4A2B

correct, according to the ALPA email on this topic. I also heard that this was changed in the section so that pilots actually can read the policy as opposed to having to call someone and find out after the fact why it happened.

Section 14 Clarification
Due to numerous inquiries on the changes in the TA to the sick leave, the following explains the changes in question:
CBA 14.A.6 “doctors note requirements”
In the current CBA, this section allows the Company to require a doctor’s note under the following provisions:
1. CBA 14.A.6.a – The Company has a good faith, and objective reason to question a pilot’s use or attempted use of sick leave; or
2. CBA 14.A.6.b- If the absence occurred “in conjunction” with a vacation period or holiday.
Since 1999, management broadly interpreted Section 14.A.6.b. such that physician’s statements were demanded for absences that were more than a day from the pilot’s holiday or vacation period. FPA, and later ALPA, took the position that “in conjunction” meant no more than the day before or after the vacation period or holiday. It has been pushed as far as to require a note, if for example, a pilot’s vacation period ended on the 7th day of the bid month and the pilots subsequently listed sick for his first scheduled activity that could be 2 weeks AFTER the end of the vacation period.
The change in 14.A.6.b draws a distinct line of demarcation concerning when a Chief Pilot “MAY” request a doctor’s note. Specifically, the note is now only allowed if the pilot is listed sick within 24 hours of a CBA Holiday or actual vacation period (“V Days” or “extended V days” in the case of a reserve vacation extension CBA 7.G.3.e)

The Negotiating Committee views the language change in CBA 14.A.6.b as limiting, not extending the ability of the Chief Pilot to request a doctor’s note. The use of a hard limit effectively eliminates the Company’s ability to manipulate Section 14.A.6.b.

CBA 14.B.2.c.i – “Mini-RLG and sick bank debits”

The changes in this section are what we refer to as “codification” of current practice. The addition of “mini-RLG” has to do with custom or secondary lines that are constructed with blocks of R days that constitute a “mini-RLG.” For reserve line holders, if you are listed sick for an entire bid month of r days you are “charged” the entire value of your RLG from your sick account.

The current practice is that if you have a “mini-RLG” AND you are sick for the entire block, your sick account will be charged with the value of your mini-RLG. That is what has been captured in this addition, so that pilots understand and know the rules as they pertain to this scenario.

In summary, there is no change to the current “leveling” practice found in CBA 14.B.2.c. Whether you are on a “RLG” or “mini-RLG,” your sick account will only debited for trips you would have been assigned as if you were not sick, unless you remain sick for ALL R days in a month. If you remain sick for ALL R days in a month, your sick account is debited for the full value of RLG or applicable mini-RLG.

4A2B

I think this is a very valid concern, however in this case, I have heard SS speak to it. He said that alpa does not and did not agree that the nprm should stop bargaining, but when faced with reality that it takes 2 to tango, they felt 2 things could occur. First, FDX will baragin, on the surface which gets us now where fast and secondly after talking to many experts and actually posing the question to the NMB as to "what is the view of the nprm being a legitimate roadblock" the answer was that FDX would very likely receive a favorable look from the NMB. What he further said was that the NMB also said that this short term cba, which gives both sides time to digest and react to known rules, is a great idea. In fact i have heard that the new block rep (7 i think) was actually approached by a sitting member of the NMB while in DC, so that he could tell him that the idea in play at FDX was great and that we would be "stupid" to pass on this deal.

The NPRM is different than other "external" factors, since the FAR's intertwine so much in a CBA. Other factors always contribute to the other sides lack of desire to actually pony up money or other protections. In this case i think we are better off, dealing with the problem up front. The NMB will give us a better look downline if we do. Also, if we think the NMB will bring us a better CBA, better think again. Much of the time in CBA's, going to the NMB is a penalty to both sides!

If you do not think this way, I think that this is a legitimate strategy based reason to vote no. I personally believe that we will end up holding above our destination either way and the extension cba is a tanker so we don't run out of gas, the EFC will be the same either way. That is what I have gleaned from the presentations.

FDXLAG

What did the NMB guy think about us giving up any leverage we have vice the FDAs? The argument isnt should we take a short term deal; the argument is did we get enough (anything) for what we are giving up.

4A2B

quite cofident the NMB person did not even know about "FDA leverage" or care. If you want to get into a debate on leverage or lack thereof, you will need to find a sparring partner. I agree with SS and the majority opinion at alpa (MEC/NC etc) that leverage is not some external factor or force that will allow our NC to bring us a TA of our dreams, leverage is unity. My last post on leverage, you can beat your head against the wall all you want!

I suggest you contact the block 7 rep, maybe he can expound if that topic was covered?

FDXLAG

I see, so you want to use an experts opinion as evidence to back up your yes vote when that expert opinion is based on partial information. Should we have groveled then saluted when you brought up the off the record NMB members opinion. Unlike this "bridge to nowhere" contract asking about leverage does not cost me anything. It does not even appears to hurt my head. It does however appear to hurt yours so it looks like your problem not mine.

I know full well you do not want to debate FDA leverage and from the non response to the block 5 email I can assume the MEC feels equally unable to discuss the subject.

Unity is not enforcing the status quo.

HIFLYR

Unity does not necessarily mean talking EVERY offer the company puts out nor does it mean blindly following what our MEC says as they have been proven to be wrong before. Admittedly, I have not decided how to vote on this but you would have to be blind not to see the potential problems with this TA. This TA with it's vague language could come back and bite us, as we "ALPA" never seem to win a arbitration.

4A2B

Yourself, LAG and others on this board are free to do what you want. In fact I could care less how your votes get cast. I have not and would not try to make you change to a yes or am I trying to make up anyone's mind but my own. You guys spew your opinions, left and right, when someone speaks up in the alternative camp you guys jump on it like red meat in a lions pen.

I could and would love to debate you all day on the FDA, nothing to gain or loose (other than time and brain cells I need to retain) so I concede to FDXLAG, THE FDA(s) are the single most important lynch pin to our future; and I am willing to trade it for the stuff in this short term CBA, you (LAG) are not. got it, crystal.

We will find out soon enough how everyone votes, lets just agree to disagree and be ready to move on together after the 23rd. No matter a yes or no vote, this TA is NOT the end game just the beginning to the TA we all need.

Busboy

I just have one question:

Would you vote for this TA, if instead of the 3% increase now, they offered you a $200 bonus check?

That's $260,000(salary) x 3%increase x 2.5%(inflation) = $195. Time value of money.

Because that's what they've added to get us to vote for it. A 3% raise now, that would be a minimum expectation for the complete CBA, anyway.

angry tanker

A yes vote for this ta makes a new cba. no bridge, no good faith from the company, this is it. is this what you really want, or do you deserve a little better?

4A2B

in short, YES. We will be in the same position in 12 months, either way, is how I see it. So taking anything off the table is a good trade for the alternative, which is nothing. I also feel that trading the FDA for something is great and takes away the opportunity for us to screw it up like the postal deal. Leverage works only if you use it properly and to the degree the other side has no other options.

Again, how I feel, personally and in no way reflects the view or opinions of APC Management.