Hey LAG, did you ever get an answer from the MEC or NC about the STV language?

 

No I am stating reasonable assumption in order to push my agenda. You are trying and failing to refute them to push you agenda.

It is the MEC that said a stand alone LOA would not pass. What part of this TA made them think it would pass? I propose it is the 3% you propose it is something else or am I putting words in your mouth?

 

Nope no one can answer the question what part of the CBA will be used to assign STVs once this TA passes. Of course my E Mails to the NC keep getting returned as undeliverable. But not the ones to my block rep.

Have you heard anyone claim that this TA will prevent involuntary STVs other than the 1 quick mention in the 1st NC release.

 

Fdxlag,

Yes, I understand that you think the TA sucks, and I understand your other stated misgivings as well. However, you didn't answer my original question to you, which was "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?"

On another note, after reading your above post, it seems to me that you would be a "No" voter, regardless of what was presented in the TA, unless said TA had all the work rules included, otherwise you're not willing to even consider a "Yes" vote. Am I correct?

As well, IF the TA had all the work rules incorporated, would you then demand that all the other "issues", like deadhead bank, per diem, ground transport, reserve leveling, first year pay, etc, etc, be included? I ask this simple question, because it your answer is "Yes", then what you're really asking for is a completed contract, with all sections addressed and modified as needed. If that's the case, then I hope you're a patient fellow, because it's going to be a while.

JJ

 

FDXLAG,

You always think I'm talking about you when I make observations and give warnings. Not so. Sorry you took offense. We all have agendas. I don't think mine is hidden but that is for you to decide. No one should read a post here without considering what the writer is trying to accomplish. That is difficult at best without voice inflection and body language which is why the union encourages personal forms of comm with members.

The NC is getting a boat load of e-mails and phone calls. They're being asked to share their views and that's what they're trying to do. Some of our pilots refuse to put any effort in contacting anyone in the union and only check e-mail for the "news". If they were unavailable for comment many would be very unhappy.

If you (any individual) feel that is a hard sell because you aren't asking all those questions all I can say is you aren't the only one they're addressing. It's kinda like a speaker addressing a crowd. It's much easier being part of the crowd than the one trying to answer to it.

 

....but to imply that the Company would outsource the flying or hire non FedEx pilots to fly our freight, to me, is almost nonsensical. If that were the case, they most likely would have done so long ago.

It was a response to the above quote from the original post in this thread. We have non-FedEx aircraft on the ramp in CDG every night...seems easy enough to carry that on in Cologne.

 

Oh-oh...Oil Prices Fall

I'm really not angry or emotional about this. I just think we're giving away more than we're getting. And, I've tried to explain why I think that. Most of your arguments seem to be based on fear and "trust the NC", they have all the info. I heard all of those during the last FDA-LOA roadshows. They have been proven WRONG. If you're an insider...Then tell us what our ALPA cost-benefit analysis determined the worth of the FDAs to be. It has to be more than a per diem bump. Or, a 4A2b fix that would still allow 777 lines to be built to 90 hrs and A300/727 lines to be built to 50. Really?

And by the way, to all the folks stating that the MEC has all the info and they approved of this TA 10-2. That's not entirely true. From my block rep's Email: "My reason for voting to pass this on to the membership came simply down to the fact that you pay thousands of dollars in dues for the right to vote on these matters and my rejecting it would deprive you of that right. My decision was based on whether it is worthy of your consideration. I believe it is. That being said, I do not plan to recommend either way how you should vote."

His letter went on to list the good, the bad and the uncertain. Not exactly the "slam dunk" that some here are espousing. Other reps? I don't know.

My point is, the MEC did not vote 10-2, ratifying this T/A. They voted 10-2, to send it to the membership to ratify, with our votes. I vote NO.

 

I would be a yes vote if 4A2b were fixed and the 3% raises were perpetual. I have my price.

I have answered your question. If we reject this I think we pick up negotiations either right away or in 4 months after the NPRM is released. If we accept this I do not think the company has any reason to come to the table for 3 or 4 years.

 

Fair enough.

Anyone else have specific goals in mind? Where is your line in the sand?

 

Agreed. And perhaps sending this TA back with a "No Vote" from the membership will help reconnect the MEC/NC with their constituents!