?

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...-benefits.html

The TA is only for 1 year with an option for a second year. Where are you getting this no one will be able to figure out until Aug 2013 stuff from?

Where are you getting that the MEC decided that 3% was enough to buy votes? That's a pretty strong accusation.

So, only the APC guys can try a hard sell?

Your agenda seems to be to skew the facts to convince people to vote the way you want them to.

Search these threads you will find plenty of guys that think we have to wait until 2013 to see how the nprm effects us. I think we only have to wait 4 months. You and the Mec think we need to wait 12-24 months.

Did you read the 1st NC update. The FDA LOA was agreed to. The Union thought no way it would pass because of the 4A2b bad taste. They thought they needed to get a little love for everyone. Sounds like 3% to me. Unless you think we were all clamoring for Sec 18.

I admit I am trying to sway, Gunter is the one that thinks this is evil. The MEC is within their rights to say they arent going to push this right before they push this TA. But dont expect me to ignore it.

Ptarmigan,

Please let me know what that motivation may be. The company doesn't give away money. Inform me, I'd really like to know.

For the vast majority of us, the FDAs are a give back. I suggest you browse the MD-11, Airbus, and 757 bidpacks. How many of the double deadhead pairings will remain? If the company bases MD-10s in Asia, who's going to fly intra Asia? Many of the longer trips (single commuter lines) fly intra Asia.

No matter what you fly, you'll probably see less of it if you stay based in the US. And that is the vast majority of us. When the company needs a replacement pilot in Asia, they DH crews from the states. I've done some of these. In one quick trip, you could more than make up your 3% raise. They won't be DH'ing US based crews to NRT if they need pilots. The company usually reassigns other pilots, and this usually makes them more money. One or two guys sick in the field often causes a domino effect where several pilots make extra money.

While we give many of our best pairings, we get Time Value of Money on a 3% raise. What does this actually amount to?

What if we vote it down? I'm not concerned with the company getting mad at us, it's just business. 4.A.2.b. was business. I don't think we are going to get that money back, but there are various low cost items that could be included that don't include Hours of Service. Giving up some of the best parts of the bidpack are worth more than Time Value of a 3% raise. I'm not sure why you think this is the best that we can do.

We don't need an extension, we just need to negotiate in good faith. The NPRM should be published this year. Peak season will come afterwards. We will be undermanned. Let's negotiate a full contract and complete this process for a few years.

We can disagree about the FDA leverage. Do yourself a favor and review the bidpack. See how much it costs the company to fly the normal schedule. Check DH costs, credit hours paid to deadhead, and lack of productivity. And what happens if things go wrong? A weather event, sick in the field, added flights, etc. It is worth a lot of money. It also provides some of the very best flying we do at this company. It's worth more than a few pennies in our pockets now when we will get it later anyway..... Try looking at the big picture...

To me, the majority of your arguements are speculative at best. Also, it seems that you are just playing the devils advocate, which is a good thing. But, your arguments are not very persuasive. At least to me.

I dont know the total number of our pilots who read ths board, but I would argue that some of your rational would push a person towards a yes vote. JMO!

As opposed to the vast majority here, who also are using some speculative arguments to push a person towards a NO vote. JMO!

JJ

The job of the NC and MEC is to know and/or find out what we want, so they can negotiate what we want! If it is the case that we vote no, and it shows that the NC is not in touch with us and, a new NC is brought in, so be it. To argue that voting no shows no support for the NC, therefore we shouldnt vote no, is screwy logic. Pardon me!

The objective here is to get an agreement that the membership wants, period. All the other angles to justify otherwise is just ancillary nonsense. Whatever needs to be done should be done; forgeting the politics to do so.

P9

Consider this, if there is one area that the nprm will impact greatly it is the SIBA operations. Maybe that is the company's real motivation to get this done sooner rather than later. Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months.

Fdxlag,

I thought that I'd kept up with the varying aspects of the TA, and how guys feel about it and why they feel the way they feel. As well, for the most part, I've kept my opinions about how I plan to vote, to myself, because, quite frankly, it's no one's business but mine. Anyway, after reading your above post, I'm wondering exactly what you meant by "Maybe it would be to our advantage to wait 4 months." Are you suggesting that because the NPRM rules are due out then, that we should turn down the TA and in 4 months, we'll have either another TA to look at, or a full contract? Again, I'm not trying to sway anyone, but am interested in the reasoning that guys are using to either like or dislike the TA.

JJ

You said the MEC and the company thought we needed to wait until Aug 2013, not posters on APC and 12-24 months doesn't quite make Aug 2013. Also, where did I say I thought it would be 12-24 months until we could figure out the effects, I just stated the length of the TA.

I also wouldn't call 3% buying votes.

I agree with Gunter

Touche JJ!;)

Why the length of the TA if we arent waiting for NPRM?

What would you call it?

That makes 2 of you.

I think this TA sucks. I think as a union we should know what the NPRM will cost us and fred before we give away the only leverage we are likely to have. I think if the company doesnt want to negotiate work rules until the NPRM comes out we should be willing to oblige them. It only costs them their FDA in europe.

I am just pointing out that you are stating that people are saying things that they never said or did in order to push your agenda.