In one of the union messages it was stated that the accepted fares was not an easy fix. The company won't go back to past practices and just use what they have to pay for the ticket as an accepted fare? That's a tough negotiating stance and one we should not "accept" when we save them serious travel money by deviating. I'm not even a commuter but have been burned when deviating.
I believe a yes vote is a statement that we are satisfied with the status quo. The accepted fare is just another example of the company's intransigent dealings with us. This is another chance for us to demonstrate that we demand a change.

 

What and ignore our FDX/MEC mottos "Aim Low" and "Wait till Next Contract".

 

I dont think to many people realize that it will be 4 yrs till any of this gets fixed if we vote yes on this TA. If we move the process up a year by forgoing the last 3% raise then the Company got the FDA's for a 3% pay raise that they would have had to give anyway....

Kinda sad.....

 

That would be funny if it weren't true...

 

Hog,

I agree 100%!

PastV1,

I've "heard" the initial thought was to take the 3% and resume negotiations. The union is selling this as a great part of the plan. It kills me that we should believe that the company is going to get serious about negotiating at that point. I've heard that negotiations are going quickly to this point, but if you look at the sections that are TA'd, those go quick and easy.

So you are probably right, we are giving up our leverage for the time value of a 3% raise. Are you kidding me? Do you know how little that actually is? I can't believe we have people that don't think we have any leverage here. Why would the company offer us a 3% raise? Because they like us? They will see huge cost savings by opening up a base in Europe and MD-11s in Asia. I know, I know, they can open up a MD base in HKG now. But why aren't they? They will have real problems filling the base and may have to place new hires in HKG. And with the problems we have with the MD-11, does the company want to place new hires in that airplane?

It will effect us all. Guys in the Airbus and 757 will lose DDH trips to Europe. When you take the senior guys flying, it rolls downhill. Plus we become more efficient, and you know what that means, less pilots. So we are solving a big problem for the company and shooting ourselves in the foot. Great thinking! All for the time value of a 3% raise, which probably won't amount to several hundred dollars.

Your right, it is sad...

 

"Past Practice" is that the argument that the union uses when something isn't going our way? Why can't we use it to oppose policy in the same manner?

 

Heard a ND in the hubturn last night say he was voting for it because he wanted the raise before he had to leave the window seat again. He didn't care about anything else in the agreement and said he knew a new contract was years away and wouldn't effect him either. He is the first guy I have heard is a definite YES besides the ones on this board.

 

Let me say it before the MEC proxies do. You ill-informed, irrational, angry, selfish, non-volunteering, one issue on line guys just don't get it! You fail to recognize the nuances and extras that make this a great alternative. A long detailed explanation of how this all fits into a carefully orchestrated plan will ensue.

But here is what I hear. You ever meet a guy who has been talked into an inferior substitute by a fast talking salesman. He can spout off horsepower #'s and info about gadgets to the n'th degree. "It's just like the Porche " he will say. But we all know the real answer, "There is no substitute! " This TA is a Cordova with rich Corinthian leather.

 

FDX MEC...Consistently sets low goals and fails to achieve them! I recorded my NO vote yesterday, I hope we can kick this thing back...But I predict a pass by 64 percent...

 

Actually, it was a Cordoba with fine Corinthian leather