Ah, "the trap." The Hong Kong pilots were accused of defrauding The Company, of receiving the housing allowance when they did not qualify for it. THAT trap.

It's the TRAP that led The Company to accuse pilots of not having relocated, or to accuse other pilots of UN-relocating. (No, I did not make that up. That is The Company's term. UNrelocate.)

In order to begin the flow of housing allowance, each pilot was required to certify to Captain Non-member BS, the Assistant Chief Pilot living over there, that they had met the requirements of the LOA -- the TRAP. Those requirements, those standards for determining whether the pilot had relocated were ... well, lemme just quote the LOA here:

"Standards for determining whether a pilot has relocated his permanent residence under this paragraph shall be the same as for full relocations under Section 6 of the Basic Agreement."


I've been told the same thing by more than one person who should know and who I trust. It came to my attention because Howie held my Block Rep's proxy and voted it the same way. Be careful, they may say they don't support it, but they DID vote to discuss it with The Company. They might tell us they just feel the need to discuss everything. Like, dude, if The Company wants to talk about an across the board 20% pay rate decrease, man, oh wow, maybe we need to discuss it with them, 'cuz, you know, like, we gotta negotiate in good faith, man, and maybe they have a way to make it up with extra Pringles in the catering, right? Coool. Duuuude. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but there are some things you should recognize on their face to be unworthy of discussion. It's a waste of time. The answer is 1 syllable, 2 letters, alphabetical order. N-O.



I agree -- it's not about Mike, or any individual, it's about 4,300 families and the representation they deserve. The job is not for the faint of heart. You won't see Mike giving it less than 100% of his best effort. Our families deserve it.



The MEC held a special meeting and considered the proper response to The Company's sweetening of the pot. One strategy was to stop the ratification vote and send the Negotiating Committee back to bargain for more. If The Company was so quick to enhance the LOA outside of bargaining, maybe we could get more at the table.

Another thought was that the enhancement should be codified, put in writing, and voted on. Without the deal in writing, The Company could withdraw the benefit as easily as it had offered it. Would the vote take place within the original LOA ratification, or as a follow-on vote?

The MEC voted 10-2 to memorialize the enhancement within the original LOA, so the LOA was changed well before the close of the membership ratification vote. The membership ratified LOA 1.1 by a large margin of the vote.






.

Three things about pilot unions I learned from Dave Webb and Wally Huggins.

1) My Negotiating Committee speaks for me.....No Direct Dealing

2) No one gets a pass, no one gets left behind......

3) Seat progression is not a pay raise.

HKG LOA's in all forms violated that and the MEC allowed it. I find it to be a dark set of days. I voted against...I'm in the 32% every single time.

The MEC should have taken them to court. Just like they should take the company to court every time it breaks status quo when we are in negotiations.....after all, the rules are there for when we don't want to follow them...and I find that to be a very "business-like" approach. If I had one issue with both Admins it's this.

What most people seem to forget is that the HKG LOA was negotiated outside of RLA Section 6 Negotiations. What that means is we had no tools available that we might have at our disposal during normal CBA negotiations.

We could not force The Company to negotiate in good faith.

We could not threaten to appeal to the NMB for mediation.

We could not avail ourselves of a process that might lead to self-help.

For that matter, we could not even force The Company to meet and discuss it with us at all.

Pilots were going to bid Hong Kong, no matter how bad the deal was, and The Company knew it. They did it when Subic Bay opened, and they'll do it again when The Company opens the B-767 base in HKG.

The Company only needed to make the deal sweet enough to attract enough bodies to fill the slots -- and they did.


Nobody has to bid HKG B-767 now. All 4,300 or so of us could bid something else, and NOBODY can be forced to go to an FDA. If you've ever dreamed of leverage, that would be it. We could write our own ticket on an FDA LOA, and probably even get them to put it in its own Section of the CBA so we can stop calling it a Letter. We could have a CBA that meets all our expectations and then some, ratified before Christmas.

Think that'll ever happen? If you do, NO, I don't want to know what you're smoking, and NO, I don't want any of it. I want to continue flying.

Is the FDA LOA perfect? Absolutely not, I've never heard anyone claim anything close to it. But without it, there would be no seed money, no monthly housing allowance, no education assistance, no monthly money for storage ... the list goes on. Without the LOA, you could get money on the front end, have your 2 cars and king-sized bed shipped over, and maybe get 'em shipped back. Of course, that deal is still available, but I don't know of a single person who has chosen that option. No, it seems that everyone prefers the deal created by the FDA LOA to what we had before.


But let's talk about 2014 and the current Council 26 Representative election.


Today we ARE in RLA Section 6 negotiations, and we can't even get something like an FDA LOA done. When The Company REALLY wants something, they'll add negotiation days to the calendar to git 'er done. Sure, we can give up wide-body seats by agreeing to the B-767F Implementation LOA. All pay for the "penalty" R-24 lines pay the wide-body rate. Well, except that all doesn't mean all in this instance. (I'm glad to hear that we're at least grieving that, finally.) Hey, didya see that posting for B-767 Flex Instructors? No? Eh, me neither. Guess they don't need them anymore -- narrowbody guys can teach those events on the cheap.


Nearly a year ago, our MEC stood before us in a Joint Council Meeting, donned their hats, and said "The Time is Now." Many of us followed the example and started wearing our hats. Well, here it is, nearly a year later, and where are we? We're still waiting for The Company to take PiBS off the table so we can engage in a meaningful discussion about work rules. If you think we'll see a TA before peak ... well, refer to the section above that begins with, "NO, I don't want to know ..."

Our families deserve better. You keep saying what we have is working. "about as well as it can" is what you said, I believe. It's not. It can be better, and we deserve better.






.

Jakal,

I also received phone calls from WR, usually for bashing DW and company on this board. He basically told me he thought that if I was going to make anti-DW allegations that I owed him the courtesy of standing up at a Union meeting and saying that to his face.

I told him that he knew I was a frequent Union Meeting Attendee and that I would be glad to honor his request.

I don't want to rehash old Union news and politics. So far as I'm concerned ... the current Administration is simply adequate. It's to bad that we weren't in the position we're in now (finally starting to picket!) a year ago!*?

I'm unhappy about how AGE 65 turned out (several of my UAL Capt. neighbors went to Capitol Hill to lobby as ALPA Reps.), 4.a.2.b show be illegal, it sounds like ALPA abandoned the HK4, we're overdue for a BIG PAY RAISE! We need to improve Retirement as incentive to get folks over 60 to GO AWAY! It seems like almost nobody retired at AGE 60 in the last 6 years?

It's time for a change. We need good leadership! Maybe PC & BM will retire and we'll get Pro-Union folks in those jobs? (Yes ... I know they are both prior Union guy?)


MM :eek:

We didn't hear about a crappy FDA LOA until it was out for a vote. Not only that, but it was sold like it was a great deal.

Like someone else said, if someone has DW stink on them we should still be suspicious. Why? Because they did some bad stuff!! They won't even acknowledge the error.

Don't expect these people to announce their bad intentions. You have to ferret them out if you want to find them.

Didn't SS come from the DW regime? Are you suspicious of him?

No one is above suspicion. You have to talk to everyone who is running the union and get to know them. Find out what their priorities are and where they want to take us.

[QUOTE=Laughing_Jakal;1750531]Three things about pilot unions I learned from Dave Webb and Wally Huggins.

1) My Negotiating Committee speaks for me.....No Direct Dealing

2) No one gets a pass, no one gets left behind......

3) Seat progression is not a pay raise.

Uh, no on point 2: The non members we're grandfathered in and would never be required to pay dues, so yes they got a free pass. And as far as no one being left behind, block 11 surely was. I was in the meeting when Webb and Huggins were there. They knew what they did to block 11.

[QUOTE=V1VR;1750639]Yeah, block 11 was hosed so bad they left in droves didn't they? If I remember correctly at the time instructors were making almost double what the line pilot was and they got to sleep in their own bed every night!

Uh, don't know about the rest of you, but I like well paid, happy training force. Make it competitive, and get the guys and gals who want to teach. If there is no advantage to working there, we'll have a room full of Barney Fife's looking to grind their axe.

2006 Contract made training less of a good deal. Right or wrong, their was a perception that they got "left out" on that deal.

Not a flex, LCA, with no intentions of doing the job. Just pointing out this LINE guy likes fat, happy, flexes and LCAs. I figure it works best for everyone….YMMV.

Why should we listen to you; who was chancellor when you served in the Imperial Senate? I am not listening till I know if you are DWs right hand man or SSs gopher.:rolleyes:

Just like DW said when asked about no one bidding FDAs during the hub turn meeting…. the company will hire those chinese (or was it Irish) pilots to move the freight. :eek:

To paraphrase DW, the company would hire DEC for HK if no one bid it. As is allowed by the contract. Then one negotiated by DW. You know, the one where he presciently backed the company into this corner for us. :rolleyes:

I don't know if I totally agree with you there Albie. Make it too good of a deal and guys will do it just for the money. The worst instructors I ever had anywhere were on the 727. It was obvious that a lot of them were there just for the paycheck and didn't have the skills or temperament to be an instructor.

I think there needs to be a happy medium. Enough to attract guys who really like to teach but not so much that guys will do it just for the extra pay.

And why do they have to "qualify"? Why did DW and his admin rely on CBA language that the company drives a truck through? Why did he leave this whole in the LOA? If DW was really interested in this, the language would have been better thought out like the diverting the scope payments to "retirement incentives" ($25K VEBA payment) for those over 53 years of age with no penalty if they do not retire. There were other references to the age change in the negotiated CBA, so it's not like they didn't think about the regulated age change. But I guess something like, you get the prorated amount of money when you retire prior to 65 was too complicated. I guess the company demanded they pay it to all over 53 guys immediately! It was more of a "give away" than an "incentive"?

I understand the company wanted more availablitiy from the crews, the company should pay for it. It is cheaper than over hiring to fill the vacancies.

I do get that your spinning things to get those who think like you back in power. This is not a personal attack on you.

So, did the junior deserve flying a 757 for 727 pay? Or was it that the senior deserved A380 pay? what is the benefit for the junior to have a 90 day STV for HK instead of just working up the list until starting over? Only the junior should protect all the FedEx FDA freight? Did city purity letter get advertised with the TA? How did the grid penalty help out the domestic system? What about bidding 777 when the "company has a hand in our pocket"? The list could go on!

It is easy to criticize decisions with hind sight, isn't that what your doing about SS.

Disclaimer: I am not a SS fan. But I do remember the past and how DW treated those not in his special group. Everyone pays dues & everyone should be represented.

Tony still thinks we could have lost HKG flying to the Chinese. Don't try to convince him otherwise. Ignore the Asia pilot shortage. Of course BC said we'd be too junior to hold them so we should just shut up and color.

Since then the FDAs are suddenly giving us leverage. Never mind we gave them away on the cheap.

This is why people like DW and BC needed to go. They started to believe company threats and were willing to sell out the many to ensure gains for a few.

The threat of out sourced flying has always been the big question mark that only the company (if even they knew :rolleyes:) could answer. My take in past conversations with Webb or BC (can't remember which) was that the union wanted to get us in, codify our place in doing this flying, and lock in our rights to do so. Keeping the Chinese and Irish out was as important if not more so, than how good a package we could negotiate with Fedex.
In negotiations, whether section 6 or LOA's, we have always been behind the 8 ball. Lots of reasons, all spelled out in gory detail on this and other threads in this blog. Whether ALPA could have or should have pushed harder (and its only supposition that it would have been successful), just remember no matter how you voted on the FDA LOA(s), no matter whether the union should have asked/demanded more; remember: NO ONE HAS BEEN FORCED TO BID INTO A FOREIGN DOMICILE .
I feel bad for anyone living in a high cost environment with open, loosely interpreted language dictating lifestyle issues. The LOA's have not been prefect, the union and company, for differing reasons have pushed or accepted improvements. Still, if you don't like or didn't like the terms you could have avoided going.

Caveat emptor

Quote. " Some guys are like birds and you have to throw rocks to get them to fly. Few years ago, I was asked to help on a committee....one of the people talking to me about it claimed one of the benefits was trip removal....I had reservations to begin with.....that sealed the deal I said "no". There are guys out there that look at ALPA as a career alternative to flying, like some look at Management as a career.

..... but if their aspirations is a "counterrevolution" to reinstall the 'rightful heirs' of the previous administration I don't think we have time for that."

Thank you for these poignant thoughts. I could not have written them better myself. Here, here.

[QUOTE=MaxKts;1750655]I love it when someone argues with me and they prove my point.

Max, you didn't deny my point, you just said in essence the Flex's deserved it. And you didn't deny that the non-member's were given a free pass.

Though some made a killing, it was because they did a ton of overtime, trading days off for cash. The schoolhouse should be manned higher but it isn't. But your blanket "...the instructors were making almost double..." is nonsense. A few of them did, just like a few WB Capt's do.

That they sleep in their own beds: MINT and Training Scheduling can't put together good commuting schedules. The result is a large pool of qualified people will not apply. So locals do it, and yes they sleep at home. Some do commute though.

The $800-$1100 starting Flex pay has been the same since 1986. That's no typo.

As far as leaving, some did. I did. But the contract change stated 3 months (6 at company discretion) notice was required to be given, versus the previous 1. Your attitude says: if it was so bad, why don't you leave? Nice. WH said that outright, I was there. Good attitude for a Union rep. Would that be something you'd want your Union rep to tell you? Hey, if you don't like your int'l override, don't fly it? If you don't like FDA, don't bid it? If you don't want to DH on a company jet, don't bid those trips? I don't think so.

We're all in this together. Sorry you don't feel that way.

I can't vote for Block 11 any more. But if a Flex votes for M.A., he's a fool.

Ummm.... No......... Sorry, Mike and his agenda have been tried, challenged and rejected by US, the crew force......twice. Interesting DC.....you say you wont defend DW or his administration, yet you do precisely that. You say ARCO is not Webb........i agree, not the same Man.....but certainly the same direction, belief and philosophy. I give the same message for the members of the blocks in question......pay attention.......know what/whom you vote for. Mike is not it, he failed/sold us before......nothing has changed. It is really important for us now to pay attention and not be split/divided/distracted by candidates that will divide........ad nauseum.

I respect that you see the Webb administration as a fail. Its very hard to "win" at anything in labor relations, let alone when you represent college educated pilots working for one of the most astute (mostly) non union companies in the country. Mike worked with Webb, Webb was and continues to be a lighting rod of dissent. I would suggest you talk to Mike about his positions, his defense of his past involvement with ALPA and attempting to get a contract that more than a bare majority were willing to vote for.
Working for pilots is a tough, thankless job. Not every decision meets with a unanimous approval :eek: :rolleyes: nor every decision in hindsight look as good as it should have. I suggest you go right to the source.

Here's the way I remember it (pretty clearly actually!) ...

Dave Webb and Bob Chimenti thought that they (BOTH OF THEM!) deserved "special" A380 pay! If that meant that 757 pilots got narrow body pay, well, that was just fine with them!*?

And I vividly remember Bob Chimenti standing up at more than one Union meeting and saying that he would retire under the current contract and that he intended to fix his (OWN!) retirement ... he did that!

I'll have to thank them both the next time I see them.

Now back to regularly scheduled programming. Anyone that has the "Dave Webb stench" on them I will personally work to NOT GET ELECTED!


:eek:

Just curious...Were you at FDX in 1989?

Really? Did you really just ask that?

A pilot cannot simply ask for and receive every kind of special pay in the CBA. If he wants Instructor overerride, he has to qualify by being an Instructor. If he wants to get paid for a move, he has to certify that he actually moved. The CBA says The Company may ask for, and the pilot must produce, documents verifying that he really moved. Sales contract, purchase contract, vehicle registration, voter registration, all are some examples of the types of documents The Company may ask for or accept. That's the same paragraph referenced in the FDA LOA. The pilot was asked to produce Lease Agreement, utility bills, or other documents to prove he had established his residence, and the Assistant Chief Pilot looked at them and started the pay. Simple as that.



First, it wasn't a retirement incentive. It was intended to remove an impediment to retiring. You may think it's a subtle difference, but it's significant. We don't pay people to retire.

Second, Google VEBA. Sure, I agree that the guys who chose to not retire didn't really need the money for its intended purpose. But much like you lose control over money when you place it in a trust, if you try to place conditions on the use of money held in a VEBA trust, you'd run into Age discrimination issues.

I would be in favor of a vehicle to remove the impediment to retirement that only goes to the pilot when he retires. Do you know a legal way to do that?



What would you call a B-757? The choices under our CBA were Wide-Body, Narrow-Body, or other. Can you make a convincing argument that the B-757 is anything other than a narrow-body?


I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking. In the first place, the way the STV is structured so a pilot can take his family on The Company's dime, including round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, I doubt junior guys would be able to hold them. But for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and nobody wants to do them. That's where your "working up the list until starting over" objection doesn't make sense.

In the original and the first revision of the FDA LOA (the one we voted on), a junior pilot could not be inversed to an STV more than once in 6 times the duration of the STV. In other words, not more than 1 month out of 6 months. Since the window of opportunity for STVs is so narrow (only 24 months when opening or 540 days when closing the FDA base), the most junior pilot wouldn't see very many months of STV. The same pilot, however, might find himself inversely awarded a SIBA slot over and over and over and find himself in the same country flying with fewer benefits that the STV.

In other words, STV does work up the list for 6 months before starting over. SIBA never has to work up the list.





Do you count future hires to be in his special group? He protected them by refusing to engage in discussions about a Defined Contribution plan for all future pilots. Do you count Over-60 Flight Engineers in his "special group"? He protected them by ensuring that they would have ALL their seniority rights when the Regulated Change occurred. So, what do you mean by how he treated those not in his group?

I'm focused on right now, what's being done and what's not being done. Are you happy with the way Contract Negotiations are going? Does it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that we can't even have a mature discussion about work rules because The Company has refused to take PIBS off the table?

I'm not satisfied with that. I think we can do better, and we deserve it.






.

[QUOTE=TonyC;1752651]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking. In the first place, the way the STV is structured so a pilot can take his family on The Company's dime, including round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, I doubt junior guys would be able to hold them. But for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and nobody wants to do them. That's where your "working up the list until starting over" objection doesn't make sense.

In the original and the first revision of the FDA LOA (the one we voted on), a junior pilot could not be inversed to an STV more than once in 6 times the duration of the STV. In other words, not more than 1 month out of 6 months. Since the window of opportunity for STVs is so narrow (only 24 months when opening or 540 days when closing the FDA base), the most junior pilot wouldn't see very many months of STV. The same pilot, however, might find himself inversely awarded a SIBA slot over and over and over and find himself in the same country flying with fewer benefits that the STV.

In other words, STV does work up the list for 6 months before starting over. SIBA never has to work up the list.


I'll bet you still wonder why you got recalled. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=FXDX;1752680] Actually in the original and 1st version of the loa it was 90 day STVs. We voted on LOA service pak 3.

No, we voted on v. 2. I have pretty detailed records, being the new guy on the MEC trying to keep up.






.

Wouldn't the original and the 1st version be the same thing?


So, LAG's service pak 3 would be version 2. I think.

[QUOTE=Busboy;1752820]Don't ask me I paraphrasing off the guy in front of me. Actually the LOA's were changed daily, it would be very hard for even tony to define what made loa versions 1 - 10. But the good news is I think you can still change your vote.

Of those who are eligible to vote you will be quite relieved to discover that Stratton, Webb, and Chimenti are not on the ballot. Shocking to me is that no one seems to support Arco's opposition. In fact his support is akin to his representation.

No one has e.mailed or called Arcamuzi and asked about the LOA...but if you did you might be surprised what he has to say. You are looking for answers that no one on here can give you.

What I do know is that his passion, enthusiasm, and effort these past four years in the school house has earned him an active and involved support group of over twenty pilots. The group spans all three blocks, all fleet types, FOs and CAs, and many former opponents. Why? Because he is capable and willing to do the job and we need a good rep! So in fact you can change your vote. You can also talk to Airbus instructors, training managers, and members of the curriculum re-write group all who will speak clearly to his character, enthusiasm, commitment to pilots, and already active representation of the membership while not in an elected role.

Well, if my reading comprehension is any good. Yes, yes I did! Thank you for asking!

Remember this started with HKFlyr insinuated that DW and his administration had no responsibility for the HK4. Not a personal attack on you HKFlyer, or you TonyC. Just stating an opinion. I agree, that the HK4 were not treated the way any of us hoped, but DW was part of setting the trap. Not really worth arguing who is "more" responsible. Just think the whole situation was bad, and wish things were done better so the situation did not occur.

And if the crew force did not "want" to move there, they didn't have too! Management wanted to reduce costs by eliminating SIBA, and increase crew availability (saving even more money). DW negotiated the LOA v1. Then management started direct dealing with the crew force while it was out for a vote, fearing it would fail based on the extremely negative response it received. The paltry allowance was a tremendous concession considering the cost savings, increased availability of the crew force, and at the cost of unity within the union ranks. The direct dealing demonstrates that DW did not put 100% thought and effort into it, and why he shares responsibility for the HK4. So, yes I think if you bid HK you should get the housing allowance. If the company doesn't care if my spouse lives with me while domiciled in MEM, it shouldn't matter if I'm domiciled in HK either. There should be nothing to "qualify" except you are domiciled out of HK, PERIOD. The housing allowance should be to make the FDA cost of living equivalent to living in the US, just like the company tax equalization program makes our taxes the same as if we are in the states! Why did DW & you endorse this discrimination? I guess that train truly "left the station". :cool:


The issues is the with how DW diverted the scope penalty that is distributed to all union members according to the CBA to fund the $25K that was "an incentive to retire." You skipped past this part in your reply by accident? :rolleyes: I was at the hub meeting when DW & BC discussed it using those terms. And there is no loss of control with a trust, actually it is required to be used exactly for the purpose it was created for. Companies provide retirement incentives all the time without any legal issues. Delta allowed pilots to retire early, was that discrimination? If you are FORCED to retire before the regulated age while others are not, you are a victim of age discrimination. Volunteering to take an incentive that "removes an impediment" is not. Remember the money is not being "paid to retire", it is to offset the cost of health care. ;) Just like the DW administration wanted. DW didn't pay people to retire, he paid those over age 53 money to "remove an impediment to retiring" with money obligated by the CBA to be paid to all members in good standing. When someone asked about those younger than 53 on the signing date, DW said that age 53 was used to provide the union enough time for them to negotiate a similar deal in the next contract. That is a Ponzi scheme! How did that work out for Bernie? This Ponzi scheme is very unpalatable. Perhaps the qualification of "over 53" was age discrimination.

Perfect segway, this should educational for many here and make them even more disappointed in the DW administration and better prepared to judge the TA when it eventually is presented. (BOLD added to emphasis what you & DW omitted in the discussion of VEBA)

Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association Plan (VEBA) Definition | Investopedia

"DEFINITION OF 'VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION PLAN - VEBA'
A tax-free post-retirement medical expense account used by retirees and their eligible dependents to pay for any eligible medical expenses. The plan is funded by the amount of unused sick leave that an employee has at the time of retirement, which is contributed by the employer into the plan. The benefit of this plan is the amount of sick leave left at retirement is paid out in full to the plan and is not subject to tax, which would reduce the amount one would receive."


So, the $0.50 per credit hour could have been one source of funding VEBA with the other from your unused sick leave? INTERESTING! And perhaps the scope penalty on top of that! something we all benefit from! Wow, that…might…lead...to…unity!

I guess you, DW, & BC missed that part of the definition.

I can't claim to be as snarky of a poster as you are Tony, but here is my feeble attempt!

FIXED IT FOR YOU!

At the time of C2006, CAL had different pay scales for different sizes of similar narrow bodies. The bigger version of the B-737 paid more than the smaller versions. Same for the B-757. Guess FedEx couldn't emulate that. Who would have guessed that an airplane with a tremendous increase in volume at greatly reduced operating cost would not end up a significant portion of the fleet? DW and his cronies thats who. The B-777 increases efficiency as well, but guess the junior do not need to benefit from the increased efficiency they way the senior pilots needed to benefit from the "senior" aircraft. A good tide raises all boats, not just the senior ones.

The CBA references Narrow-Body and Wide-Body. Why was it difficult to follow the same philosophy with an Ultra-Long Range category. The lack critical thinking cost the union big $ in the CBA and the grievance filed afterward. For the junior, we lost an opportunity to be paid more to fly a bigger airplane for both the B-757 & B-777.


Again, speeding past the reality of life. Pilots do not "bid to take his family on The Company's dime" on their monthly schedules, except when they want too. 90 days is a very long "bid to take his family on the Company's dime." So to the senior it "may" be a good deal for those dreaming of a Parisian vacation, but you get the choice. But DW forced this 90 day "good deal" to HK during the winter on the junior, regardless of their own schedule. Most pilots have obligations where they live, which is why they live there. Whether it is kids in school, spouses that work, doesn't really matter. If you were worried about the junior pilots having more "family time", negotiate to shorten the years of service to accrue vacation!

I addressed this earlier, please see above about how v. 2 came about. If you have pretty detailed records, use them the first time. Otherwise someone might get the impression you putting a spin on past actions.

DW negotiated v. 1, which was for 90 days! Way to long of a "good deal" to force on anyone.

Well, it is obvious you did not understand what I was saying. Sorry I didn't communicate it better. Why should it start over at the bottom after any amount of time, instead of continuing up the list? What is the thought for forcing the junior pilots to endure an involuntary assignment more than once, when others are not sharing in the pain of protecting the FDA freight? Protecting the freight from foreign pilots is everyone's responsibility, not just the junior. Just like everyone should not volunteerily fly DPs, not just the junior! Learning form the quote "a good tide raises all boats". "When the tide is low all boats should become beached". That builds unity, while still respecting seniority. Guess this is too radical of an idea.

I said 1st revision, he said first version ... there are so many broken quotes (misattributed quotes) and confusing descriptions I've lost track of who said what.

The original FDA LOA says The Company can use during the first 2 years when the base is opening and for a period of 540 days during a base closure, Special Temporary Vacancies of 1 to 3 months. If they are assigned to a junior pilot in reverse seniority order, they can only be assigned once in a period of six times the length of the STV. So, 1 month STV, only once in six months. So, for month 2, The Company would have to work their way further up the seniority list.

A number of pilots raised concerns that they might be involuntarily sent to an FDA for 90 days. Our System Chief Pilot assured us he would only use 30-day STVs if he had to inverse pilots. AlbieF15 told me he could not support the FDA LOA with the threat of 90-day "junior man" STVS, but if it were changed to 30 days, he could support it.

DW, Vice President, Labor Relations Law, addressed the concern and sent us a letter assuring us that they would limit themselves to one month for pilots who were inversely assigned to an STV, and if we agreed, they would consider the FDA LOA language modified accordingly.

The MEC met, considered it, and accepted it, and THAT version (what I prefer to call 1.1) is what was originally ratified by membership vote.

The next version, what I call 2.0, came a year later. In it, The Company agreed to pay for visa fees, bumped the moving allowance from 500# to 1,000#, provided deposit assistance for beginning a lease, as well as a few other things.

It also included the "Ongoing Implementation Measures" feature that allows the MEC Chairman to codify changes without getting membership vote.



I feel so refreshed after digging through all that -- so, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah -- the Block 11 Rep.


Webb's not on the ballot. I haven't heard a whole lot of bragging about the incumbent, and really not much negative about Arcamuzi, other than he served when Webb was serving.

Maybe it would be helpful to discuss what the incumbent has done, why his track record to date makes him more qualified to lead us to the successful conclusion of CBA negotiations.






.

I think that if a pilot can't figure use out how to use the quote function correctly, then they shouldn't be allowed to post an f'ed up quote attributed to someone else.

The only thing that changed between the original FDA LOA and the one that was voted on was the length of an inverse STV. As I stated above, that was by agreement between The Company and The Association, first agreed to by your elected representatives, the MEC, and then ratified by membership vote.

That is not direct dealing.


I bid Hong Kong. I commuted. I did not lease an apartment. Do you think I should have gotten the Rental Allowance?



Apparently you aren't too familiar with the actual workings of a Ponzi scheme. That's certainly NOT what the Health Reimbursement Account was. The HRA was funded by a VEBA with a $25,000 cash payment per pilot by The Company. The pilot gets the money, with accrued interest, on his 59th birthday. Having that money to offset medical costs until the pilot qualifies for Medicare removes an impediment to retiring.



Well, here's a problem. Instead of finding the definition of a generic VEBA, you've pulled one off of Investopedia, and it's not what we have. The HSA (Pre-Medicare) VEBA is not funded with unused sick leave -- it was funded by a $25,000 cash payment by The Company, per pilot.

Then ...


That's because, A) you're using a bad definition, and B) you have your VEBAs confused. The $0.50 per credit hour goes into a different VEBA, also not funded by unused sick leave, to be used by EVERY pilot once he reaches Medicare eligibility, to supplement his "post-Medicare" health care costs.

AS many times as we've gone over this, it still amazes me that college-educated pilots can't figure out we have 2 separate VEBAs for 2 different purposes.


Good for CAL. We're not CAL. The rest of this conversation is pointless.


90-day Inverse STVs were dinosaurs before the membership voted. How many STVs has The Company ever used? Zero. You were afraid you'd get drafted, and Dave Webb was certain you wouldn't. Who was right?




Well, I was there, I have originals, markups, meeting minutes, resolutions ... I'm just telling you what happened.


Like I said. Webb said junior guys wouldn't have to worry about being inversed to an STV. It looks like he was right after all.






.

[QUOTE=TonyC;1752651]Really? Did you really just ask that?

First, it wasn't a retirement incentive. It was intended to remove an impediment to retiring. You may think it's a subtle difference, but it's significant. We don't pay people to retire.

Semantics and you know it.

Second, Google VEBA. Sure, I agree that the guys who chose to not retire didn't really need the money for its intended purpose. But much like you lose control over money when you place it in a trust, if you try to place conditions on the use of money held in a VEBA trust, you'd run into Age discrimination issues.

I would be in favor of a vehicle to remove the impediment to retirement that only goes to the pilot when he retires. Do you know a legal way to do that?

Then it is age discrimination that this VEBA was for 53 and older. The money could have been put in the VEBA trust and paid out when a person retired if he went at 60 the full 25k plus interest if at 63 10k with interest and if at 65 nothing. It could have been broken down in monthly amounts or daily for example. Any left over funds would be seed money for the discriminated people under 53 to have the same options. This could have simply been the restrictions applied to the plan much like the 53 old cutoff.


I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking. In the first place, the way the STV is structured so a pilot can take his family on The Company's dime, including round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, I doubt junior guys would be able to hold them. But for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and nobody wants to do them. That's where your "working up the list until starting over" objection doesn't make sense.

In the original and the first revision of the FDA LOA (the one we voted on), a junior pilot could not be inversed to an STV more than once in 6 times the duration of the STV. In other words, not more than 1 month out of 6 months. Since the window of opportunity for STVs is so narrow (only 24 months when opening or 540 days when closing the FDA base), the most junior pilot wouldn't see very many months of STV. The same pilot, however, might find himself inversely awarded a SIBA slot over and over and over and find himself in the same country flying with fewer benefits that the STV.

In other words, STV does work up the list for 6 months before starting over. SIBA never has to work up the list.

Respectfully with SIBA you do not have to say in theater for the whole bid month you are deadheaded home. Allowing anyone to forced to leave commitments to friends and family at home for even a full month is wrong. Also the same guys said the domicile would go senior and the junior guys would not be able to hold it.


I'm focused on right now, what's being done and hat's not being done. Are you happy with the way Contract Negotiations are going? Does it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that we can't even have a mature discussion about work rules because The Company has refused to take PIBS off the table?

I'm not satisfied with that. I think we can do better, and we deserve it.

I personally think the big difference is you are on the outside now and not privy to all the secret discussions like you were while you are a block rep. I have only always been on the outside and this administration not any different, except comm is better. Then and now many discussions and decisions are made in secret that the rest of the crewforce are not privy too.

I think you are a good guy and really want what is best for us as I do we just see many things differently.

I wish it were that simple. It is, really, until you start talking to the ERISA attorney.



Look in the CBA for an animal called "Temporary Vacancy". The Company can send a Memphis MD-11 guy to Anchorage or Los Angeles for 3 months, or a Memphis B-767 to Indy for 3 months ... anybody to any non-FDA base. The provisions are remarkably similar, yet there was no outcry about TVs during any CBA ratification vote.

I don't know how many times I've heard this, and I don't know how many times I've tried to correct it, but I'll try once more. Nobody said the VACANCIES in the FDA would go senior. I expected them to be filled primarily by guys already in Subic Bay. What was said was that the STVs would go senior. Since we've never had an STV, I guess we can't prove or disprove that prediction, can we?



I think we can both live with that. ;) It makes for more lively discussion over cold drinks.






.

Not true. DW said exactly that thru emails to more than one person. For the record.

One can commute to Alaska, California, even Indiana. My objection to the STV concept is the company wanted pilots on a short lease sitting around begging to pick up open time. It was not a smart move by the union because it allowed the company to do more flying with less pilots at straight pay. Much like the reason behind the company's harassment of current FDA pilots. They want them sitting around their 600 sq foot closet hawking open time. I wanted to be an airline pilot, particularly a FDX airline pilot, to do what I wanted where I wanted to do it on my days off.

There was a reason that Subic was not included on your list of Temporary Vacancy locations. And as I recall the people they sent over to Subic to augment got very lucrative SIBA trips. The company was punished for not manning the base appropriately not rewarded.

One can commute to Hong Kong. I did, several did, several are.


It's not my list, but of course there's a reason. Subic was an FDA. Temporary Vacancies are for non-FDA bases.






.

And yet we wonder why the Company always wins on "plain language" in arbitration.

What is a "short lease" anyway? A lease of less than a year, or a month to month lease of only Februarys? I just don't get it.:rolleyes: