FedEx Passover Pay
 

This thread is meant to educate those who received the mass email on company email a few weeks ago and stop the use of company email for association complaints.

To get this thread started here is the situation:

FedEx admittedly trained a pilot out of seniority who was awarded an MD-11 FO bid on bid 06-02 from last May. The pilot in question is a July 11, 2005 hire and just finished MD-11 FO training Jan 26, 2007. (He has been receiving passover pay since Sept '06 due to the company's error). After several phone calls and emails to ALPA, answers and phone calls are not being returned in a timely manner and pure disrespect shown to many in our group of Jr. pilots.

According to Mr. Taylor of Contract Enforcement, the company admitted their mistake and sat down and negotiated the following just days before the Jr. pilot was to be activated on the line:

If you have a previous intervening award (from a previous bid) and it is in the same seat and aircraft, you will train under the old bid (i.e. ANC MD-11) even though you have lateraled to a new bid (MEM MD-11). This new agreement will put in place the fact that some old bids will not be cancelled out by new bids. This will allow training out of seniority and it affects everyone let alone our group of Jr. pilots who triggered passover pay and had it negotiated away.

Look for my next entry which includes Mr. Taylor's legal explanation.

Here is the first email to Contract Enforcement after a very disrespectful and demeaning chat with the ALPA employee (start at the bottom to see the entire email trail:

From: Contract Enforcement

Contrary to your belief, Contract Enforcement is just that, enforcing what we have bargained for, and language that has been awarded through arbitrations and or settlement agreements. Sometimes, the answers that we provide are not always accepted, and of course, there is a certain amount of understanding in this. Case in point!

As I told you yesterday, we filled a grievance 2002 (02-02), which was heard by an arbitrator over a period of days in 2002 and 2003. We still await his decision, although with the settlement agreement just signed, we have withdrawn that grievance and have advised him, because of the settlement agreement, we no longer require his decision. Here’s the history of that case. A 727 S/O was awarded a DC10 S/O position, however, just days prior to entering DC10 S/O training, he was awarded a MEM MD11 F/O award in a subsequent bid. The Company cancelled his DC10 training. We filed based upon the fact that they did not pay him passover pay for the DC10 S/O position when someone junior activated.

With the recent 05-03 and 06-02 awards and the activation of pilots from 05-03 (awarded ANC MD11 F/O) into slots awarded in 06-02 (MEM MD11 F/O) ahead of other and senior pilots, this obviously got our attention. It can be seen that pilots who had not started their training for 05-03, and who subsequently were awarded MEM MD11 F/O positions, should, by the Company’s own testimony in the 02-02 grievance, have had their 05-02 award canceled. As part of the negotiated CBA, ALPA and the Company reviewed all outstanding grievances, with this latest passover (05-02 and 06-02) issue being included with 02-02.

The settlement recognizes that (1) the CBA effective October 30, 2006, did not change the language of 24.D.2.b.ii.(d), and (2), that “for the purposes of Section 24.D.2.b.ii.(d) of the Agreement, ‘a different intervening award’ shall mean a crew position award received by a pilot while awaiting training for an existing crew position award. When a pilot receives a ‘different intervening award’ his existing award is superseded (and his related training canceled) and he is instead scheduled to train for the intervening award. Section 24.E.4. is inapplicable in this situation.” The settlement agreement goes on to say, “The interpretations of … shall apply both retroactively and prospectively.”

These then, are the provisions that create your scenario. Your 06-02 award canceled your 05-03 award, and your training was canceled—no passover pay due.

An exception to the different intervening award provision, was that if the award contains the same crew status (seat and aircraft), then the award will not be canceled, as in the case of pilot 2.

I believe that this answers your questions 1 and 2. I understand that you will be receiving another reply, possibly from the negotiating attorney, or an officer.

David Taylor
FedEx MEC - Contract Enforcement
Representation Department Q
901-842-2211
901-202-3939 (fax)
[email protected] +

To: FedEx ALPA Contract Enforcement
From: FedEx Second Officer
Cc: FedEx MEC, FedEx LEC

Subject: Passover pay questions for Bid 05-03 and 06-02

Today I spoke with “David” at the Memphis FedEx ALPA office concerning Passover pay as it applies to my situation and several other FedEx pilots. After an approximate 10 minute less than cooperative conversation I was left scratching my head and confused on which side my ALPA representative was on. My attempts to get definitive answers and contract references were met with instructions to “read chapter 24” and not expect ALPA to explain questions to me. This will be my formal attempt at gaining an explanation to my questions and I would invite ALPA to provide an explanation to the other pilots you represent who find themselves in this situation.

Below are the facts concerning the two bids in question. Bid 06-01 came between 05-03 and 06-02 but did not include any awards for the two FedEx pilots used in this explanation.

Pilot 1 Hire Date 11 July 2005
Pilot 2 is Junior to Pilot 1, Hire Date 11 July 2005

Bid 05-03
Pilot 1 is awarded a 727 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 ANC FO bid

Bid 06-01
Pilot 1 is not awarded a bid
Pilot 2 is not awarded a bid

Bid 06-02
Pilot 1 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid

Pilot 1 was notified on May 2, 2006 (12 hours prior to starting training for Bid 05-03) that his training was cancelled due to being awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid on the yet to be posted Bid 06-02. When Pilot 1 asked if he could keep the class date which started in a few hours, the company representative notified Pilot 1 that all previous bids in which you have not begun training are cancelled upon award of a subsequent bid. Pilot 1 was given a training date of May 2007 which was later moved to June, then August, and as of this writing, May 28 2007 (due to a mutual pilot swap).

Pilot 2 had a July 2006 class date for Bid 05-03 and therefore had not started training. Pilot 2’s original July 2006 MD-11 ANC FO training date was not cancelled as was Pilot 1’s 05-03 bid, but was moved to October 30, 2006 (see attached VIPS training letter). Pilot 2’s activation date was projected as January 21, 2006 and was given an expected lateral date of February 26, 2007 from ANC (Bid 05-03) to MEM (Bid 06-02).

Pilot 2 completed training and was activated on January 26, 2007.

In accordance with Section 24.D.2 :
Passover Pay Due To Junior Pilot’s Early Activation
a. In case of a junior pilot’s activation to a higher paying position out of seniority order, every senior pilot who meets the following prerequisites shall be paid as if he had activated in that higher paying position (passover pay):
i. the junior pilot and the senior pilot(s) hold an award for the same crew position; and
ii. the junior pilot’s award is from the same posting as the senior pilot’s award or from a subsequent posting and
iii. the Company chooses to activate the junior pilot prior to the senior pilot(s) and the junior pilot’s activation delays the training and activation of the senior pilot(s); and
iv. the senior pilot actually activates into his awarded crew position.

During the phone conversation with “David” (ALPA Contract-Enforcement) on January 29, 2007, “David” informed Pilot 1 that ALPA had filed a complaint and/or a grievance with FedEx on circumstances surrounding Bid 05-03 and Bid 06-02 and had reached an agreement on January 12, 2007 with FedEx for approximately 12 pilots. Pilot 1 was notified that “You are not in the group”. “David” went on to inform Pilot 1 that only pilots holding an ANC bid were in the group in which ALPA had reached an agreement. It is readily apparent that the company chose to handle Pilot 1 and Pilot 2 differently and I respectfully request an explanation from ALPA with references to the contract.

I would like to assume ALPA would do everything in their power to maximize a member’s compensation and interpret gray areas within the contract accordingly. I do not claim to be a lawyer and could easily be misunderstanding the contract but as a member of this organization, I believe I am entitled a contractual explanation. I respectfully request an explanation surrounding these unusual circumstances.

Question 1: Where in the contract does it state a pilots training date is cancelled due to a subsequent bid award?

Question 2: Why did Pilot 1 lose his training date from Bid 05-03 and Pilot 2 did not?

Question 3: If this situation is considered an interpretation of the contact, please provide the documented minutes between FedEx and ALPA, which states both party’s acceptance of this interpretation or an accepted precedent prior to this event as it applies to May 31, 1999 agreement.

Second Email and reply:

From: Contrtact Enforcement

The answer why pilot # 2 was allowed to retain his ANC position was a result of a negotiated resolution (exception), which allowed the same crew status to be retained, as in pilot 2. The resolution was part of a jointly signed letter (ALPA-Company), dated January 10, 2007 that clarified this subject matter. I have already addressed the CBA—Section 24.D.2.b.ii.(d).

Possibly, anticipating your next question as to why this resolution wasn’t posted on our Message Line, all I can advise you is that I cannot ever remember FPA/ALPA publishing settlement letters on our web-site.

Regarding any subterfuge, I think not! You really need to address these type of comments to your LEC rep, or the grievance Chairman.

David Taylor
FedEx MEC - Contract Enforcement
Representation Department Q
901-842-2211 (
901-202-3939 (fax)
[email protected] +

From: Second Officer
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 1:27 PM
To: Fedex-Enforcement, FDXMEC
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Fedex-LEC26
Subject: Re: Bid 05-03 and 06-02 Passover Issues

Mr. Taylor,

Thank you for your timely response. Unfortunately my pea brain cannot follow your explanation nor can I find reference in the old contract of the provided answers.

Please explain:
"An exception to the different intervening award provision, was that if the award contains the same crew status (seat and aircraft), then the award will not be canceled, as in the case of pilot 2."

I cannot find any explanation or wording in the contract of your above mentioned statement of exception. I guess I need it in simple terms.

Someone junior to me, who held the same bid, attended training and is being paid prior to me. Those are the facts. If the company made a mistake, how does Passover pay only apply to ANC pilots? If it triggers Passover pay for 2,000 pilots so be it. That obviously is not the case but I can tell you there are about 50+ really upset members of this Union looking over this issue. It will be a shame to see the Union settled prior to taking a look at each case and discussing options with all members involved. If you are telling us that the company admittingly made a mistake, we triggered the Passover pay situation under the contract, and ALPA negotiated or settled our rights away, then please disregard the legal camouflage and come out and admit it. If this is the case, I believe it is time to convene a meeting of the Pilots in this case and request a special meeting with the MEC leadership for clarification of the 02-02 grievance and why we were not included.

Third and final email to ALPA Contract Enforcement:

Thanks again for your explanation. I received notice that one of the ACP's informed another member that it is a done deal. Very frustrating from a myopic standpoint.

My final question is if and when the resolution signed by ALPA on January 10, 2007 will be available ? It appears to have implications for future bids considering the size and length of the recent bids. A jr. guy could bid widebody ANC knowing that if he was awarded another bid after that, he would go to school sooner than other guys senior and serve very little if any time in ANC. (given he is in the same seat and aircraft, which allows the same crew status to be retained )

I am (out of town) and will attempt to contact someone more respectful within ALPA. Concerning your "subterfuge" comment, an uneducated red-neck like me had to go to Webster's.

"Subterfuge can be any deceptive stratagem or manoeuvre designed to take advantage of an opponent."

Not sure where that came from or what you mean, and it was my impression that You and I are on the same TEAM, not opponents as you state. But it appears to be a standard tactic given your intransigent attitude and demeaning comments to a member who in some small manner supports your occupation. If I may provide some feedback, your tone and demeanor on the phone made me feel beneath you, that I was bothering you, and to leave you alone.

Good Day Sir and Thank you again.

Here is the MASS email sent to about 200 pilots on company email. It looks and feels very much like the SO's first email but includes massive sanitization and inflammatory accusations. ALPA falsely accused the SO of sending out this email and threatened retribution. (remember a FedEx ACP was in the loop on these emails so the accusation is a joke).

Fellow FedEx Pilots,

The union has recently negotiated a resolution that may negate your contractual right to Passover pay. The recently negotiated resolution concerns a case in which the company admitted training an MD-11 FO out of seniority. After several days of phone calls and emails the union appears to have “Negotiated� almost all of us from our contractual right to Passover pay. The company made a mistake and trained a pilot with a seniority date of July 11, 2005 prior to many other pilots holding the same exact MEM MD-11 FO bid. The company has admitted to this mistake, it is indisputable. The union fielded complaints yet did not include many of us in their decision although it meant an economic impact in the thousands of dollars per month to each pilot. The facts are the company admitted to training someone junior to you with the same bid from 06-02, you were entitled Passover pay beginning January 26, 2007 as per the contract, and the union “negotiated� a settlement in which many of us never new about, and will never receive Passover pay.

Our union is here to protect us and enforce the contract. In this case it appears that neither may be the case. Not only did they not protect us, they agreed to insert into the current contract the ability for the company to train someone Jr. to you if they hold the same aircraft and seat but at a different domicile from a previous bid. (i.e. previous bids will no longer be cancelled if it is the same aircraft and seat) Below is the exact example that took place and the union appears to have agreed to make this action legal in the future:

Pilot 1 Hire Date 11 July 2005
Pilot 2 is Junior to Pilot 1, Hire Date 11 July 2005

Bid 05-03
Pilot 1 is awarded a 727 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 ANC FO bid

Bid 06-01
Pilot 1 is not awarded a bid
Pilot 2 is not awarded a bid

Bid 06-02
Pilot 1 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid
Pilot 2 is awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid

Pilot 1 was notified on hours prior to starting training for Bid 05-03 that his training was cancelled due to being awarded an MD-11 MEM FO bid on the yet to be posted Bid 06-02. When Pilot 1 asked if he could keep the class date, which started in a few hours, the company representative notified Pilot 1 that all previous bids in which you have not begun training are cancelled upon award of a subsequent bid. Pilot 1 was given a training date of May 2007 which was later moved to June then August 2007.

Pilot 2 had a July 2006 class date for Bid 05-03 and therefore had not started training. Pilot 2's original July 2006 MD-11 ANC FO training date was not cancelled as was Pilot 1's 05-03 bid. Pilot 2 was awarded a MEM MD-11 FO bid on 06-02. Pilot 2's O5-03 training date was moved to October 30, 2006. Pilot 2's activation date was projected as January 21, 2007 and was given an expected lateral date of February 26, 2007 from ANC (Bid 05-03) to MEM (Bid 06-02).

Pilot 2 completed training and was activated on January 26, 2007.

For almost everyone in this email you did not lose a previous training date. For everyone senior to Pilot 2 above and with an MD-11 FO bid and an activation date after January 26, 2007 the company trained a pilot Junior to you and you should have begun receiving Passover pay upon activation of the Junior pilot (last Friday). A small group of us feel like the union owes us an explanation and we retain the right to investigate this situation. Since the union is our elected representative and has possibly taken action on this matter without knowledge of the pilots involved, we need to unite as a single voice and request a formal meeting with the MEC officers and all Pilots involved to discuss our options. Additionally, if the union has used our “Passover Pay Capital� to negotiate a change to the current contract, the entire Pilot force should be aware of this action. Our impression after numerous phone calls and emails from the union is that they are trying to ignore this and hopefully it will go away. This mistake will cost Pilot 1 nearly one years pay, and if ALPA has negotiated that away we deserve to know why. If you are a narrow body FO on second year pay this decision is costing you over $2300 per month. If you are a narrow body SO, it is costing you almost $4,800 per month.

What can you do to help?
Please contact your LEC and MEC officers and request a face-to-face meeting for our group to hear the union's response to our questions and provide us an explanation of the negotiated resolution of January 10, 2007.

Speak to any senior pilots at the company and explain the situation we find ourselves in and how the contract has apparently been changed at our expense. Support from the senior pilots will help.

If anyone would like the email trail between ALPA Contract Enforcement, and our group please reply with your request and we will gladly forward. You will be amazed at what they have apparently done to you.

Ponder this FACT
Considering this could affect over 120 pilots, the union possessed a negotiating chip worth more than $300,000 per month. Are you curious how they used that Passover Pay Capital?

Our group has been emailing back and forth over this issue for some time. I will post some of the emails so you can see how the union is treating the JR. pilots. Here is what another SO got when he called ALPA:

"Interesting - I got the "well, I had to wait 6 years to move out of the back seat" response, which doesn't sit too well with me. If we were trying to take that much money out of THEIR pockets, there would be hell to pay. Send me details here when you can. Maybe we can get answers on the 20th. Thanks!"

ALPA has yet to answer many of our questions or explain/provide the "negotiated resolution" mentioned in Contract Enforcement's email. Also, explain how a Jan 10, 2007 resolution "allowed the same crew status to be retained" for pilot 2, when the person in question was assigned training almost 9 months prior to this negotiated resolution. The negotiated resolution did not "ALLOW" anything, ALPA's recent negotiated resolution was retroactive thereby condoning the company's mistake without enforcing the contract.

"The answer why pilot # 2 was allowed to retain his ANC position was a result of a negotiated resolution (exception), which allowed the same crew status to be retained, as in pilot 2. The resolution was part of a jointly signed letter (ALPA-Company), dated January 10, 2007 that clarified this subject matter. "

Alright man, I'll bite. You aren't alone, there is serious b.s. going on with this whole situation. Here's an email regarding the settlement for grievance 02-02:

Please be advised that due to a settlement in Grievance #02-02, Cancellation of Award/Passover Pay, you will be receiving a lump sum payment in the near future in the amount of $150.00. Such payment shall be considered earnings in the pay period it is actually made.



If you have questions, please direct them to Eric Iverson at [email protected].



I think we all need to formulate a plan and call Mr. Iverson and Mr. Taylor. There seems to be some bogus info being passed around that needs to be clarified, instead of swept away.

I am somewhat out of the loop on this since it doesn't affect me. What I gather is many of you feel you rate passover pay and haven't been or won't get it.

If you have a beef here is how it works........"You" must file a grievence.
Everyone who is affected can file a grievance, but you must take the bull by the horns. The Greivince committee can look at all the filed grievances and choose to "pursue or Not pursue". If they choose not to, then all you folks need to get together and go to you local LEC meetings and make a motion to to go through with this grievance. If you get enough support (i.e. the motion passes) The LEC MUST take it to the next MEC meeting and they must make the same motion. It might make it through, it might not, but will get debated and heard at the MEC level. If you folks Complain properly (via resolution).........not just ***** on these chat forums, you will have much better luck...........

Remember ALPA is YOU...if YOU don't take the Bull by the Horns, don't expect others to do it for you.

I agree, but the first step in this process is going through the grievance committee, which has been done. We'll see what the next step is. As for bitchin about it on here, it's a pretty good forum for others to see what's going on.

Bitching on here won't get things fixed.............Using this forum to make contacts or see if others were affected is a valid tool.

Writing, emailing your LEC leaders and calling them and getting involved is how things get done. Often many LEC/MEC members don't even understand a specific grievance. Do you think the Block 1 or 2 really know anything about this passover pay issue? Probably not, because no one in those blocks are affected. FedEx's seniorty Status system was set up to mix the seniorty within each LEC (especially true in MEM). All you affected folks need to get organized amongst yourself and then bug the hell out of you elected officials.

In the end, things still might not work out to your satisfaction, but at least you would have done all you can and would have been involved in the process. My real point is that I hear a lot of "Bitching.What has ALPA done for ME?"

A more accurate and better question. "What have I done do ensure ALPA will support me and my fellowpilots?"

Hint: Bitching about it isn't the answer.......

I understand what you're saying. I don't think anybody was bitching today, more of an informative posting.

I concur very educational. Everyone in the MEC should be curious about this and how it is resolved or explained. Who knows what the next deal will involve. Redeye's post also offer insight that some may have not known until *****'s bitchin drew the response.

Lag

I'll bite too. With this hole in the contract, the company can hire into the ANC MD11 FO seat, train said pilot, activate that pilot in ANC, then allow them to laterally transfer to MEM on a subsequent bid. Now if you're awaiting MEM MD11 FO training, regardless of when you were awarded it, your training could be pushed back indefinitely (seat locked) as they allow the training and transfer of the activated ANC MD11 FO to take place. You'll never get a dime of Passover pay even though the Jr. pilot is sitting in the seat you want MEM MD11 FO. I'm sure that's not the intent, but the possibility exists.
Cheers-

I am also glad to get info in this forum and know exactly HOW to sight in my soon-to-be incoming rounds. Perhaps as many effected by this as possible should attend the meeting on the 20th. It seems that it was going to be addressed, but has now fallen off the agenda....

Is this beginning to scare anyone else, but me? I posted a thread a month ago concerning my misgivings about the SIG/PSIT, Chimenti/Maliniak letter, that our chairman thought we needed to give to the company. And, now this?

I'm hoping it's not a trend, with our elected ALPA leaders. If so, we have elections upcoming...

Don't forget Wally's email about a generation stepping up and sacrificing for the good of the industry, regarding the age 60 change.

Translation: F/O's and S/O's - we're willing to sacrifice YOUR money and quality of life....

Noted.

Sacrifice "this".

Everyone junior needs a backup plan.

Huh?........

I didn't want to be the first to say it, but yeah that email is certainly an eye opener. Seems like he/ALPA national have already decided themselves what is 'best' for the profession even though 70% of his constituents believe otherwise. "Some seniority-based demographic," is one of the funniest things I've read in a while. From the timeline in the beginning that is meant to set the rule as unfair in the first place, to the attempt to muddy the waters by questioning whether or not 70% of the FDX group really still feels the same about Age 60 that email reeks of sell job. Anyone else notice that the 18-24 month timeline is off as well? Seems that we could have this thing by Nov/Dec 2007 if not earlier. Was the 18-24 month thing a diversion so that the opposition to change would more fragmented? It's also funny to listen to Prater and others continue to evoke UA in 1985 as their rallying cry-they talk about it more than those who were involved. Also it looks like the Herndon boys may want to play along with the feds, because they've weighed the pros and cons of supporting the gov't and recieving indemnification along with the companies vs. a bunch of ****ed of pilots who still have to pay their dues anyway.

RedeyeAV8r,

Thanks for your post and insight. We intend to do just what you have mentioned. If our group would have been treated with respect, no references made to our seniority (or lack thereof), questions answered, and made the negotiated resolution of 1/10/07 available to those affected....there would be no need to open this blog up. The MEC vice chairman sent me a very stern email which I responded to with a request for a meeting or phone call. After numerous phone calls and another email, I have had ZERO response. I call that disrespect in light of the gravity of this situation. We all just want to know why this grievance was negotiated without our knowledge, and what the future ramifications are? But no answer to either as of today. The disrespectful phone calls were recently refered to in an ALPA email as "Fireside Chat" and our bitching as nothing other than our group not hearing "what we want to hear". Both are acquisations towards JR. ALPA members who cannot get an answer let alone the answer we want.....how about a respectful timely answer?

Call this a lame ***** but ALPA, by not letting us in the loop for decisions then withholding the information virtually ties our hands. It should be evident to all that this situation will no just go away as many ALPA members have suggested.

Come on RedEye?

"Hint: Bitching about it isn't the answer.......
__________________
RedEyE"

Did you read all the emails at the beginning of this thread? I mean word 4 word? Numerous pilots (20+) have been pushing a rope for two weeks with ALPA. I am tired of hearing how someone was on the panel for 5 years, how I havent been at FedEx long enough to understand, and berating phone conversations with hired help at ALPA. I pay dues just like the guy who holds seniority #1 and my vote counts just as much as his. To truly answer your questions we have notified at least 15 MEC, LEC, and block reps of this situation and no one will answer.

We are waiting for answers to our questions in order to make an educated decision to grieve or not. Prudent dont you think? It is sad that this small JR group is treated with so much disrespect. As far as bitching, call it what you want but this situation has finally migrated away from the FedEx company email and into somewhere else, for that I am very glad.

I grew up in this business, and I remember the guys that did 10 years on the panel (my dad did 8). Thing, is, they were hired in their late 20's too.

Most guys here, they may have 5 years on the panel, but they got 20 in the business. This is my third airline, and I flew corporate before that. And I was one of the younger ones in the class....

Thank You very much
 

I truly believe educated members make wiser decisions. Our group of JR pilots are trying to educate ourselves. But for now we cannot find out why we were not informed, we cannot get the wording of the 1/10/07 negotiated agreement, and no explanation to why the union negotiated anything affecting a members pay retroactively. It has also been brought to our attention that the item has been removed from the Feb 20th agenda, but like most of our questions we cannot get confirmation.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE pass this forum to every FedEx pilot you know. As one response to this thread explained, this has major ramifications for everyone on future bids let alone our small group of junior pilots.

Honestly, what is the relevance in this situation. Guys have done many years on the panel before and guys this past summer went to the right seat of a wide body day 1. Irrelevant to this situation. The company admittingly trained someone out of seniority order, we all held the same bid as the jr pilot, and it delayed our training. Right out of Ch 24 of the old contract. No wording of how long you must be a plumber or how you must pay your dues. We have all paid our dues in some form or the other.

We just want to know the rationale for negotiating this "intervening award" decision which has the potential to impact a lot of pilots at FedEx.

And someone please tell my why ALPA has an outstanding grievance from 2002, is 5 years normal?

Coffee *****:
I fought a similar battle several years ago over vacation longivety for internal hires. The offical answer was you are too small a group to worry about. What they ment was ( IT doesn't effect wide body captains ) That is really what they are telling you. Keep up the fight see you at the meeting on the 20th.

I just received a ruling on one I filed over 5 years ago(not FDX), and have ones from longer ago at a different place that still have not been acted upon.

While I think the treatment by the union officials and staff of the complaint may be lacking, I personally don't see why the guys think they are eligible for passover pay. If you want widebody pay the quickest way possible you should bid ANC. It is that simple. Those guys who did bid it and went there for however long were willing to go there in order to make widebody pay at the earliest opportunity.

Although it seems unfair, the contract is pretty clear about same seat, same domicile, same bid. The fact that the pilot later did a lateral to Mem is not really an issue.

I do have to say that I would definitely grieve this situation if I was in it no matter what the union reps say. And if we need to stand on a few toes at the next meeting I will gladly stand with you and do so. Getting shabby treatment from those elected to represent us and the staff we pay with our dues is unacceptable.

I also read Wally's letter with disgust. Makes me sick to realize just how bad the union that I am a proud member of has sold me out in the past several months. It may be time for a recall of our MEC and the big boys in Herndon.

Thanks for your input SNAFU
 

Remember that the JR pilot HAD NOT STARTED training for his ANC bid. He had a July 06 class date for that bid. Once bid 06-02 came out, some lost their bid from 05-03 but this person did not. (Many Many precidents have been set previously, i.e. your new bid negates your previous bid if you haven't begun training). The JR pilot did lose his July 06 class date, the company moved it to Nov 30, 2006 to make way for all the Nuggets and began paying him passover pay in Sept. According to the company, they made a mistake and did not remove him from the previous bid. Therefore we all had the same bid, same seat, same aircraft, and same domicile. At best it is a gray area and not Cut & Dried as it seems the union decided. We still await a reason to why this negotiated "intervening award" phraseology (is that a word?) was even considered. Why didnt the union take this gray area and press for a resolution that benefits the members in a situation when the company admitted a mistake?

Coffeebitch,

I have had pretty much the same treatment as you have. I bid MD-11FO/MEM in bid 5-03. I was told one month prior to my training that my training was moved to October. I called the union and was told that I would not be payed passover. I didn't think the intent of the contract was to delay our training four months and put new hires in our classes, even though they were going to be based at ANC.

I have also heard from the union that the senior guys would think my gripe was weak since I didn't work the panel for 5 years before getting a window seat. I asked him if these guys have all been furloughed for 3+ years or spent 20 years in the military? I know that many have experienced much worse, but my point was we have all paid our dues to get into this job, although some of us have done it at other places. And besides, we pay our dues just like anyone else and expect representation when we experience a monetary shortfall or a quality of life issue. I'll bet a senior captain would gripe if he felt his W-2 was 20k less due to a contract loophole. Oh, and by the way, my bonus check was going to paid at S/O rates since I hadn't activated as a FO.

SNAFU,

I do appreciate your support, but not too sure about the ANC comment. I was awarded MEM in bid 05-03 (I believe Sep 05). I considered changing my bid to DC-10 in bid 06-02 (my training date was in Jul 06). I decided against it since I thought I had a training date and wasn't sure when I would have trained in the DC-10. I had no idea that the company was going to delay our training four months or I would have changed my bid. If you were in my shoes, what would you have done?

I am planning on attending the Feb 20 meeting. I believe our representation was lacking. Oh, and by the way, I also thought that the contract enforcement staff paralegal was condescending and not helpful.

I couldn't give a rat's arse, if you were on the panel for 5 days, or 5 years...Nor, do I give a rat's arse if you were furloughed for 30 years, or never. It's irrelevant! This contract is for all of our pilots. Sadly, even the stinkin' non-members!!

Did someone at the office actually bring up the short panel time to you, personally? And, inject that in to their reasoning?

You can throw my hat in the ring concerning the condescending attitude of our senior paralegal. And, that's not sour grapes. My problem was solved to my satisfaction, due to an unrelated issue. In other words, no thanks to him. I felt like I was talking to a Richard-head ACP. Not, my representative.

Ohhh, and I am 20+ years here.

Busboy,

My comments about "Noted--have a back up plan" were directed at Wally's letter.

I generally like what he has to say, but I got out the letter pretty much what everyone else did. I didn't like it... So--my "backup" is to continue to serve in the ANG a few more years and pursue some other outside interests. It is apparent that anyone who thinks the upgrades will continue at the current pace will probably be disappointed. I expect a good portion of our over 60 folks will try to stay, and some of those left behind will try to do some sort of class action suit. But--Wally says all those guys saved us all in 1985 so its really all okay...

David at ALPA has always been helpful to me, but it sounds like he's lately forgetting who pays his salary. Looks like the 20 Feb meeting will be full of villages with torches and pitchforks. Should be interesting...

Busboy,

I agree with you 100%!

The part about not sitting the panel for years was said by one of our line pilot union reps, not by DT. However, my experience with DT seems eerily like yours.

Here is a copy of the email stating $150 for their negotiated cancellation of passover pay:

Please be advised that due to a settlement in Grievance #02-02, Cancellation of Award/Passover Pay, you will be receiving a lump sum payment in the near future in the amount of $150.00. Such payment shall be considered earnings in the pay period it is actually made.

If you have questions, please direct them to Eric Iverson at [email protected].

Pam Herrington
Senior Paralegal
Air Line Pilots Association
FEDEX MEC
901/842-2202 Direct Line
901/751-7166 Fax

Not sure if this if for real but several JR guys have forwarded this email to me. I did not receive it.

[QUOTE=Busboy;117002]
Did someone at the office actually bring up the short panel time to you, personally? And, inject that in to their reasoning?
/QUOTE]

Here is direct cut and paste from an Email that the MEC Vice sent to me on 8 Feb 2007:

"Perhaps you have not been here long enough". :eek:

Trust me, you dont have to be here very long to know when you are being talked down to, ripped apart in the Queens English (DT), and told "ALPA isn't here to educate you on the contract" when asking questions. Numerous people have complained about Mr. Taylors "Fireside Chat" manner in this thread, I can only imagine how many pilots not on this forum have been chastised. It sounds like a little house cleaning should be in order or at least an apology.:mad:

Why don't you go by the office when you are in town for the council meeting and discuss it with Mr. Taylor in person?

Sleepy, Thanks for your post
 

I, like many, have voiced our concern over the demeaning conversations we have had with Mr. Taylor to numerous individuals on the MEC, LEC, and Blocks. I have made several request for a meeting concerning both this issue and the inappropriate treatment of a number of our members. No response. I have backed the responses up with emails and phone calls, NO RESPONSE.

Here is my last email last week:
Capt Huggins,
Called your office several times today. No answer and no reply to my message. I will keep trying.

Here is the blurb from the ALPA message line of 2-1-07 from the Vice Chairman:

"If the bedside manner of a staff member does not satisfy you on a given day :eek: , we can be apprised and address the finer points of courtesies. But don’t expect to be coddled and entertained too far past being given an honest answer.:eek:

There is no doubt that specific sections of our contract make some unhappy (looks like we have one here):D , nothing has changed from the prior contract provisions regarding eligibility for passover pay. It is what it is. In this anomalous case regarding the legitimacy of passover, the contract does not support the assertions. If it did, you would find ALPA Staff most eager to seek remedy (they do that well).

Sometimes, some pilots seem spring-loaded and predisposed to turn against “ALPA” if the policies or interpretation of the day don’t suit them".

So "it is what it is", we have made numerous attempts, requesting numerous meetings, made numerous phone calls in which we are treated like ignorant, whining children.

Once again, the company trained a JR pilot out of seniority and admitted doing so. Many of us do MEET the 3 prerequisites stated in Capt Huggins "stop bitching" or "Shut up and color" message to the masses on Feb 1. We have tried to get answers. Suggestions???

My suggestion would be to go by the office after the council meeting and meet in person with those individuals. There may be a couple at the council meeting, but the office is the place to go to if you still don't find them. If you need directions, call the 866 number and get it from them.

Cool your jets, man, and read my post.

I was making the point that, when senior guys tell you that you haven't paid your dues yet, you can point out that today's new hires aren't like they were in the good old days - now it takes years to amass the competitive times required for this job. Therefore, pilots may be new HERE, but they're not new at the BUSINESS.

This argument also crops up in the over-60 debate.

The whole world isn't against you Coffee B. Conserve your rounds.

Hmmm.... as helpful as the staff seems to be, I can just picture 130 FedEx guys wandering around the alleys in Downtown MEM trying to follow some "provided" directions:D :eek: