FDX TA-An opposing view
02-23-2011, 05:27 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by GE99
Because after 5 years, you (or FedEx) has to start paying into the German
social security system.
social security system.
02-23-2011, 06:39 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by ptarmigan
If the economy goes bad, then the bargaining is not likely to yield anything good for a very long time. In fact, it could even result in the opposite for us. There is ample precedent for this..
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....
02-23-2011, 08:57 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by ptarmigan
...I think the idea that the FDA is some sort of "bargaining chip" is very naive, and the posts here have just solidified my thinking on that. No basis has been presented here that it is, and the video from today just confirms that more. People here are attacking him because they don't want to hear the message.
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.
02-23-2011, 09:54 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: B777 Captain
Posts: 566
Originally Posted by DLax85
No basis??
Why did the company even approach us for this TA/bridge/extension at all??.
Why did the company even approach us for this TA/bridge/extension at all??.
02-23-2011, 11:00 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Trunk Monkey
Posts: 562
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
02-23-2011, 11:27 PM
#47
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 59
Originally Posted by Dadof6
- 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.
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.
- 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.
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.
02-24-2011, 03:32 AM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Retired
Posts: 3,717
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
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
02-24-2011, 03:37 AM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 1559
Posts: 1,533
Originally Posted by Dadof6;953424
- Reading the hard copy of the TA today, I also noted the following:
[U
- Reading the hard copy of the TA today, I also noted the following:
[U
Section 3[/U]--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 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.
Section 3--Can we finally delete the S/O column from our wide-body table? If not now, then when?
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.
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.
02-24-2011, 03:58 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by ptarmigan
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.
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?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
