LunkerHunter

What's "ENC 1101"?

sorry, couldn't resist-

Overnitefr8

Encryption 1101

Slatsextend

Yea, I was A300 driver in 2009, went from the normal 80 to 90 CH back down to 50 CH and that lasted for about 1 1/2 years, all the while the LONG RANGE dudes were getting my lost pay, and during a MEC meeting we had this no load MEC officer get up in front of us and tell us that he wasn't losing any $$$ , in fact it had increased because he was LONG RANGE ................ The problem was not the CBA, the problem was the guys and gals that voted this garbage CBA into play ............. Just because the MEC recommends it, does not mean it is all going to be good for you ..................

Dakota

Okay, lemme see if I understand what you are whining about. You CHOOSE to fly the Airbus. Domestic hours get slashed (no fault of your own, merely system form). International guys are flying 12-14 hour legs (not their fault, merely system form), but they should not get paid for those hours? They aren't flying more than their line.......it's just the nature of international flying. So I guess the right thing to do was to give any international CH over 50 to those domestic guys flying 1 hour legs to Tulsa just so we can be all equal although you are working less? Socialism at it's finest. What a load of $hit!

FXLAX

Just thinking out loud here: if international pilots are getting full BLG and domestic pilots are getting 60% of normal BLG, doesn’t that mean there is overstuffing for international pilots? And therefore, shouldn’t there be a displacement bid from domestic to international so as to normalize the disparity in BLG? Seems to me that if we have a mechanism to prevent furloughs in our cba (socialism), we should also have a mechanism to spread the pain? It doesn’t seem fair that one group of pilots take the burden of not furloughing another segment of the pilot population while another segment doesn’t have any skin in the game. If we are going to have this mechanism in our cba, shouldn’t it be as socialistic as possible? Otherwise you end up with a system that pits pilots against each other.

Sluggo_63

Oh. You were a widebody guy during 4.a.2.b? I was on the panel. I’d still keep the new 4.a.2.c.

switch monkey

100% agree Sluggo. I was on the panel also, at 2nd year pay. Wasn’t fun. Appreciated that I kept my job. Anywhere else, I’d have been jettisoned. I would gladly do the same in return for junior guys now, if it comes down to it.

Iwa Washi

During that time, I personally never bought into the belief that the company implemented 4.A.2.B. to prevent a furlough. I don't feel they needed to furlough or wanted to furlough. Also, even if they did, they were in no position to do so (Hong Kong). I felt they were merely exploiting loose contract language for nothing more than financial gain at our expense. Just my humble opinion.

Stan446

I agree somewhat. I think it did help to prevent a furlough. But after almost 2yrs of 4.a.2.b, the company was exploiting it. I felt the CBA language should have been that the company either furlough after a year or some time period or buy up the lines to what they should have been. I'm not in favor of furloughing guys, its just that the CBA language was too vague. The company currently buys up lines that fall short of min guarantee, they could have done it back then. And the fact that there were lines with large carryovers was total bs. Guys could still make a regulars month pay by bidding carryover.

kronan

Kind of interesting that you say you disagree with me about Peak 2015, and then say Nothing was going to happen in Peak 2015...that the planes were still going to fly. Which was my point, that Mgt said CBA was a Cost neutral (considering inflation) and Mgt said they had a plan to make it through Peak if it was voted down.

No, I wasn't one of the querulous voices at our quarterly meeting in August 2015. I was there and thought the question about whether we'd be allowed to strike for Peak 2015 was idiotic. (Remember this was pre-TA being finalized)
Just as I think it's idiotic arguing that we need to strike for TA 202X to show FedEx we mean business. Whether I like it or not (and I don't) FedEx is a proxy for the US Economy. Whether I like it or not (and I don't) We operate under RLA which is a huge disadvantage for us. All it takes is one party to request mediation, and once the Feds get involved, everything runs under Fed guidance. Negotiations meetings, Fed guy can say let's take the quarter off since we're not making much progress off and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. (Other than strike illegally, and an illegal strike means no Job protection. FedEx can replace all\s0me of us and there's not a damn thing we can do about it)

You never take the first deal.
Wonder if TA 2015 verbiage was the first deal offered by management. Since the NC took the first deal, astonished that it took so long.
UPS took the "first" deal.
Shoot, we took the "first" deal in 2006 and it was overwhelmingly popular. We took the "first" deal in 2011 and it was modestly popular.
Recent airline negotiation history has far more people taking the "first" deal than kicking it back to the curb.
SWA kicked one of theirs back, but that was what their Union recommended doing.
Delta kicked one back, but that was because the Delta MEC at the time wanted to modify the profit-sharing agreement in exchange for more guaranteed pay.

People say 2015 is a concessionary contract because we only got 3% pay raises and the slope between CBAs was less than 3%. Well, Delta's subsequent agreement was for 3% raises. SWA's was 3% raises. UPS was 3% raises.
And our raises included the 4% we just experienced last November, as well as an extra 1% to the B plan January 2016 and 2020.
So, effectively, every FO just working BLG got a 5% raise this year.

Well, Lie Flat. Boggles my mind that SL never friggin asked, or documented his remembered conversation, but we LOST that grievance because the Neutral guy agreed with the Company that following historic practices might mean FedEx would have to Chase First Class service on Scheduled flights....and, rolling Deviation bank. WTF-the paragraph that says our Deviation bank should be funded with the highest class of service available\authorized is theoretically funding a rolling Deviation bank. Pay no attention to the fact if you reduce the funding available for a deviation bank there's no actual rolling bank for that to fund.
Boggles the mind. But again, Grievances are part of RLA and again, the deck is stacked against us.

Back in 2015 someone took the time to create a website, Purpleta.com. And there was another website called hiddenarrow.com. Those websites had all of the pros\cons. One of them even used a simplified Thumbs Up\Thumbs Down section by section in the TA.
Back then, I counted the Thumbs Up versus Thumbs Down, and there were slightly more Thumbs Up than Down.

There are many things Mgt was doing in 2014/15 that they rarely do now. Monday DHs out to ABC were being modified to Monday DHs out to BCD, doesn't happen now because changing that single day layover triggers an extra 3CHs.
There was an increasing number of 3 legs during the critical duty period, doesn't happen now because that automatically pays a disruption for every leg over 2.
There was an increasing number of extended turns, think MEM-ICT-FAT (see Feb 75 sucky\crappy pairing) with a 2 hour turn in Wichita. Rarely happens now because the disruption for that pays automatically (Important safety tip, doesn't pay just because it's built that way. Has to operate that way)
Disruption pay was expanded to more pay codes.
You can drop trips you don't hold guarantee for now (think MUS or MUV)

Shoot, consider the topic of this post. Go back and look at the Settlement agreement for 4A2B and compare that with the current verbiage.
Current verbiage spreads the pain across everyone. Limits carryover. Limits M\U to a positive bank balance. Limits the ability to Plus up your BLG every month.
In 2014 I flew with an FO who was *****ing about why the CBA was taking so long. Also commented that why was he limited to going negative 6, when there are plenty of one day trips that pay in excess of that. Should be 7 or 8 negative. Naively, I didn't know the negative balance reset to 0 every month. So, yes, this gent was flying an extra 18CHs every month and then complaining about the pace of negotiations.