AerisArmis

What the MEC Chairman thinks about our leverage.

ALPA Channel Player > Leverage - Captain Scott Stratton

It's apparent that he's referring to those among us who think the company can't make the new FDA's work without our approval.

golfandfly

I watched the video. I agree with some parts and disagree with others.

He mentions our real leverage as "unity". I agree that it our real leverage, but at Fedex, it barely exists. We work for an airline that is always undermanned. The company knows that we will ***** ourselves as a group. We are in a great position to negotiate a much improved contract, yet we can't get people to stop flying disputed pairings. Honestly, if things went real bad and we actually walked the picket line, how many would cross? 20-30-40%? I don't know, but my guess is that it would be pretty high. High enough to basically render a strike unsuccessful.

So, if you buy the fact that our unity isn't our actual leverage, what is? I do think the company wants the FDAs, it allows for a significant cost savings and allows us to carry less pilots. I believe it is some leverage. Probably enough to fix the problem areas of our contract, which are really nickels and dimes. We're "paying" to fix a contract loophole (4.A.2.b.) but we know how much this can cost us. Much more than a 3% raise. And it's very possible that the company will never use this contract loophole again, but it just isn't worth the chance.

I'd prefer to send it back to the table, and rework a few sections and make a deal. We'll pay for removal (or better yet, changes) to 4.A.2.b. later. It is serious negotiating capital that the company owns and we want to change. They want to come after our retirement (maybe age 65 instead of 60?). Are we willing to trade these two? Before we sign anything with the company, I think we are making a huge mistake to not take care of 4.A.2.b. Some of the other petty things (and a low cost really) are accepted fares, min pay for reserve day (how often is it usually below 4.5 hours/day anyway?), real time trip trading, etc. These are, in the scheme of things, chump change for the company.

Honestly, we could wrap this thing up in no time and have a real contract. I am OK with a 3% raise and a few items cleaned up. I think many of us are as well.

But, the TA will pass. We'll have to deal with 4.A.2.b later and that will hurt our chances of improving the contract. The company's incentive to talk to us will be gone. We have taken our eye off the ball. Remember the union's rolling counter showing the cost of 4.A.2.b. And we are settling for 3%?

Pragmatic1

If unity is truly our only leverage, then why threaten it by bringing us a partial agreement requiring us to speculate over the future implications. No where on any survey did I list a partial agreement as a desire in the next contract. I say give me a complete package to vote on a not this piece meal TA that actually brings up the leverage issue in the first place. If we were voting on a complete CBA lost of leverage would not be an issue. Yet another self imposed conflict.

Busboy

Actually...We ARE voting on a complete CBA.

Pragmatic1

You are probably right. I doubt anybody thinks the company cannot open an FDA without us, but it's obvious from the changes to the current FDA package, there must be some benefit to have us do it. If this wasn't the case, I'm sure the FDA would already be open. When you have something that someone wants or something they can benefit from, I think that could be defined as leverage, however small. Once we give that up, what incentive does the company have to negotiate future issues. Oh yea, I forgot...they gave us their word. Bottom line, if your leadership and MEC don't think you have leverage....you don't have leverage. This final vote % on the TA will define our unity or as Scott calls it leverage. Unfortunately, the company will also benefit from this information as well.

PurpleTail

I completely agree. I'll pay 3% to clean up 4A2b and all the other gray language. A contract agreement written poorly is as good as toilet paper and our past grievance record is a pretty good indication that our contract needs better "language" and less "intent".

If this TA passes and the company gets it FDA LOA plan on 2015 before any other changes happen I am getting more optimistic though, more and more are starting to really think about the implications of this agreement.

FLMD11CAPT

While technically correct that the Co. can open an FDA under our current CBA, one must ask the question.....why haven't they? Why do they negotiate a side LOA w/other provisions not included in the CBA language? One possible answer is they are doing it for our benefit.......if you believe that then I'll just stop here. If not, how about the reason being that the CBA does not provide for Tax Equalization nor an agreement whereby FDA Pilots sign away their ability to avail themselves of the host nation labor laws, or controlling language on where and how you can live. These are just a few of the "reasons" they want these provisions. Ladies and Gentlemen it is my humble opinion that Want=Leverage. For what it is worth.

angry tanker

For cgn, it is the time limit - 4yrs 9 months, so Fedex doesn't have to pay for your German pension. That is the company's need.

iarapilot

To me it is simple. The Company wants the new FDA language. That would be leverage, although I dont know how much it would make them want to deal. And, if we turn down the TA and they dont want to deal, I am happy with them not getting the language so as to save them $$ and scheduling flexibility. That is a win in my view.

Beaverdam

Leverage is when you wake up in the morning with a big woody, go to the bathroom to relieve yourself, try to push it down and aim at the toilet, and your feet come off the ground.