New Hires
08-13-2020, 09:16 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by USMCFDX
Wow you are so out to lunch - just because we have a section that is better than a contract at another carrier we shouldn't strive for something better in that section?
08-13-2020, 09:35 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 498
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
I wasn't around for that contract. I was also previously at another “legacy”. Of course we can always strive for improvements. The problem is people dont realize we are already top of the heap in most areas to include work rules, retirement, vacation, and benefits. We can pattern bargain new pay rates but what other section are we behind in? I hear people complain about sub. My previous airline had a similar initial re-assignment window and would constantly re-route us so they didnt have to send us home with pay. This is precisely what our company would do. With Sub we get to choose. Oh others also complain about of DHD and not getting the higher class of service. Well ask UPS how they get their? Many times its laying sideways on the JS of a 767 because they have much broader use of company JS as apposed to the company buying them an airline ticket. Oh would you lime to go to PBS so you can get profit sharing like Delta?
So what some in this group need to do is stop cherry picking and look at things in totality. You want to gut one part to gain in another then be my guest but dont biatch.
So what some in this group need to do is stop cherry picking and look at things in totality. You want to gut one part to gain in another then be my guest but dont biatch.
The MEC Chair said that "he insisted and got" the contract extended to a 6-year contract. The rationale was that we needed the extra time to re-fund the contingency fund. Of course, my understanding is that we filled that back up within two years.
The Neg chair said that we changed the international hotel in lieu since he did not think many people used that and the way people were using it was not the intent.
The Neg Chair said We brought up the change from 12 hr to 18 hours on the int check-in.
And of course, the huge 700 lbs gorilla, where we did not accept any of the offered A fund improvements. They had one cornerstone issue and our Neg and MEC did not force the issue. Rather they caved in because we were out of money and did not want to accept the ALPA national restrictions and scrutiny that came with tapping the Master Contingency Fund.
There are other issues, but yes many people consider this concessionary, based on what we had, what we achieved, and what we "might have gotten". The what we might have gotten, is really the huge unknown. Could the company have flown through peak? Would the fellows have kept toeing the line? Was there something better if we just said no? For my self, I view the what might have happened through the filter of "we really didn't even try." I can sum up my feeling on ALPA's performance by addapting a Mel Gibson quote:
"Why? Why is that impossible? You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better."
Why? Why is that impossible? You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from FDX's table that you've missed your God given right to something better. There is a difference between us. You think the pilots of this company exist to provide you with a union job and money. I think your union job exists to provide those pilots with better work rules and pay.
08-13-2020, 01:46 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by kwri10s
Sorry for posting this on the new hire thread I thought this was the pay raise thread. Too late to edit or remove.
08-13-2020, 02:00 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
I wasn't around for that contract. I was also previously at another “legacy”. Of course we can always strive for improvements. The problem is people dont realize we are already top of the heap in most areas to include work rules, retirement, vacation, and benefits. We can pattern bargain new pay rates but what other section are we behind in? I hear people complain about sub. My previous airline had a similar initial re-assignment window and would constantly re-route us so they didnt have to send us home with pay. This is precisely what our company would do. With Sub we get to choose. Oh others also complain about of DHD and not getting the higher class of service. Well ask UPS how they get their? Many times its laying sideways on the JS of a 767 because they have much broader use of company JS as apposed to the company buying them an airline ticket. Oh would you lime to go to PBS so you can get profit sharing like Delta?
So what some in this group need to do is stop cherry picking and look at things in totality. You want to gut one part to gain in another then be my guest but dont biatch.
So what some in this group need to do is stop cherry picking and look at things in totality. You want to gut one part to gain in another then be my guest but dont biatch.
Isn’t cherry picking exactly what you just did with this post?
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Well if thats what you got out of all that then I cant help ya. Thats not what I said. In laymen’s terms im saying we need to stop chopping up every section of the contract every cycle trying to change small things when all it does is creates other things. I live by the KISS model and think this is the approach we take with negotiations in the next round. Go get industry leading pay and fix retirement and move on. The rest is pandoras box if you try to start delving into it.
Although keeping it simple is not necessarily a bad thing, this contract is definitely not simple. There are many small things that need to be fixed or improved in minor ways. I don’t think anyone is asking for major revolutions in entire sections.
08-14-2020, 05:13 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,621
Originally Posted by kwri10s
I think you provided the answer to the "Why don't you understand" question. You were not here. The contract we had previously was not perfect but it only needed some tweaking in a few sections and a fix to the A plan. What we got was a number of self-induced issues and no fix to the A plan. Just so you are up to speed. Not all the giveaways people have problems with were company take backs. Several were union givebacks. At least according to the previous MEC Chair and the negotiating chair.
The MEC Chair said that "he insisted and got" the contract extended to a 6-year contract. The rationale was that we needed the extra time to re-fund the contingency fund. Of course, my understanding is that we filled that back up within two years.
The Neg chair said that we changed the international hotel in lieu since he did not think many people used that and the way people were using it was not the intent.
The Neg Chair said We brought up the change from 12 hr to 18 hours on the int check-in.
And of course, the huge 700 lbs gorilla, where we did not accept any of the offered A fund improvements. They had one cornerstone issue and our Neg and MEC did not force the issue. Rather they caved in because we were out of money and did not want to accept the ALPA national restrictions and scrutiny that came with tapping the Master Contingency Fund.
There are other issues, but yes many people consider this concessionary, based on what we had, what we achieved, and what we "might have gotten". The what we might have gotten, is really the huge unknown. Could the company have flown through peak? Would the fellows have kept toeing the line? Was there something better if we just said no? For my self, I view the what might have happened through the filter of "we really didn't even try." I can sum up my feeling on ALPA's performance by addapting a Mel Gibson quote: I'd change it to reflect how I think our MEC should opperate:
The MEC Chair said that "he insisted and got" the contract extended to a 6-year contract. The rationale was that we needed the extra time to re-fund the contingency fund. Of course, my understanding is that we filled that back up within two years.
The Neg chair said that we changed the international hotel in lieu since he did not think many people used that and the way people were using it was not the intent.
The Neg Chair said We brought up the change from 12 hr to 18 hours on the int check-in.
And of course, the huge 700 lbs gorilla, where we did not accept any of the offered A fund improvements. They had one cornerstone issue and our Neg and MEC did not force the issue. Rather they caved in because we were out of money and did not want to accept the ALPA national restrictions and scrutiny that came with tapping the Master Contingency Fund.
There are other issues, but yes many people consider this concessionary, based on what we had, what we achieved, and what we "might have gotten". The what we might have gotten, is really the huge unknown. Could the company have flown through peak? Would the fellows have kept toeing the line? Was there something better if we just said no? For my self, I view the what might have happened through the filter of "we really didn't even try." I can sum up my feeling on ALPA's performance by addapting a Mel Gibson quote: I'd change it to reflect how I think our MEC should opperate:
And for the record I'll say it again, even if it means I'm an donkey (use your imagination) ... AK ... aka ... Kronan and his buddies got what they wanted but they also let the company's nose under the tent with PBS.
08-17-2020, 07:00 AM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by FXLAX
Isn’t cherry picking exactly what you just did with this post?
Although keeping it simple is not necessarily a bad thing, this contract is definitely not simple. There are many small things that need to be fixed or improved in minor ways. I don’t think anyone is asking for major revolutions in entire sections.
Although keeping it simple is not necessarily a bad thing, this contract is definitely not simple. There are many small things that need to be fixed or improved in minor ways. I don’t think anyone is asking for major revolutions in entire sections.
08-17-2020, 02:44 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,099
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Even changing small things has big repercussions. Like PNP.
I don’t believe that that is a valid reasons to not try to improve the contract where it needs improvement.
I don’t think anyone is talking about wholesale changes in the way entire chapters of the contract work. I see that as a false premise or assumption.
There is a list of things that people would like to improve. But I’ve never hear of anyone say we need to do something entirely different, things like PBS or the A plan. The big things like that are the only things I hear people say they don’t want.
08-17-2020, 04:53 PM
#30
Occasional box hauler
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,676
Originally Posted by Thrust Hold
Seems like this thread has drifted a bit. Are we trying to train the New Hires how to be Industry Leading Complainers? Lets clean up this thread and leave the other CBA discussions on another. 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
