Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Leverage and the Next MEC Decision >

Leverage and the Next MEC Decision

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Leverage and the Next MEC Decision

Old 12-31-2011, 03:05 PM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Albief15's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Default Leverage and the Next MEC Decision

I’ll offer my perspective—worth about what you paid for it. However, I’ll add some context on past decisions that I was part of as a former MEC member and a person who has made some decisions—good and bad—that affected the crew force.

The crux of the current decision is do we allow the company to secure “labor peace” by staying outside of section 6 negotiations in exchange for the previously agreed upon 3% raise. The options as I see them are:

1. Take the raise, and continue the discussions with the company albeit outside of section 6.
2. Go straight to section 6.


The biggest sticking point in this thread seems to be the amount of “leverage” we have at the moment, and how much we anticipate having if we go straight to section 6. Which approach ultimately takes us closer to our ultimate goal? This is where I think a little history is in order. I’ll offer up some past events where it appeared we had leverage and what the results really were. My goal is to provide a cautionary tale on when we really do have leverage, and when we have either misapplied or misread the leverage we had or thought we had.

Here are some examples I have personally seen where we some thought we had leverage, and how things played out. Realize I am writing my own personal perspective, and I realize history can be viewed through many different filters or lenses. However, as a former MEC Rep and longtime APC blow-hard, I think my perspective has as much credibility as any of the other posters here.

4a2b
Pre 4a2b, when it became obvious the company was considering invoking reduced guarantees, the company approached the union to discuss negotiating some options. Now—I am NOT saying every time the company wants to negoatiate we should do so, but the fact is the “Strategic Negotiating Team”, known then as the “A-Team” rebuffed the company. The “A Team” consisted of the Chairman, the legal team, and the block 3 (then SS—not Scott Stratton) and block 5 rep (TC). The idea of going below 68 hours was a non-starter, and I heard the former chairman say many times he was not going to have his fingerprints on taking money out of our pilots paychecks. Great sentiment—but the A Team decided that if the company DARED to invoke this we would SUE them. I think these guys convinced themselves they would prevail in any legal challenge, and thus refused to even consider working with company on strategies to mitigate the reduction in hours. It was a tough call, and I am not trying to crap on guys who had a choice of two bad decisions to make, but the fact is there was a perception we had LEVERAGE due to legal and contractual provisions. We decided to use that leverage, and 18 months later after watching over 60 captains fly 120 hour carryover MD11 lines while the 727 had 60 ish hour bidpacks, the arbitrator decided there were a few things that could be necked down if 4a2b was to be used again but there was no financial penalty due the pilots affected. The perceived leverage was in fact just a mirage.

In this case, I am confident a negotiated deal would have been better for the majority of the pilots instead of relying on the perceived leverage and spoiling for a fight with the company.

PSIT/SIG issues

Once it became apparent 4a2b was going to be invoked, the chairman made the decision to revoke the PSIT line builders. Again—this was a tough call. Do you “sleep with the enemy” and allow your team to violate the contract while you are suing the company, or do you take the high road but understand that lines will be built that will be more onerous and less safe than if the PSIT was engaged? What I recall was the statement “the company couldn’t build the bidpack” without the help of the PSIT, and chaos would soon ensue. “We had them by the balls…” was a line I heard a couple times around the time. Well—amazingly enough, the company folks weren’t idiots and managed to slap together enough trips to meet the legal requirements for the bidpacks (except the hours guarantee, of course) . Eventually, the union and company agreed to bring the PSIT back into the process, in order to improve the safety of the bidpack lines.

So—in this case—we thought we had leverage, and all we did was create a situation that was less desirable for the line pilot. I’m partly to blame, as I supported the pulling of the PSIT. I later supported putting them back in. I misread the “leverage”, and I goofed.


777 Initial bid

It seemed obvious to me that putting a new fleet in without a payrate was a great place for us to “flex” our muscles and use our collective leverage to grab a new payrate for the newest jet in our fleet. My personal level of excitement on pushing for a higher rate wasn’t really that high, as this was on the heels of the Age-65 change and the obvious beneficiaries of any new rate would be the same pilots who just received a 5 year employment windfall. However, I set aside my short term frustration and realized that the 777 rate would ultimately helped all pilots by raising overall career potential earnings. Along the way to pushing for a higher rate, a couple things happened to derail the push to raise the rate. The first was legal—we could not legally tell anyone NOT to bid a seat or take any action outside the scope of the RLA. Second —a huge displacement bid came down, and by bidding the 777 many pilots who were facing the loss of their seats (primarily narrow body captains but a few widebody junior captains too) could secure their seats another 12-18 months by bidding the 777 FO seat since the training dates were so far down the timeline. I didn’t want to tell a pilot he needed to take a 40-60k pay hit or give up a seat, especially if there was a chance things might get better by the time he or she was scheduled for class. (In fact, there were some pilots who bid the 777 but dodged ever losing their seat as we eased out of 4a2b later and won their seats back on subsequent bids). Finally, our own former chairman decided to bid the 777. Any unspoken taboo against bidding the 777 was effectively moot at that point. Again—asking him or anyone else to NOT bid the jet would have been illegal, but even more importantly it would have screwed over a lot of junior crewmembers who bid the jet in order to raise the payrate for guys at the top of the seniority list, and I think even holding up the “unity” sign at that point would have been a very tough sell as guys faced the first of several nasty displacement bids.

So—did we have leverage? Maybe. Could we have used it more effectively? Perhaps, but the backlash on anything illegal might have cost us more than we could have gained. Besides…we had section 26k which allowed us to arbitrate a new payrate for new aircraft which leads to…

777 pay rate arbitration.

Okay—this one is partly on me. I read and reread the contract, and it sure seemed to me like it was clear there was a solid and fair process for determining the payrate for the 777. The company and union discussed several options, including an override for flights that were over 11.5 hours. The nice thing was the trigger would also pay out for some of the MD-11 trips, so the new rate would help someone beside the 777 force. I was one of the louder voices saying “NO, NO, NO..” because I was deeply suspicious that override would only very rarely trigger. I wanted a RATE, even if was a nickel more than what we had, so it would be firm and could be later negotiated upward. Again—we know how this one turned out, so again—I read the contact, smelled leverage, and went for it. And I was flat-ass wrong.

So—again—the negotiated route might have been better. Would it have always paid out? I dunno. So far, however, the 777 rate has never paid a premium, so we got what we got. And I’m partly to blame… But, its okay because we knew the company would have to come crawling back to us for ULR ops, which leads to :

ULR ops:

The leverage in our contract on the 777 hinges on the fact that there are no provisions to operate the jet over 16 hours. Therefore, since we know that is exactly what the company had in mind when they bought the jet, we have leverage. Uh…at least that is what we were saying in 2009-2010. Now in 2012 where do we see the 777? The company seems to be quite content replacing MD-11s on long routes and adding a few new flights—all under 16 hours. Will we have that leverage down the road? Perhaps. When? Your guess is as good as mine…

So—again—we’ve been waiting for the leverage fairy to poke us and let us know its time to push on the ULR issues. So far—cricket cricket is all I hear.

FDAs:

No secret here that 90% of the reason I ran for the MEC position was my disgust with the LOA 1. What you may not remember is that it wasn’t pay or the lack thereof that upset me, but rather the STV provisions that would have allowed the company to non-vol guys over to Asia for 90 days (later 30) at a time. Did we have enough leverage to improve the LOAs initially? Dunno—I wasn’t on the MEC then. However, subsequent to that we’ve seen two trends:

Some pilots will accept the inconvenience of the LOA to be a widebody captain at year 3-5 at the company.
Some pilots will accept being a new hire at an FDA if that’s what is required to join the team at FedEx. It is hard to fill the FO slots, but has proven to be doable.

Therefore—effective leverage for FDAs? Not very much. Therefore, I voted at every chance to improve the FDAs when I could, and eliminated the STV provision from the subsequent versions. Why? First—when the first LOA came out the union promised to attempt to improve them at every opportunity. While the names on the MEC have changed, the folks who took the shot at the FDAs didn’t and they deserved to have that pledge honored. Second—the growth of this company is overseas, and the fact is many of the guys in my block will get their first shot at the left seat in an FDA. Therefore, to do the best for the guys in my block, and the guys already over there, I felt like improving the FDAs helped not only the FDA bubbas but everyone in my block as well. Fact is Hong Kong left seat has gone senior to MEM MD-11 the last few bids, so it appears at least for now some folks are satisfied with the options they have.


So—if you have been hanging on this long you are probably wondering: Do we EVER have leverage? Are we doomed to just take what the company gives us? Fortunately, the answer is yes we do and no we don’t, and we have some good examples.

When FedEx terminated some pilots for denying jumpseats to horse-handlers or other personnel, the crew force rallied behind the affected captains. Regardless of whether you though these captains “picked a fight” with the company or were completely justified in their actions, it was clearly apparent that any surrendering of sovereignty of the cockpit did not bode well for any FedEx pilot. Old or young, commuter or domicile resident, international or domestic—we all saw that we needed to stick together, and we did. I wrote some checks to the guys affected, even though they were senior captains and I was a narrowbody FO. We were unified…period.

In 2006, pilots decided “enough” and began to buy hats, show up to rallies, and spend a little free time at home. Those actions, along with the fact UPS secured their contract and meditation was looming led to the deal ultimately getting done. Unfortunately, some pilots have taken that success to mean we ought to do the same thing every time we have bad catering or get frustrated with our contract. Remember—that success came at the end of two years of delayed negotiations and we had gone over 2 years without any pay raise. The actions of that period were effective because everyone—regardless of seat, domicile, or relatively seniority—had something to gain by securing the next contract. This was a great example of unity—realizing that we all have our pet issues but together we would be effective.

So what is the difference between 2006 and right now? First of all—the world is a very different place. In 2006, people everywhere I went were talking about buying a second home or flipping houses. In 2011, the discussion was the housing collapse. In 2006, unemployment was about 5%. Its almost double that now. The market collapsed in 2008/2009 and crushed a lot of people’s retirement accounts. At the same time, we know FedEx has prospered. FedEx can afford to pay us more. At the same time, the fulcrum we push our leverage against consists of many things, including public opinion, government support (or the lack thereof), and our own unity.

Right now—simply put—we are at the top of the pay charts in our industry. In this economy, you can say the court of public opinion is academic, but turning down a 3% raise when many people are barely hanging on is not going to win any friends in the public, and we’ll find no sympathy in the media. We had unity in 2006 because the COMPANY was intransigent. It was obvious to everyone, including the NMB. If we push now we risk coming off as similarly out of touch with economic reality.

With regard to government—talk to GA, block 7 rep, about his discussion with one of the members of the NMB last year. The NMB loves this approach that the union is currently taking, as it keeps things moving in a positive direction and makes their job easier. We will get the chance to strike or not strike, or at least threaten to do so, only if the NMB is convinced we have worked in good faith. We have already gained favor with them by taking this approach, and to abandon it now would probably undermine the credibility we’ve established with the Department of Labor.

Finally—our crew force is largely satisfied with the direction we are going. I know many times “the 68%” are derided on these boards. I was one of the 32% proponets of hysteria on LOA 1—and quite a vocal one. However, the fact is 2/3 of the crew force never goes on APC to vent, and right now is overall pretty satisfied with the pace of negotiations and our general situation both in the macro and in regard to our union/company relationship. We’ve seen improvements in FOQA and ASAP, and the SIG reports very few disputes these days. Surveys indicate the crew force wants some areas improved, but nobody is ready to burn down the house right now. The question is how do we fix those things we want improved? Currently, our NC is reported steady progress on the issues we want addressed. We will have gained 7% in a 14 months if we continue. Remember that even after all the drama of the 2006 showdown, our raises have averaged….wait for it….about 3% a year. Of course, we had to wait several years to get our 3% in the past—right now its available to us this March. This course of action keeps us moving forward, reduces some of the drama and angst, and keeps lines of communication open to make improvements as we go along. I am convinced that about 2/3 of our pilots want to move forward in this manner.

We all want the same things—an improved contract and a solid future. What if this doesn’t work? What have we lost? We’ve lost 12 more months, and we’ll be back to the picket lines and wearing hats again going back to the way we’ve done it in the past. We have a chance now, however, to do something relatively unique, and that is to work forward in a more business like manner reducing the risk to our careers, adding money right now to our paychecks, while still preserving our rights to improve our contract going forward. I have worked with our Negotiating Chairman, trust his judgement, and if he says there is progress then I say give him a chance. I'm willing to wait another 12 months for a 3% raise and the chance to show the company, the Feds, and my fellow pilots I am willing to work through this process in a professional manner. If they fail to hold up their end--well--I'll be the first one out there in a hat with the rest of you.
Albief15 is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 03:36 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Los1's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: B-757 Capt.
Posts: 187
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by Albief15 View Post
I’ll offer my perspective—worth about what you paid for it. However, I’ll add some context on past decisions that I was part of as a former MEC member and a person who has made some decisions—good and bad—that affected the crew force.

The crux of the current decision is do we allow the company to secure “labor peace” by staying outside of section 6 negotiations in exchange for the previously agreed upon 3% raise. The options as I see them are:

1. Take the raise, and continue the discussions with the company albeit outside of section 6.
2. Go straight to section 6.


The biggest sticking point in this thread seems to be the amount of “leverage” we have at the moment, and how much we anticipate having if we go straight to section 6. Which approach ultimately takes us closer to our ultimate goal? This is where I think a little history is in order. I’ll offer up some past events where it appeared we had leverage and what the results really were. My goal is to provide a cautionary tale on when we really do have leverage, and when we have either misapplied or misread the leverage we had or thought we had.

Here are some examples I have personally seen where we some thought we had leverage, and how things played out. Realize I am writing my own personal perspective, and I realize history can be viewed through many different filters or lenses. However, as a former MEC Rep and longtime APC blow-hard, I think my perspective has as much credibility as any of the other posters here.

4a2b
Pre 4a2b, when it became obvious the company was considering invoking reduced guarantees, the company approached the union to discuss negotiating some options. Now—I am NOT saying every time the company wants to negoatiate we should do so, but the fact is the “Strategic Negotiating Team”, known then as the “A-Team” rebuffed the company. The “A Team” consisted of the Chairman, the legal team, and the block 3 (then SS—not Scott Stratton) and block 5 rep (TC). The idea of going below 68 hours was a non-starter, and I heard the former chairman say many times he was not going to have his fingerprints on taking money out of our pilots paychecks. Great sentiment—but the A Team decided that if the company DARED to invoke this we would SUE them. I think these guys convinced themselves they would prevail in any legal challenge, and thus refused to even consider working with company on strategies to mitigate the reduction in hours. It was a tough call, and I am not trying to crap on guys who had a choice of two bad decisions to make, but the fact is there was a perception we had LEVERAGE due to legal and contractual provisions. We decided to use that leverage, and 18 months later after watching over 60 captains fly 120 hour carryover MD11 lines while the 727 had 60 ish hour bidpacks, the arbitrator decided there were a few things that could be necked down if 4a2b was to be used again but there was no financial penalty due the pilots affected. The perceived leverage was in fact just a mirage.

In this case, I am confident a negotiated deal would have been better for the majority of the pilots instead of relying on the perceived leverage and spoiling for a fight with the company.

PSIT/SIG issues

Once it became apparent 4a2b was going to be invoked, the chairman made the decision to revoke the PSIT line builders. Again—this was a tough call. Do you “sleep with the enemy” and allow your team to violate the contract while you are suing the company, or do you take the high road but understand that lines will be built that will be more onerous and less safe than if the PSIT was engaged? What I recall was the statement “the company couldn’t build the bidpack” without the help of the PSIT, and chaos would soon ensue. “We had them by the balls…” was a line I heard a couple times around the time. Well—amazingly enough, the company folks weren’t idiots and managed to slap together enough trips to meet the legal requirements for the bidpacks (except the hours guarantee, of course) . Eventually, the union and company agreed to bring the PSIT back into the process, in order to improve the safety of the bidpack lines.

So—in this case—we thought we had leverage, and all we did was create a situation that was less desirable for the line pilot. I’m partly to blame, as I supported the pulling of the PSIT. I later supported putting them back in. I misread the “leverage”, and I goofed.


777 Initial bid

It seemed obvious to me that putting a new fleet in without a payrate was a great place for us to “flex” our muscles and use our collective leverage to grab a new payrate for the newest jet in our fleet. My personal level of excitement on pushing for a higher rate wasn’t really that high, as this was on the heels of the Age-65 change and the obvious beneficiaries of any new rate would be the same pilots who just received a 5 year employment windfall. However, I set aside my short term frustration and realized that the 777 rate would ultimately helped all pilots by raising overall career potential earnings. Along the way to pushing for a higher rate, a couple things happened to derail the push to raise the rate. The first was legal—we could not legally tell anyone NOT to bid a seat or take any action outside the scope of the RLA. Second —a huge displacement bid came down, and by bidding the 777 many pilots who were facing the loss of their seats (primarily narrow body captains but a few widebody junior captains too) could secure their seats another 12-18 months by bidding the 777 FO seat since the training dates were so far down the timeline. I didn’t want to tell a pilot he needed to take a 40-60k pay hit or give up a seat, especially if there was a chance things might get better by the time he or she was scheduled for class. (In fact, there were some pilots who bid the 777 but dodged ever losing their seat as we eased out of 4a2b later and won their seats back on subsequent bids). Finally, our own former chairman decided to bid the 777. Any unspoken taboo against bidding the 777 was effectively moot at that point. Again—asking him or anyone else to NOT bid the jet would have been illegal, but even more importantly it would have screwed over a lot of junior crewmembers who bid the jet in order to raise the payrate for guys at the top of the seniority list, and I think even holding up the “unity” sign at that point would have been a very tough sell as guys faced the first of several nasty displacement bids.

So—did we have leverage? Maybe. Could we have used it more effectively? Perhaps, but the backlash on anything illegal might have cost us more than we could have gained. Besides…we had section 26k which allowed us to arbitrate a new payrate for new aircraft which leads to…

777 pay rate arbitration.

Okay—this one is partly on me. I read and reread the contract, and it sure seemed to me like it was clear there was a solid and fair process for determining the payrate for the 777. The company and union discussed several options, including an override for flights that were over 11.5 hours. The nice thing was the trigger would also pay out for some of the MD-11 trips, so the new rate would help someone beside the 777 force. I was one of the louder voices saying “NO, NO, NO..” because I was deeply suspicious that override would only very rarely trigger. I wanted a RATE, even if was a nickel more than what we had, so it would be firm and could be later negotiated upward. Again—we know how this one turned out, so again—I read the contact, smelled leverage, and went for it. And I was flat-ass wrong.

So—again—the negotiated route might have been better. Would it have always paid out? I dunno. So far, however, the 777 rate has never paid a premium, so we got what we got. And I’m partly to blame… But, its okay because we knew the company would have to come crawling back to us for ULR ops, which leads to :

ULR ops:

The leverage in our contract on the 777 hinges on the fact that there are no provisions to operate the jet over 16 hours. Therefore, since we know that is exactly what the company had in mind when they bought the jet, we have leverage. Uh…at least that is what we were saying in 2009-2010. Now in 2012 where do we see the 777? The company seems to be quite content replacing MD-11s on long routes and adding a few new flights—all under 16 hours. Will we have that leverage down the road? Perhaps. When? Your guess is as good as mine…

So—again—we’ve been waiting for the leverage fairy to poke us and let us know its time to push on the ULR issues. So far—cricket cricket is all I hear.

FDAs:

No secret here that 90% of the reason I ran for the MEC position was my disgust with the LOA 1. What you may not remember is that it wasn’t pay or the lack thereof that upset me, but rather the STV provisions that would have allowed the company to non-vol guys over to Asia for 90 days (later 30) at a time. Did we have enough leverage to improve the LOAs initially? Dunno—I wasn’t on the MEC then. However, subsequent to that we’ve seen two trends:

Some pilots will accept the inconvenience of the LOA to be a widebody captain at year 3-5 at the company.
Some pilots will accept being a new hire at an FDA if that’s what is required to join the team at FedEx. It is hard to fill the FO slots, but has proven to be doable.

Therefore—effective leverage for FDAs? Not very much. Therefore, I voted at every chance to improve the FDAs when I could, and eliminated the STV provision from the subsequent versions. Why? First—when the first LOA came out the union promised to attempt to improve them at every opportunity. While the names on the MEC have changed, the folks who took the shot at the FDAs didn’t and they deserved to have that pledge honored. Second—the growth of this company is overseas, and the fact is many of the guys in my block will get their first shot at the left seat in an FDA. Therefore, to do the best for the guys in my block, and the guys already over there, I felt like improving the FDAs helped not only the FDA bubbas but everyone in my block as well. Fact is Hong Kong left seat has gone senior to MEM MD-11 the last few bids, so it appears at least for now some folks are satisfied with the options they have.


So—if you have been hanging on this long you are probably wondering: Do we EVER have leverage? Are we doomed to just take what the company gives us? Fortunately, the answer is yes we do and no we don’t, and we have some good examples.

When FedEx terminated some pilots for denying jumpseats to horse-handlers or other personnel, the crew force rallied behind the affected captains. Regardless of whether you though these captains “picked a fight” with the company or were completely justified in their actions, it was clearly apparent that any surrendering of sovereignty of the cockpit did not bode well for any FedEx pilot. Old or young, commuter or domicile resident, international or domestic—we all saw that we needed to stick together, and we did. I wrote some checks to the guys affected, even though they were senior captains and I was a narrowbody FO. We were unified…period.

In 2006, pilots decided “enough” and began to buy hats, show up to rallies, and spend a little free time at home. Those actions, along with the fact UPS secured their contract and meditation was looming led to the deal ultimately getting done. Unfortunately, some pilots have taken that success to mean we ought to do the same thing every time we have bad catering or get frustrated with our contract. Remember—that success came at the end of two years of delayed negotiations and we had gone over 2 years without any pay raise. The actions of that period were effective because everyone—regardless of seat, domicile, or relatively seniority—had something to gain by securing the next contract. This was a great example of unity—realizing that we all have our pet issues but together we would be effective.

So what is the difference between 2006 and right now? First of all—the world is a very different place. In 2006, people everywhere I went were talking about buying a second home or flipping houses. In 2011, the discussion was the housing collapse. In 2006, unemployment was about 5%. Its almost double that now. The market collapsed in 2008/2009 and crushed a lot of people’s retirement accounts. At the same time, we know FedEx has prospered. FedEx can afford to pay us more. At the same time, the fulcrum we push our leverage against consists of many things, including public opinion, government support (or the lack thereof), and our own unity.

Right now—simply put—we are at the top of the pay charts in our industry. In this economy, you can say the court of public opinion is academic, but turning down a 3% raise when many people are barely hanging on is not going to win any friends in the public, and we’ll find no sympathy in the media. We had unity in 2006 because the COMPANY was intransigent. It was obvious to everyone, including the NMB. If we push now we risk coming off as similarly out of touch with economic reality.

With regard to government—talk to GA, block 7 rep, about his discussion with one of the members of the NMB last year. The NMB loves this approach that the union is currently taking, as it keeps things moving in a positive direction and makes their job easier. We will get the chance to strike or not strike, or at least threaten to do so, only if the NMB is convinced we have worked in good faith. We have already gained favor with them by taking this approach, and to abandon it now would probably undermine the credibility we’ve established with the Department of Labor.

Finally—our crew force is largely satisfied with the direction we are going. I know many times “the 68%” are derided on these boards. I was one of the 32% proponets of hysteria on LOA 1—and quite a vocal one. However, the fact is 2/3 of the crew force never goes on APC to vent, and right now is overall pretty satisfied with the pace of negotiations and our general situation both in the macro and in regard to our union/company relationship. We’ve seen improvements in FOQA and ASAP, and the SIG reports very few disputes these days. Surveys indicate the crew force wants some areas improved, but nobody is ready to burn down the house right now. The question is how do we fix those things we want improved? Currently, our NC is reported steady progress on the issues we want addressed. We will have gained 7% in a 14 months if we continue. Remember that even after all the drama of the 2006 showdown, our raises have averaged….wait for it….about 3% a year. Of course, we had to wait several years to get our 3% in the past—right now its available to us this March. This course of action keeps us moving forward, reduces some of the drama and angst, and keeps lines of communication open to make improvements as we go along. I am convinced that about 2/3 of our pilots want to move forward in this manner.

We all want the same things—an improved contract and a solid future. What if this doesn’t work? What have we lost? We’ve lost 12 more months, and we’ll be back to the picket lines and wearing hats again going back to the way we’ve done it in the past. We have a chance now, however, to do something relatively unique, and that is to work forward in a more business like manner reducing the risk to our careers, adding money right now to our paychecks, while still preserving our rights to improve our contract going forward. I have worked with our Negotiating Chairman, trust his judgement, and if he says there is progress then I say give him a chance. I'm willing to wait another 12 months for a 3% raise and the chance to show the company, the Feds, and my fellow pilots I am willing to work through this process in a professional manner. If they fail to hold up their end--well--I'll be the first one out there in a hat with the rest of you.
Hear, Hear Albie!!
This needs to be posted as an editorial comment to any union comm. ASAP!
Happy New Year, Albie!
Los1 is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 04:10 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MaydayMark's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Default

Albie,

As always, you present a well thought out, logical, level-headed version of our situation. Good job, thanks for taking the time to share your version of events.

Here's my perspective of the same events ...

- My union took a strike vote during ALPA-1 negotiations. I liked that, I thought we had some REAL leverage. My union later caved in, made an illegal parking lot deal (I've always wondered if FF could have been sued for acting outside the desires of the membership?) and a slightly improved contract was shoved down our throats. My version ... we LOST BADLY.

- I cannot imagine how 4.a.2.b could possibly have been a legal interpretation of our contract ... We grieved it AND LOST BADLY.

- DW & BC promised me (publicly) that the 777 would be a separate pay rate. The 2 of them then bid the airplane without an agreed upon payrate (after they inferred that the rest of us SHOULD NOT do that)? We took the issue to arbitration and LOST BADLY.

I could continue with my line of thinking but I'm hoping I've made my point by now. My real question is why we seem to consistently be on the losing side of the bargaining table. Do we have substandard union leadership; do we have substandard negotiating personnel, do we have substandard legal advise? I hope not!*?

I say we take the 3% and keep negotiating, hoping that "reasonable people" can come to an agreement after YEARS of discussing the issue. I REALLY hope so.

Personally, I'm standing by with my hat ...


Mark
MaydayMark is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 05:59 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 1559
Posts: 1,533
Default

Originally Posted by Los1 View Post
Hear, Hear Albie!!........Happy New Year, Albie!
Did you know that you can edit what is inside the quote box. Alternatively, you don't have to quote the entire post that appears right above yours. We get that you are responding to him. You aren't the only one that does it, I just choose to point it out here. Since Albie's post was so long, it makes quoting it, in it's entirety, particularly cumbersome.

Albie:

Thanks for your work and perspective. I agree that we should let this new paradigm run it's course and take the 3% now.
MX727 is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 06:04 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

My perspective, if the Myans are right we need to take the 3% now.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 07:54 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Auger In's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: low hanging fruit
Posts: 116
Default

Albie,

That was an excellent post. One of the best I've read on this forum. Nice job.
Auger In is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 08:17 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,173
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG View Post
My perspective, if the Myans are right we need to take the 3% now.
I'm trying to decide if this statement is more or less useful than Albie's post. I see the logic of both. Probably doesn't matter either way because I'm about to get yelled at for quoting your whole post.

My perspective...I am a FedEx employee number who gets paid for generating revenue and not crashing airplanes. I am also an ALPA membership number who pays 2% of my FedEx salary in case I crash an airplane or do something that stops FedEx from generating revenue. Neither organization really cares about me. I am simply a source of income for both.
But a not insignificant difference between FedEx and ALPA is that one has a very long record of success in its decision making, and one...not so much. If FedEx is willing to increase my pay 3%, that helps me and ALPA. I'm not sure anyone loses in this deal.
Rock is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 08:40 PM
  #8  
Part Time Employee
 
MaxKts's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG View Post
My perspective, if the Myans are right we need to take the 3% now.
If they are right - what does it matter?
MaxKts is offline  
Old 12-31-2011, 11:44 PM
  #9  
New Hire
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 7
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG View Post
My perspective, if the Myans are right we need to take the 3% now.
Maya or Mayan.....the alternative calendar people from central America.

I see a few items on the list differently, but generally agree on taking 3.

Cheers
KwigKongTunt is offline  
Old 01-01-2012, 03:21 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
magic rat's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 909
Default

Second verse, same as the first with the 767...

I already saw a couple 767 lanyards in the AOC!!! Unbelievable....already going to trip over eachother to screw that one up too....

We wouldn't know leverage if it came up and hit us in the face...

Nice post Albie, but it doesn't matter, none of it matters...FedEx pilots only care about themselves, it's all about me, me, me...until the majority starts caring about eachother, for the good of the contract...we will continue to lose.

Hell, we can't even avoid something as simple as a disputed pairing!!!!

And by the way, yes, we have a great contract and are well compensated, but that wasn't always the case. Just about ALL the other majors at one time or another said the same thing, but they kept giving up a piece at a time, and now look at them...we are no different, and are headed in that direction. WE ARE NO DIFFFERENT.

Said it before and I'll say it again, we have no unity and our "UNION" is a paper tiger.

Truly pathetic...
magic rat is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices