Busboy

Not to talk for TonyC...But, I think the poison pill he is referring to, involves pre self help. That's when we would take a strike vote. Had we taken a strike vote a year ago, last May, like some wanted, we would have lost our scope clause. And, that sucks, in my opinion.

I'm glad you're reading the T/A. I hope everyone does. But, remember that it all ties together somehow. That's why we negotiate the entire contract, all 31 sections, at once.

HERCBUS

Tony C:

The language in the TA, changing the name FDX to FedEx Corp, is nothing more than semantics. The original contract came out in May 99.
FDX Corp (also known as FedEx Corp) was formed in 98. Prior to Jan 2000 FedEx Corp was known as FDX Corp. So this parent company name change is no big deal. The parent company was held accountable in the old contract, the names have just changed, so keeping FDX in the TA would be a typo.

Do I think tying Scope to the parent company is important? YES, but it already was tied to the parent company, so no new improvements there.

The poison pill change was nice. But I bet that any company with enough money and lawyers can dismantle a scope clause. Scope clauses remind me of Delta's infamous Force Majeure clause. Lot of good that did.

AV8RMIKE:

You sound like a smart dude. Keep working on those math formulas so dumbasses like me can figure this out. I completely agree with your assertion of the value of an "A" plan. Counting on the company for defined benefits is like counting on a captain to buy the new hire a cold beer....it is hit or miss.

Huck

Let's see, two guys who joined the board three days apart (one 4 days ago, one 1 day ago), who both like to use colons (SCOPE: ,TonyC: ), and one calls the other one a "smart dude." Maybe I'm just paranoid....

fecav8r

There's been a bunch of companies who have had their contracts voided so why don't we just do away with our contract and work as independent contractors while we're at it. I agree with you that in a lot of cases the money in an account in your name(ie the B fund) is a great deal. But if the B fund is tied to the stock market( or stock in UAL's case) if the market crashes and the only thing you have left is the pension, now what do you do? I think it's a great idea to have a combination of both. So whatever improvements we can get, I'll take it.

Bitme

If you believe this then you must be smarter than a bunch of high powered Washington lawyers. It was not tied to the parent company, by concensus of a bunch of the above mentioned legal minds.

Secondly, one of the most significant things in the new scope clause is the arbitration clause. Our chances are a lot better in front of an arbitrator than getting us tied up in court for years. Tie this to the other language that we can unilaterally (sp) dismiss arbitrators then there is actually light at the end of the tunnel.

All this said, the company will look at the dollars and if it is worth it to go after our scope then they will do it. Now, it will just cost them more dollars, which I read as less incentive to do it.

TonyC

Mike,

As Busboy has already pointed out, our Present Scope clause would become ineffective by actions that could precede Self-Help. The contract is contolled by the RLA, but there is nothing that precludes it from being more restrictive. In this case, it is more restrictive.

Some negotiations have included a strategy to send the Negotiating Committee to the table with the "Strike Card" in their back pocket. A vote of the membership is taken in advance, and through a show of resolve and unity, the membership affirms their intention to strike if the Negotiating Committee is unable to obtain a fair offer from the Company. Had WE done that on the amndable date of our present Contract, the next-to-last paragraph of the "Dear Captain Fato" letter would have essentially voided our Scope protection - the day before.


One thing worth noting here, for the benefit of those who may not have noticed, is that our Scope actually consists of two elements. The first is the contract language between us, the pilots of FedEx Express, and our employer, FedEx Express. The second, critically important part, is the letter from the PARENT COMPANY, that binds them to the same conditions. Without this binder, the first part would be essentially toothless. In the case of our present contract, FDX Corp promised to abide by ONE sentence (known as Para D.2) regarding acquiring another U.S. certificated airline or air cargo carrier. That's all.

The TA language additionally binds FedEx Corp to the Parent and Affilliates language. It removes the pre-self help language that would void it even with an administrative action of the MEC.

Actually, the current contract was penned in November/December of 1998, but that's not important. The name changes aren't the important thing. The important thing is the ability to shuffle the companies and restructure the organization to skirt the responsibility imposed by Scope language. FedEx Express can write Scope language all day long, but unless the parent company, whatever the name, ascribes to the same principles, the language doesn't help much.

That's a tired argument against expending negotiating capital to secure strong Scope language. And it's bogus. The fact that the other party can fight it does not make it less valid or less valuable. The Expedited Grievance and Arbitration Procedures added into the Scope section is nothing to laugh at.

Furthermore, your example of Delta's Force Majeure clause is interesting, in that while it was intially ignored (or abused), it was eventually upheld in court. Had it not existed in the first place, furloughs would have (could have, if you want to argue that point) continued unabated. With Scope, we at least have something to go to court about. Without Scope, all we have is a gripe, and NO recourse.




.

av8rmike

Howdy All,

FECAV8R - I'm assuming you didn't read the link I included for you? You're concerned about having your retirement diversified across the stock and/or bond market, but it makes you feel better knowing a LARGE part of your retirement is tied to the financial health of a SINGLE company (FDX) 10, 20 or 30 years from now??? We need to get together for a beer and some financial lessons on the back of a napkin.... Additionally, noone said working for The Man without a contract is a viable or desirable option. I almost get the feeling that I'm calling your baby ugly here.

Busyboy - Go look at the TA Real Highlights thread at posting number 16 by MX727 and my response with posting #23. As I've said before, liars figure and figures lie.... My math is correct, I've run the numbers many times.

Hercbus - Thanks for the support.

Huck - I only joined a few days ago and started posting because there are a lot of "all thrust, no vector" people posting here. I'm willing to go through this TA a piece at a time and put out what my take on it is. No conspiracy here. I'm a huge Union supporter, but just because I love my wife, not everything she does is right, ya' know what I mean?

I'll caveat my next statement with (a) it's only my opinion of the TA and (b) I've still got 28 sections to REALLY STUDY (I've read them all already), but.... So far my take on this contract is it's a GREAT money win if you're 55-60 years old and a MD-11 Captain flying International. It's got minor improvements for the hub turners and out-n-back guys, either junior or senior, which might very well be offset by the healthcare increases and the idiocy of improving the A Plan in lieu of fighting for a substantial B Plan increase.

Just my take... I'll now duck behind the rock for cover and wait for your responses. Oh, by the way, I'm heading for the retirement section next.

Mike

Busboy

Your statement, above, is that we would be better off if we would have asked them to continue the previous 18 month incremental raises.

My statement says you are wrong, on that! Run the numbers through your Cray, again. The old contract raises were 12% over 4.5 yrs. And they were back-end loaded. My Casio comes up with 12.48%, compounded over that period. Which works out to 2.77%/yr.

You have wonderful ideas on what we should have done. I think we all do. You should bounce all these ideas off of the NC. I'm sure they just didn't think to bring them up at the table.

av8rmike

Mea culpa... You're right, I just put the last incremental raise in there of 3.3% from JUN02 to DEC03. They were 2.1% on DEC00, 2.66% on JUN02 and 3.3% on DEC03. I put the wrong number in (3.3% vice 2.7%), but my statement stands. I said we would have been better of had we simply "continued our incremental raises" under the old contract and that it absolutely correct - speaking from a pay only perspective. Heck, we would be better off if we had just continued the LAST raise of 3.3% for the life of this TA. This TA works out to less than 3.3% (including the signing bonus) over its life.

No need to be snotty. I'm not coming up with wonderful ideas "on what we should have done", I'm just going over what is. By the way, while attending the Rallys, I did bring up my concerns. Additionally, I spoke with BC and the NC guys in the DFW airport about my A Plan concerns.

Busboy

I can't believe I did it...But, I actually went back and looked at some of your posts searching for "your take" that might see something positive in this contract. Now, I know it has to be there somewhere, and maybe you'll find it, in your studying. The NC is telling us it's $800 million to over $1 billion in improvements. So, please share it with us when you come across it.

I know that sounds snotty. And, it is. You came on the forum, like you're some kind of gunslinger, shooting out the lights that are blinding all of us. I too, want more money, a huge "B" plan, a min pay per day, etc. But, what do you think this pilot group is willing to do for another, what, 2% rate increase? Or, raise the min pay per duty period up 12 mins? etc., etc. And, how much longer would it take us to get that? The UPS guys found out how the NMB works. Do we need to reinvent the wheel, here?

We all know this T/A is not perfect. But, please say something positive about it, when you come across it.

By the way...You complain about no increase to 6.4 hrs/day for the out and backs, you fly? Are you chitting me? That's the only trip at FedEx with a min pay per day, by nature. And, 6hrs/day is the best I've ever heard of. Enjoy your 100 to 150 hrs away from base each month. And, lighten up a little. I'm going to.