FDX TA-An opposing view
#51
- 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.
#52
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?
#53
NO NO NO!!!!
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
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.
#55
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.
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,047
Likes: 0
From: 767 FO
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.
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
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.
So, the question then becomes, do we want to take our current deal for a very long time and have that as the basis for future negotiations or the place we would be with the TA.
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.
So, the question then becomes, do we want to take our current deal for a very long time and have that as the basis for future negotiations or the place we would be with the TA.
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.
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?????
#59
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.
#60
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
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



