av8rmike

Now that I've satisfied myself that the Compensation Section taken alone was a no-gainer, I've started on Scope since that was one of our cornerstone issues and everyone is crowing about it.

SCOPE:

Seems like they were able to add charter flying to the scope clause and that was absent before. How much of our flying is really done via charter, though? I don't see that being all too significant a gain, but it was a gain.

It also provided that anyone excessed due to feeder flying would not have their hourly rate of pay reduced. Again, I don't see that as a big deal because we had pretty good restrictions previously against feeder ops impacting line flying.

Changes wet leasing to "a minimum of two aircraft"... Huh? They can lease all they want, but they at least have to lease two to do it... How is that an improvement? They also changed the 4 consecutive months to three consecutive months and one month that may be broken down into individual weeks and placed wherever during the year. I'm pretty sure the 4 consecutive months under the previous contract was a total for the year, so this seems to be a gain for the company having the ability to move that last month around as they need. Am I reading that incorrectly?

The language for the successorship was a definite improvement, but it sure as hell didn't cost the company on red cent to agree to that. I agree it strengthens our scope clause, but, again, it was a no cost item.

The way I read the "Disruption of Company Business" clause is that we are forbidden from supporting any other employees who might unionize here if they strike. Means we can't honor a strike if the mechs ever get a union, or the drivers, or the rampies... Don't seem that good to me, my frriends. Does say we're not required to instruct scabs from other airlines or carry struck freight if we don't normally carry that freight. Again I'm left with the question, how did any of this cost us negotiating capital?!

I'm happy with the scope section so far, with the exception of not being able to support fellow FedEx strikers, but I don't see how the entire section cost the company very much money. Seems not wet leasing charters is really the only thing they gave up that might have a small financial impact on them...

I would love inputs from anyone who has a different take on this section. I'm not liking the compensation section (taken by itself) AT ALL and I fail to see where we made up any real money here in Scope...

Oh, by the way, making improvements to the A Plan is like upgrading your room on the Titanic while it's sinking... I'ts just f*&%#*@ stupid. Look at the policital and financial landscape and ask yourself will FedEx really be the only company around maintaining a costly and resource consuming Defined Benefits Plan 5, 10,15 or 20 years from now? If you think so, I sure would like to have some of what you're drinking!

Mike

TonyC

What strikes me about the Scope section is that is addresses the two biggest loopholes left the first time.


First, it applies to the holding Company, FedEx Corp, and not just the subsidiary, FedEx Express. Take a look at Caribbean Transportation Services. Notice how similar their website looks to ours. Notice they don't hide the fact that FedEx Freight is their parent company. Further notice the Tradewinds Livery on the Airbus on their homepage. If you really want to dig a little, go look at Tradewinds Airlines and compare their route structure with ours.

Do you think tying scope to the Holding company is important?


I think it's huge.


Second, it removes the poison pills that existed before. Did you ever wonder why we didn't give the Negotiating Committee a Strike Vote in their hip pocket? According to the existing Scope section, the very act of the Master Executive Council deciding to take a strike vote would CANCEL the Scope provisions altogether.



In addition to closing those gaps, it also provides a remedy for Scope violations - - something we did not have. Expedited abritration is required by the new language.



Cost? It doesn't cost anybody anything for them to promise to give us the flying.


Value? Huge. Certainly nothing to spit at.



OH, and I think you underestimate our charter business.



.

fecav8r

Mike, I'm reading yor post and the thing I get out of it is that if somethig that we got in this contract didn't "cost the Company something" it really isn't important. Sometimes what you are protected from really can't be costed out. It's the old "If the company never did it in the past, does it really matter" theory? I'm sure the guys who have had their pensions raped wish they had some provisions in the contract about that. Again, you are focusing on single issue stuff. We could sit and do that all day. I still don't think there is anythng in the contract that is worse than what we had.

MD11Fr8Dog

Mike,

Are you on the -11? Subscribe to the Charters bbs on the company green (blue) screen for awhile! You might be surprised!!

av8rmike

TonyC - Yes, I was aware of Tradewinds, but not the other. Thanks. I agree with you about the holding company language being important. I was aware of the poison pill language, but I thought that if we entered self help under the RLA, the company is allowed to find alternative means to conduct their business, regardless of any contractual language. IE, RLA supercedes CBA. Is this not correct?

FECAV8R - No, you're reading into my post something that wasn't intended. Nowhere did I say if it didn't cost, it wasn't worth it. Additionally, I'm doing exactly as the MEC requested. I'm going through the contract with a fine toothed comb and looking at it one section at a time. I'm not a 'single issue guy', I am only able to really work through one section at a time and to speak intelligently on it after I digest it. And actually, you're incorrectin your assertion that there is nothing worse in this TA than we had before. The Compensation Section (including the "signing bonus') of the TA ends up giving us slightly less money at the end than if we had simply asked them to continue the previous 18 month incremental raises under the old contract. It works out to just under 3.3% annualized. It might interest you to know that inflation has been:

JUN04-DEC04 3.06%
2005 3.39%
JAN06-JUL06 3.88%

Kinda makes less than 3.3%/year look like not such a great deal...

Finally, your "pensions raped" comment is right on the money. Again I ask, why in hades are we improving our A Plan when a sane person would be running away from it.

Thanks for your feedback.

av8rmike

Nope, not on the 11, I know who both my parents are.... Sorry, had to take the shot. I wasn't aware at all they used a lot of charters and got around our Scope clause. Any idea on a rough % relative to MD lines?

Thanks,

Mike

fecav8r

Mike, I dont think running away from a viable retirement option is what I want to do. I will admit that I would rather have money in an account with my name on it but I have 16 years invested in this pension and I am not ready to concede that just because there have been a few companies that have trashed theirs means that FedEx will necessarily trash ours. I think there are more companies out there that have not done it than have. I think the safegaurds that are in place for ours make it much more attractive than some of the others out there.

MD11Fr8Dog

Alot of the Charters don't make it to the MD-11 lines, short notice miltary stuff. We have the regular "Limited" charter out of Hong Kong through ANC to LCK and or JFK. That charter is so lucrative, we often move an empty MD-11 from FRA through DXB to HKG. Sometimes Atlas has run that charter for FedEx, because the Limited has specifically asked for a 747 (a volume issue I believe) approaching Peak!

We'd probably do more military charters except we don't have the lift. As far as FedEx skirting the Scope clause in the charter business, I don't know! But this certainly closes a loophole!

I personally have done race car charters in/out of Rio, horse/animal charters (90 mares and 3stallions from SYD-PEK for example), military charters in/out of Mombasa and Cairo, also done numerous CHS/FRA/MXP/KWI/DXB military charters (last time I flew with Foxhunter was as his sky b!tch from DXB to HKG moving an empty plane on a charter trip).

av8rmike

Howdy Again. Not correct. Of the Fortune 1000 companies only 627 offered Defined Benefit Plans in 2004 and, of those, 71 had frozen or terminated their plans. It's gone downhill faster since 2004, too. If you think this is an airline only phenomenom, you're greatly mistaken. Additionally, if you think this is not a slippery slope we very likely will be going down, I again think your not facing economic reality. Here's a link for you to get a quick idea of what's going on out there with retirements:

http://www.businessfinancemag.com/ma...rticleID=14537

Fifteen years or not, FedEx has been required by Federal Law to contribute to an account for your specific A Plan based on very complicated funding formula. The money is there and is specifically dedicated for you. A buyout option would simply put this money in your control and free it from any potential economic woes of the company. Imagine a 16% or greater B Fund which is yours to keep. What difference to the company could it possibly make if they put the same amount of money in your A Plan or your B Plan. There are some tax consequences to the company, but they aren't deal breaking, that's for sure.

Thanks for your reply.

Busboy

Uhhhh... My copy of the current contract, beginning 6/99, had us getting 3% raise at 12/2000, 4% at 6/2002 and 5% on 12/2003. That's 12% in 4.5 years. Which doesn't work out to even 3%/yr, even if it's compounded.

But, regardless. Hourly rate doesn't mean squat without the rest of the contract. I thought we all learned that on our last contract. We got a very large "hourly rate" increase at the cost of our rigs and MPDP-E adjustment. Basically from 7hr/ day to 6. Maybe $300/hr would look great on these forums...But not if the rest of your compensation/scheduling package negates it.

Here's another bit of worthless hourly rate trivia...

1992 FedEx MAX hourly Captain rates:

Widebody $143.03 That's $207.46 in 2006 dollars

Narrowbody $122.11 That's $177.12 in 2006 dollars