Adlerdriver

I'm pretty sure this is false. Many airlines have a cap on credit hours for the month. I know a previous employer of mine did. Anything you picked up over the cap went into a bank that you could tap into in subsequent month to bring your pay up to the cap - but never more than that limit. Many airlines also completely segregate their reserve pilots. Those pilot have no access to open time at all and can't fly on their days off or drop R-days hoping to pick up trips. There was also no such thing as carryover.

My point is that these policies established at other airlines are not there at the behest of their management - However, our situation is, for sure. Those policies were established into other airline's CBA by their pilot union as a manpower enhancement. Plain and simple, airlines with those types of work rules need more pilots.

The fact that FedEx management managed to avoid having such work rules in the CBA is a feather in their cap. But, hardly the "perk" they are advertising it as. I guess they feel being able to do the work of 1.5 pilots each month at straight pay is some kind of selling point. Well, it is for them.

Brew Master

Well said

The current state of negotiations, managements intransigent position, and the dismal prospects for this coming peak do nothing but create a divide and will likely tarnish the good image of this company.

This whole process has become a sh!t show

Gunter

That's all they can come up because that's all they got.

They also claim they aren't "old school". Really?

Well....progressive companies are offering up to unlimited time off. That is the trend and what is wanted in todays modern workplace. FedEx offers more work (vacation sell back) as a prime benefit over and above other corporations because going to work should be your ultimate goal in life.

Family is optional.

I heard that with the FDA LOA stuff too. Didn't make any more sense then.

Going to work more days a month is not a pay raise or a benefit. Pilots looking for a job can tell what that is and don't list FedEx as #1 anymore.

But it does qualify as a "smart efficiency". Should increase management bonuses and stock price.

Chainsaw

well said!!

Dave Behnke

If you don't read very carefully and "consider" what they're saying, it's pretty hard to craft a cogent defense. This is ALL about legal mumbo-jumbo. Not sure what Courts or lawyers are like where you are, but everywhere I'm familiar with, they take a dim view if you wad up a proposal, throw it back at the other side and stalk off with your fist in the air. I, for one, expect them to carefully read every stupid azzed proposal those money-grubbing jag-offs send over, then craft very legally sound arguments to roll up and poke them in the eye with.

tomgoodman

That's how I remember it at Delta. Furthermore, if any pilots were furloughed, the cap was automatically reduced.

Dave Behnke

It's a terribly sad statement that anyone here thinks it's a benefit giving up extra off days to work at straight pay (carryover). Clearly, the management goombas have good reason to promote this, but every month the same group of retards fly extra at straight pay. Maybe this mental deficiency has now been integrated in the new hiring process as a positive trait. Having 7,000 hours or a non-linear pilot career = bad. Greedy retard = good.

TonyC

I'm not playing loosely with the facts at all. I'm not unsure, and it has nothing to do with social media. Council 7 published a communication that stated emphatically they would not consider an "A"-plan freeze. Block 1 Rep and Block 7 Rep signed it. My rep, Block 4, did not. I immediately e-mailed him, to ask why. His e-mail response was to call him. I did. I spent well over 5 minutes listening to him explain why he couldn't be in unity with the other two Local Council officers because he could never say never. He was willing to consider the possibility that there might be some sort of plan that involved some sort of freeze that might be advantageous to some of us.

I don't need a lecture about conquer and divide and unity from a Block Rep who can't bring himself to say "Hell no" to an "A" plan freeze of ANY hardness.

MD11hog can read his Block Rep's solo communication piece (which he published after I talked to him on the phone) and draw his own conclusions -- no need to assume where he got his information. You can read it, too. Visit Local Council 7


Back to your premise, "Your block reps (sic) job is to look at all proposals, good and bad." I disagree. If the proposal is to cut pay by 50%, it's a waste of time to consider it. If the proposal is to scrap the vacation system, please do not waste valuable time and union resources to consider it. If the proposal is to work an additional 5 days per month at straight pay, do not consider it. Some "proposals" are on their face concessionary, insulting, and unratifiable -- don't waste time considering them. They were not offered in good faith -- they do not deserve the consumption of our resources to consider.

Until a month ago, many pilots might have been interested in a "B"-fund with a big number, because most of us are not retirement experts. <GASP> I know, I know, we're pilots, we're experts in every field, right? Carpentry. Auto mechanics. Brain surgery. You name it. Since then, a number of educational articles have been published showing the folly of freezing the "A"-plan. I don't blame most pilots for not knowing that, but I do hold our elected representatives to a higher standard. I hold our R&I Committee to a higher standard. I hold our Negotiating Committee to a higher standard. I hold our former R&I Committee Chairman, a man who holds the highest national professional credentials, who once served as the ALPA National R&I Committee Chairman, the man who now serves as a de facto member of the Negotiating Committee because he is the MEC Chairman, to a higher standard. ANY and ALL of them should have recognized the folly of an "A"-plan freeze and should not have wasted valuable MEC Meeting time discussing it. The Negotiating Committee should have informed the MEC that The Company had offered such a plan, and that the Negotiating Committee had read it, thought about it, and rejected it in their counterproposal.

If the Block Rep is put in the position of considering every proposal, good or bad, we will NEVER get a TA.






.

TonyC

Do you think the Block Reps sit at the Negotiating Table, or that they review every piece of paper passed across it in either direction?


If the MEC can't trust the Negotiating Committee to negotiate, we have a big problem.






.

Gunter

I see that you're still trying to plant a seed of discontent.

It's not the NC I'm worried about, it's the MEC. As always, what a herd of cats. Sometimes they struggle to give clear guidance to that NC. It's up to us to make sure the reps that make the most sense are voted in to keep everything right.

But, in the end, the MEC always pull the strings. If the NC doesn't please the MEC, they send the NC back to the drawing board. They aren't supposed to blindly send some POS out for a vote. All this is part of the process. A process that lacked transparency during the DW era. The result was a bunch of nasty surprises for those without the right contacts to keep them informed.

We are just seeing is how the sausage is made this time. What we should have is "Trust but Verify."