Gunter

Like when I vote for the president of the U.S. he is MY president and I'm responsible for HIS behavior?

Actually, yes, any organization IS a separate entity. Having a vote doesn't make it wholly responsible to all of the membership all the time. "They" can't do that. We are not a homogenous group. That is why they call it leadership and not groupthink by committee. No I don't think anyone should be voted out.

Don't mistake my *****ing about lack of information as a ***** claiming woe is me or ALPA is out to get me. It is an imperfect organization. Always has been and always will be, like all other organizations. Senior dudes will always get more consideration. Junior guys will always be expected to pick up a little slack. We get a little less outa of the organization. Maybe cause they give less $$$ per month to keep up the place.

But I bet the guys filing grievances would not be so fired up if they just knew what the rules were about bidding before they did it. I might be wrong on this one. But with the rules in hand no one should *****. There should be no expectation that awards could be perfectly fair to everyone. The imperfect nature of it at FedEx makes that impossible. I'm perfectly o.k. with that.

Just don't hide some of the rules until after I bid. And try not to be disrespectful when honest questions are asked.

TonyC

We've got an election coming up. Wanna be MEC President?



Do I hear a nomination?






.

Busboy

I just think it's funny that we all biatch about what our union does.

Yet, only about a third of us vote in the elections. So in essence, our union is run by the minority.

And, what, maybe 5-7%(just a guess) of us volunteer, to do the work.

Trust me, I'm not happy with many of the things happening lately. And, I've let my elected leaders know it. And, when the time comes to elect block reps, again...I remember. And, I vote.

I don't know who on this forum does the same. But...

1) If you aren't a member, it doesn't matter what you think.
2) If you are a member, and don't let your rep know what you think. It doesn't matter what you think.
3) If you didn't vote in your block Rep's election...I don't care what you think.

At least...That's what I think

Lifizgud

My take is this: I don't like when people suck up all the disputed pairings - it gives the association no ammo in trying to look out for us. I also don't like when the association gives us guidance not to bid ANC unless you want to go there for a tour (they rightfully don't want guys DHing for 7 hours to turn into a trip, and they were negotiating a move package). They then allowed the people who didn't lock shoulders and banked on a touch and go up there get it. The unity suffers, and the message I get is, 'well, if they don't kick and scream on this issue and back up their original guidance, why WON'T people just do what they want anyway?' That makes unity non-existent and the association weak. I for one have tried to do what's been asked, directly or otherwise for the good of unity. For some people, that just cost them a lot of money. The young guys don't have the clout like the older guys, but that's a lot of coin from a young guy and it's not hard to poison the well.

fedupbusdriver

The bottom line in my opinion, is that if they cancel training dates for some who fall under two different bids, then they should cancel for all. The guys who bid ANC in the prior bid, and are then awarded MEM in a second bid should have to stay in their original seat and train in order with the other MEM awarded pilots. If their interest is to get out of the ANC bid, then they can get in line for training with the others who didn't bid ANC. If their intent is to get widebody pay as soon as possible, then they should stay with the ANC bid.

SNAFU

None of that changes the requirement of same seat (and domicile), same bid to trigger passover pay. I'm still not sure why anybody got 150 for anything.

There really wasn't any ambiguity, just a lack of understanding of the contract. You can bet that the company understands the contract better and is more capable of using it to their advantage than the average (or above average for that matter) line pilot.

And yeah, if you want widebody pay above all else, bid ANC.

Poor treatment from the union and its employees, however, is inexcusable.

Coffee Bitch

SNAFU, if you read all the posts in this thread, one point is losing your old bid when you get a new award. Prior to ALPA negotiating this in the company's favor, NOTHING IN CH24 OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE CONTRACT states this. We have read the contract. The company chose to treat pilots on the same bid, with the same aircraft, with the same seat, and in the same domicile DIFFERENTLY. If thats OK with you, you are in the majority of the ALPA MEC negotiators. I think another stance should have been taken, but most importantly I think the 200 or so pilots affected by this should have been given some information other than "guys just wait until the JR guy activates" and then negotiate it away with out telling anyone anything.

As far as your Non-Ambiguity statement....Everyone, Company and the Association, have both stated that passover pay has many "Gray Areas", so I'm glad it's crystal clear to you. Maybe you can explain why some lost their previous bid and others kept theirs.....and please reference the contract since it "wasn't any ambiguity"? I am still waiting for the association to clear that up, two MEC members have promised me an answer but 3 weeks later NOTHING. I am Not saying it's not there, just saying after 3-4 hours in Ch 24 and others, a stupid, ignorant, brainless, un-educated pledge/sherpa who has only been here 18 months and is way too JR to have an opinion cannot find it (i.e. ME).

Many salient points in this whole process. But like I said in earlier posts.....thanks to the association it's no longer a gray area now. If your JR, bid Subic/ANC knowing you may get a lateral bid prior to going to school. So instead of the company chosing to treat people with the same bid differently, they can now do it with out any ambiguity because of the associations negotiated agreement. If you agree with that you may not have thought out the possibilities. (still a gamble though)

One thing the company DOES know better than us is how the association will lean on an issue. Like the majority of ALPA members against the age 65 rule, yet the MEC and ALPA National sit back and do not support the majority. Why? senior pilots (minority) want it!!! If you think it's a 2 year process and we need to sit back and wait, and evaluate as Wally mentions.....I suggest the JR pilots take out stock in K-Y Jelly and bend over, STANDARD. There has been a vote on this issue, if thats a problem, lets vote again. I do not want my MEC to make the AGE 65 position decision in a vacuum, elected officials or not. By ALPA not taking a stance, by not engaging for the majority, they have made their decision to let it just happen. Lets put some of our Association dues to work for the majority. What a concept. Sorry about swithing gears, this subject should go into another thread.

SNAFU

CB: We are in violent AGREEMENT is many of these issues, particularly the last one you brought up.

I have no problem with the company working the rules of the CBA to their advantage. We all do (or should) the same.

The union has mishandled this event tremendously, and I have serious heartburn with Dave and Wally sending out missives from their pulpit about how we should all get along while they knife the younger/junior guys in the back.

They should never have worked a backdoor deal affecting 200 guys without full membership notification and awareness. We are on the same page there.

The passover issue has been beaten to death the past couple of years though, and the consensus has been that transfers don't trigger passover pay. I obviously don't have all the info that the guys affected or the union officials have, but it has seemed pretty clear to me that the ANC-MEM guys weren't causing passover pay. Canceling training slots and such should be done uniformly, so I guess if there were discrepancies there people might get a bit hacked off. Again, the union has treated is members poorly here, more so than the company.

There is definitely an atmosphere at FedEx that the new guys should be seen and not heard, that is probably true at most carriers and I think is a definite result of the probationary year and the fact that most new guys also get stuck in the back of the Boeing where nobody can hear them anyway.

Getting that kind of treatment from the union officials is pretty pathetic and completely inappropriate. I am pretty disgusted with the local and national leadership of ALPA lately, makes me almost embarrassed to be a member.

I don't mean to cause any more hate and discontent, I hope that you all get your widebody training soon. I also hope that our union leaders and employees will take realize the thin ice they are treading on.

Daniel Larusso

CB is correct in that despite what the contract says, this is/was a grey area. If you talk to people who have been around contracts and contract negotiations, you will often hear something to the effect of 'It ain't a contract, until it has been successfully tested by the grievance process'. This was no different and 'consensus' has nothing to do with it. While what is written in the contact seems pretty clear, the most recent grievance process test(s) have not been. FPA/ALPA lawyers essentially argued Snafu's base transfer interpretation 5 years ago, while the company argued CB's superceeding bid argument as an absolute. Because the arb. never ruled that decision was still out there before this last round. ALPA is never at a loss for smooth/smart sounding terms for is typically bad or at least unsettling news, which brings us to the 'global settlement' of outstanding grievances with the new contract.

ALPA says they are doing this because it is standard practice after a new deal is issued to get rid of outstanding business for a fresh start. Reality is it goes back to what I was saying about it's not a contract until it's been successfully interpreted. The process of implementing a new contract is more than just programming pay rates and work rules. It's about final contractual language and the interpretation of what that language means. Often times one party(usually the company) will say that is not really what they meant when they signed off on clause X,Y, or Z. The two sides argue, and either decide on an acceptable meaning or go to arbitration. Some companies even agree to an expedited grievance process during the contract implementation period(to my knowledge FedEx has not). What is interesting is that whatever the outcome is, there rarely is any change to whatever the written contract language in question was. So unless the union publishes updated contract legality guides, has some sort of interpretation section on their website, or otherwise informs the pilots they will never know until their ox happens to be gored. Whether ALPA talks much about it or not, this process is going on as we speak in some fashion or form. Clearing outstanding grievances as part of it strives to stave off some of those 'unintended consequences' Webb spoke off. Nothing like having a grievance from ages ago end up affecting the interpretation of your current agreement. So it was highly likely that the previous passover grievance was going to be either settled by a small monetary settlement to 'prove' ALPA was right or an agreement on language interpretation going forward(current grievance). It probably would have been the latter, but it seems ALPA was able to use the companies own testimony in the old case to win a small award for some in the current case.

Going forward it seems like this is an issue that should be handled with better language in future deals. This isn't a deal unique to FedEx, most airlines have some sort of passover or activation pay protection in their contracts. The difference seems to be that it rarely is an issue at other carriers unless there is a massive furlough/downbid going on. The manager at the Holiday Inn Express told me it is probably because of the large bids and subsequent training cycles. ALPA can't control when a bid is put out, but they can attempt to mitigate the effects on their pilots. Go over to the majors section and look at that proposed deal that United got, it's fairly typical of what other contracts tend to say. It says you must begin training 9 mos. after recieving an award, but you receive your new payrate after 6 mos. That would probably lead to the shorter/smaller bids that many have been advocating and less talk about this stuff in the future. Alot of fur has been raised on this deal, why not try and fix once and for all next time?

pinseeker

What you seem to be missing is that these individuals bid out of ANC on a following bid and had not started training for ANC yet. They were then trained for ANC and did a touch and go there and then came to MEM ahead of all those that bid MEM on the same bid they did. Their ANC bid should have been canx and then trained in seniority order for MEM.

As far as gaming the system goes, we shouldn't have to game the system, especially when it comes to seniority. We are always told to bid what and where you want to fly.

If you don't have all of the info, maybe you shouldn't talk about the contract being clear in the area under dicussion, because it is clear to those of us who were affected.