Contract 2021
09-08-2020, 02:49 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Didn't bragg at all. I posted under a thread about W2s for the year, like everyone else from every airline. I hope everyone is making bank currently. I also hope we have the end goal in mind in the future.
09-09-2020, 05:23 AM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by kronan
Should be easy for you to find a comment where I said TA2015 was a huge win.
But that's something I never said.
I have said, CBA 2015 is Better than what came before. That there are things CRS was doing routinely in 2014 and 2015 that they rarely do now, because it costs them $$.
I absolutely Love how people slam our CBA and say, just look at what FedEx said in September 2015. That it was cost neutral. Well, you know what Else FedEx said in 2015, that shipping rates were increasing by 4.9%. (Anyone think FedEx might've considered the additional payroll costs of our TA prior to deciding on a rate increase?)
Here's another thing FedEx said in September. If the TA's voted down, we have a plan to get through peak.
Internet guru's here will say there's NO Way FedEx could've gotten through peak. Not enough Contract lift. Well, What if FedEx had completely closed the schoolhouse. How many pilots would that free up?
As to the Fear Factor of our Chairman's message...this is a clipping.Some have asked that I lay out a plan for a failed TA. Please recall that your elected representatives voted 10-4 in favor of the TA. By laying out a path for a failed TA, I would be inherently suggesting such a failure is expected. That would be counter to the desires of those that want the agreement to be accepted. Conversely, by not laying out that same path I am disappointing those that want the TA rejected. My purpose is not to subvert any of you, and to allow the voting process to determine the path. In either event, we will indeed have an actionable plan.
There are no shortcuts to a new deal in the works. No doubt, management is making plans for either passage or failure, anything less on their part would be imprudent. They have always negotiated very hard, and I would expect the same going forward in any case.
The NMB has made clear to your leadership that our options under the RLA will be severely restricted due to our importance to the economy. This may not be a convenient fact, but it is the case none the less. A return to mediated bargaining is our only viable alternative should the TA fail. As in the past, we can support that bargaining with informational picketing and unity events as well as other informational actions.
One thing has become very clear to me. Unity matters a great deal. In two cases, we demonstrated unity around specific issues. We stood together in opposition to PBS, and we stood together in opposition to a new-hire retirement carve-out. In both cases, we prevailed. Sadly, on our overall retirement position we were unable to formulate a unifying position. If we are to achieve a better outcome in the future we will need to find solutions that create unity vice division.
One popular definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome. Prior to any future bargaining, either in the near term or at the amendable date of this TA, we must develop a sustainable and practical plan that we can all agree on. I am confident such an approach can be developed.
Whatever path you decide, please do your best to make the choice rational vice emotional. Have no illusions about the challenges ahead. As always, thank you for your professionalism and your understanding.
But that's something I never said.
I have said, CBA 2015 is Better than what came before. That there are things CRS was doing routinely in 2014 and 2015 that they rarely do now, because it costs them $$.
I absolutely Love how people slam our CBA and say, just look at what FedEx said in September 2015. That it was cost neutral. Well, you know what Else FedEx said in 2015, that shipping rates were increasing by 4.9%. (Anyone think FedEx might've considered the additional payroll costs of our TA prior to deciding on a rate increase?)
Here's another thing FedEx said in September. If the TA's voted down, we have a plan to get through peak.
Internet guru's here will say there's NO Way FedEx could've gotten through peak. Not enough Contract lift. Well, What if FedEx had completely closed the schoolhouse. How many pilots would that free up?
As to the Fear Factor of our Chairman's message...this is a clipping.Some have asked that I lay out a plan for a failed TA. Please recall that your elected representatives voted 10-4 in favor of the TA. By laying out a path for a failed TA, I would be inherently suggesting such a failure is expected. That would be counter to the desires of those that want the agreement to be accepted. Conversely, by not laying out that same path I am disappointing those that want the TA rejected. My purpose is not to subvert any of you, and to allow the voting process to determine the path. In either event, we will indeed have an actionable plan.
There are no shortcuts to a new deal in the works. No doubt, management is making plans for either passage or failure, anything less on their part would be imprudent. They have always negotiated very hard, and I would expect the same going forward in any case.
The NMB has made clear to your leadership that our options under the RLA will be severely restricted due to our importance to the economy. This may not be a convenient fact, but it is the case none the less. A return to mediated bargaining is our only viable alternative should the TA fail. As in the past, we can support that bargaining with informational picketing and unity events as well as other informational actions.
One thing has become very clear to me. Unity matters a great deal. In two cases, we demonstrated unity around specific issues. We stood together in opposition to PBS, and we stood together in opposition to a new-hire retirement carve-out. In both cases, we prevailed. Sadly, on our overall retirement position we were unable to formulate a unifying position. If we are to achieve a better outcome in the future we will need to find solutions that create unity vice division.
One popular definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different outcome. Prior to any future bargaining, either in the near term or at the amendable date of this TA, we must develop a sustainable and practical plan that we can all agree on. I am confident such an approach can be developed.
Whatever path you decide, please do your best to make the choice rational vice emotional. Have no illusions about the challenges ahead. As always, thank you for your professionalism and your understanding.
However, I am glad you now admit that you and your friends are responsible for increasing PBS on property.
09-09-2020, 05:31 AM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by Noworkallplay
Is reading hard for you? We are talking about draft during negotiations. My point is that historically most can’t turn it off. No one has a problem with draft outside of negotiations. I’m glad everyone is doing well currently. That’s what we work for. The Benjamins.
During C2015 negotiations, ALPA routinely had hub turn meetings. I went to nearly every single one of them. And every time they briefed that draft usage and vacation sell backs were historically low. Do you have proof otherwise?
However, it doesn't matter what the members do. The freight is going to be moved. The company can and will cancel training during peak. They'll extend everyone to contract maximums. They'll revise trips to get around the pesky FRM perameters. They will again flood the schedule with Airport and Hotel Standbys and deny drops.
People accepting draft during negotiations isn't the problem. The problem is with ALPA, with what they've already allowed in the contract, and the relationship between ALPA and the members and unity.
09-09-2020, 08:01 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
DirtyPurple,
thought it was your post, but in reality it's FastBurner.
Let's see, by far the vast majority of those with Pension plans such as our proposal are Multi-Employer pensions. And as one might imagine, many employers are no longer contributing to the pensions due to economic hardships.
Hard for me to imagine FedEx failing within 5 years of transitioning to the PSPP, but anything is possible. And you are certainly correct that should FedEx no longer be able to financially contribute to the PSPP within 5 years of it's creation, those newhires who only have the PSPP wouldn't have a PBGC guaranty.
Absolutely correct that our current Pension Trust can meet all obligations. Would suggest you remember that FedEx Management also gets a vote in what they can easily afford to do. I do know that PBGC costs have increased, and are predicted to do so in the future as fewer Corporations with Pensions support those that have already been terminated.
"Even increasing the benefits - would not be a problem for company - paying $83.00 per individual and 4.5% per $1,000 of unfunded vested PBGC premiums are not preventing an increase to our A plan."
So, the costs were even lower in 2015, when Mgt reportedly drew a line in the sand over even the minimal improvements being suggested today. I submit to you that anyone who would've argued that the FAE Cap should be increased to 285k would've been laughed off the internet.
Would also remind you that FedEx Mgt paid $210M to get 41k Pensioner's out of our Trust and transferred $6B in Pension assets to Met Life.
Even though the Pension was fully funded and FedEx could easily afford to continue it.
I don't know of Anyone who's suggested that our Pension Trust might be in danger of failing. So, PSPP isn't about "fixing" the issue for the company. But trying to come up with a way to improve future benefits.
A benefit that is yes, based upon yearly earnings, but also supported by an additional benefit formula that says a Pilot will do no worse than our Current Pension benefit of 2% times YOS times FAE.
Yes, the IRS limits might change, and have changed in the past. Fortunately that's not something our Union is unaware of. See the existing CBA language supporting our B plan contributions should either of the 2 IRS limits change.
Would be just as easy to include similar language in a PSPP plan. EG, Keeping the same value is pretty simple. Salary Cap reduced by 1/2, then conatibution value increases by 2.
I don't know why some people seem to think increasing an FDA value every CBA is a no brainer, but think modifying\improving the PSPP would be impossible should something change
thought it was your post, but in reality it's FastBurner.
Let's see, by far the vast majority of those with Pension plans such as our proposal are Multi-Employer pensions. And as one might imagine, many employers are no longer contributing to the pensions due to economic hardships.
Hard for me to imagine FedEx failing within 5 years of transitioning to the PSPP, but anything is possible. And you are certainly correct that should FedEx no longer be able to financially contribute to the PSPP within 5 years of it's creation, those newhires who only have the PSPP wouldn't have a PBGC guaranty.
Absolutely correct that our current Pension Trust can meet all obligations. Would suggest you remember that FedEx Management also gets a vote in what they can easily afford to do. I do know that PBGC costs have increased, and are predicted to do so in the future as fewer Corporations with Pensions support those that have already been terminated.
"Even increasing the benefits - would not be a problem for company - paying $83.00 per individual and 4.5% per $1,000 of unfunded vested PBGC premiums are not preventing an increase to our A plan."
So, the costs were even lower in 2015, when Mgt reportedly drew a line in the sand over even the minimal improvements being suggested today. I submit to you that anyone who would've argued that the FAE Cap should be increased to 285k would've been laughed off the internet.
Would also remind you that FedEx Mgt paid $210M to get 41k Pensioner's out of our Trust and transferred $6B in Pension assets to Met Life.
Even though the Pension was fully funded and FedEx could easily afford to continue it.
I don't know of Anyone who's suggested that our Pension Trust might be in danger of failing. So, PSPP isn't about "fixing" the issue for the company. But trying to come up with a way to improve future benefits.
A benefit that is yes, based upon yearly earnings, but also supported by an additional benefit formula that says a Pilot will do no worse than our Current Pension benefit of 2% times YOS times FAE.
Yes, the IRS limits might change, and have changed in the past. Fortunately that's not something our Union is unaware of. See the existing CBA language supporting our B plan contributions should either of the 2 IRS limits change.
Would be just as easy to include similar language in a PSPP plan. EG, Keeping the same value is pretty simple. Salary Cap reduced by 1/2, then conatibution value increases by 2.
I don't know why some people seem to think increasing an FDA value every CBA is a no brainer, but think modifying\improving the PSPP would be impossible should something change
09-09-2020, 08:16 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox
I'm pretty sure you authored the Fakebook Jetflyers, "Reason to vote NO", post where you disparaged no voters and sarcastically brag about the gains in the TA. Yeah you didn't say "huge win" but you definitely weren't highlighting the losses. You didn't even say "its better than we had before." But I see you're now changing your language a little. And I believe FedEx when they say C2015 was cost neutral considering when they make statements like this which can be verified they can be held liable for securities fraud.
However, I am glad you now admit that you and your friends are responsible for increasing PBS on property.
However, I am glad you now admit that you and your friends are responsible for increasing PBS on property.
Which was it, was it me and my ilk who got PBS onto the Property for the first time ever?
Or was it me and my ilk who increased PBS?
BTW-did you ever have a Reserve Line involuntarily converted? WIll tell you, that absolutely sucked. And yet, that's something that doesn't happen anymore.
Were you ever a VTO holder, say #18 or so (About 35% of the VTO lines) and have multiple trips you requested go to people Junior to you. In one case, had a Trip request #4 go to someone 20 VTO lines Junior to me...because it was just a request.
Barring someone hosing themselves with a late breaking CO trip acquisition, that just doesn't happen. But when\if it does, you can figure out why it happened.
And, still, now one can seem to explain to me how there's More R day coverage. In any seat there are X number of trips\flying hours. Company targets the monthly BLG values and the SIG builds them into lines. There is a Y value of expected vacation use, expected Training conflicts. All of those conflicts go through the View\Add process and the remainder wind up in the VTO system. IF everyone protects min days off, doesn't plus up there lines, then there's more VTO flying. If Everyone bids around their Vacation and pluses up their lines, then there's Less VTO flying which results in More R days.
As much kvetching about Company gamesmanship as there has been, there's yet to be a single instance where the amount of R day lines published didn't equate to 80%.
So, Yes, Junior VTO holders are being assigned R days. And yes, no doubt that some of the more bottom VTO holders are getting their R days through the VTO system when they would've formerly been RA line holders.
I just think the increased control over our destiny as Senior VTO holders combined with the elimination of Involuntary Conversions as well as the total R day block drops for conflicts is worth it.
But hey, if you want to go back to Involuntary Conversions\Same R day conflict rules in the previous CBA....more than happy to support that goal
Sarcasm is my middle name?
09-09-2020, 02:02 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,622
Originally Posted by kronan
Well, which was it? Did I say TA2015 was Huge in the past? Hugely beneficial?
Which was it, was it me and my ilk who got PBS onto the Property for the first time ever?
Or was it me and my ilk who increased PBS?
BTW-did you ever have a Reserve Line involuntarily converted? WIll tell you, that absolutely sucked. And yet, that's something that doesn't happen anymore.
Were you ever a VTO holder, say #18 or so (About 35% of the VTO lines) and have multiple trips you requested go to people Junior to you. In one case, had a Trip request #4 go to someone 20 VTO lines Junior to me...because it was just a request.
Barring someone hosing themselves with a late breaking CO trip acquisition, that just doesn't happen. But when\if it does, you can figure out why it happened.
And, still, now one can seem to explain to me how there's More R day coverage. In any seat there are X number of trips\flying hours. Company targets the monthly BLG values and the SIG builds them into lines. There is a Y value of expected vacation use, expected Training conflicts. All of those conflicts go through the View\Add process and the remainder wind up in the VTO system. IF everyone protects min days off, doesn't plus up there lines, then there's more VTO flying. If Everyone bids around their Vacation and pluses up their lines, then there's Less VTO flying which results in More R days.
As much kvetching about Company gamesmanship as there has been, there's yet to be a single instance where the amount of R day lines published didn't equate to 80%.
So, Yes, Junior VTO holders are being assigned R days. And yes, no doubt that some of the more bottom VTO holders are getting their R days through the VTO system when they would've formerly been RA line holders.
I just think the increased control over our destiny as Senior VTO holders combined with the elimination of Involuntary Conversions as well as the total R day block drops for conflicts is worth it.
But hey, if you want to go back to Involuntary Conversions\Same R day conflict rules in the previous CBA....more than happy to support that goal
Sarcasm is my middle name?
Which was it, was it me and my ilk who got PBS onto the Property for the first time ever?
Or was it me and my ilk who increased PBS?
BTW-did you ever have a Reserve Line involuntarily converted? WIll tell you, that absolutely sucked. And yet, that's something that doesn't happen anymore.
Were you ever a VTO holder, say #18 or so (About 35% of the VTO lines) and have multiple trips you requested go to people Junior to you. In one case, had a Trip request #4 go to someone 20 VTO lines Junior to me...because it was just a request.
Barring someone hosing themselves with a late breaking CO trip acquisition, that just doesn't happen. But when\if it does, you can figure out why it happened.
And, still, now one can seem to explain to me how there's More R day coverage. In any seat there are X number of trips\flying hours. Company targets the monthly BLG values and the SIG builds them into lines. There is a Y value of expected vacation use, expected Training conflicts. All of those conflicts go through the View\Add process and the remainder wind up in the VTO system. IF everyone protects min days off, doesn't plus up there lines, then there's more VTO flying. If Everyone bids around their Vacation and pluses up their lines, then there's Less VTO flying which results in More R days.
As much kvetching about Company gamesmanship as there has been, there's yet to be a single instance where the amount of R day lines published didn't equate to 80%.
So, Yes, Junior VTO holders are being assigned R days. And yes, no doubt that some of the more bottom VTO holders are getting their R days through the VTO system when they would've formerly been RA line holders.
I just think the increased control over our destiny as Senior VTO holders combined with the elimination of Involuntary Conversions as well as the total R day block drops for conflicts is worth it.
But hey, if you want to go back to Involuntary Conversions\Same R day conflict rules in the previous CBA....more than happy to support that goal
Sarcasm is my middle name?
You pushed C2015. Then when it became a dud you've slowly changed your language to "well it was better than before." Let me guess, FedEx negotiators told us there was no more money on the table.
I can't believe the ALPA Negotiating Chairman actually told the members that. How stupid.Yes, you "fixed" a problem ... the involuntary conversions on VTOs. But they were limited and let's be honest rarely affected a lot of people. And the number of VTOs should have stayed low or been reduced. We should have been able to fix the involuntary or seniority abrogation without letting full blown PBS come in to play while reducing lines. It doesn't matter IF the company was using PBS for their Secondary Process -- how else would they build lines? You are bidding ... you give the company preferences ... and they use software to organize it. Preferences ... Bidding ... Software ... PBS. Duh. But instead of addressing involuntary assignments or seniority abrogations we now have the company searching for which PBS software to implement. Your "fix" INCREASED PBS and led to the loss of lines. And it isn't going away. Worse yet, we still haven't even seen the PBS software that C2015 promises. It has been how many years now?
Throwing salt on the wound, ALPA didn't negotiate any rules, constraints or steps as to how the new software will award trips to your schedule. We gave them the purse and all the strings attached. PBS can be a wonderful tool IF we controlled the strings. The only thing we can hope for is when the MEC Chairman and the company's equal get together to sign off on the software, that the MEC Chairman says no and the entire issue is dropped. But you know that isn't going to happen. It will be sent to mediation and we'll lose our butts on it because we agreed to PBS.
And I noticed your slight of hand ... "published" reserve lines. Now we have a lot more secondary lines (PBS) which is affecting more people because reserve lines have been thrown in. Instead of finding fixes for the secondary shenanigans and trying to reduce secondary lines, we created more headaches. But you got yours.
Sure, there are new hires and even people like you who are like "OMG, this process is much better than what we had before" or are too ignorant to know any better (military straight to FedEx). However, as they say, the camel's nose is under the tent.
I wonder how much more of our "published" bid pack is going to be thrown to the Secondary System that is PBS in order to "fix" something the company does intentionally to make us negotiate a "fix" for?
It frustrates me that you fail to see how getting a solution to your small problem and the company offered a "fix" which will affect everyone negatively going forward.
I don't know you. I've never flown with you. I do know a lot of people in my circles know you and respect you. It is nothing personal. I just wish you can acknowledge that maybe what the company offered as a fix wasn't good at all.
I hope we can think for strategically on the next contract versus tactically.
I'm tired of arguing with you. I'm done.
09-10-2020, 05:32 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
There is ALWAYS more money at the table.
Only question is how long will it take to get it.
Reject a TA and eventually a better one will slide across the table.
IMO-most likely in a 6-10 month timeframe.
Yes, Involuntary Conversions were rare. But can WE agree at least that eliminating that option, and expanding the number of dropped R days had the company concerned that they wouldn't be able to fit all of those CHs into the existing VTO system. That it could create an artificial shortage of pilots and force them into drafting people.
All it would take to go back to the Nirvana of all known R days being published in the bidpack is restoring the Involuntary Conversion Option, and Restoring the R day conflict system to it's pre-2015 state. Eliminate the Whole R day blocks dropping and create a solution for something the company was apparently concerned about, and problems solved.
Right. That's what everyone wants right.
Go Back to This
In the event of a phase-in conflict with an R-day(s) in the new bid
period, the R-day(s) in the new bid period shall be dropped and the
pilot shall be eligible to make up an R-day value(s),
Instead of This
If other than a vacation conflict, the block containing that R-day(s)
in the new bid period shall be dropped and the pilot shall be eligible
to make-up an R-day value(s),
Go back to This
If the pilot’s recurrent training conflicts with a block of
R-days but does not split that block (i.e., it does not leave
an R-day(s) both before and after the recurrent training),
then only the R-days in conflict with recurrent training shall
be dropped as a phase-in conflict and the pilot shall remain
responsible for the remaining R-days.
Instead of This
If a recurrent training session award conflicts with any
portion of a block of R-days, the entire block shall be dropped as
a phase-in conflict and the pilot shall not be responsible for any of
the R-days in that block.
Surveys Open.
And Pray Tell, please feel free to Exand on the "You got yours"
What, exactly did I get?
A better VTO system, True.
The expansion of disruption compensation, and new disruptions that resulted in the elimination\reduction of some CRS creativity, True.
A better B fund, True.
Better newhire rates, and a minimum rate for those assigned to FDAs, True.
Vastly improved 4A2B language, True.
PDO bumps, I never used to PDO bump people on a front end DH because a subsequent trip conflict would equal 0 pay. Now events like that trigger SUB.
Proffer ability, True.
R24, which I occasionally bid. Previously CRS was just tacking on extra HSBY days if they launched you. Now, done, period dot at the end of that last HSBY period. And if you're launched and return on that last day, it's back to R24 status. Can't hub turn you liked they can after a Flying R24 trip assignment.
A whole slew of things are better in 2015's CBA. Had the TA been voted down, IMO, vast majority of them would've also been in TA2016.
Only question is how long will it take to get it.
Reject a TA and eventually a better one will slide across the table.
IMO-most likely in a 6-10 month timeframe.
Yes, Involuntary Conversions were rare. But can WE agree at least that eliminating that option, and expanding the number of dropped R days had the company concerned that they wouldn't be able to fit all of those CHs into the existing VTO system. That it could create an artificial shortage of pilots and force them into drafting people.
All it would take to go back to the Nirvana of all known R days being published in the bidpack is restoring the Involuntary Conversion Option, and Restoring the R day conflict system to it's pre-2015 state. Eliminate the Whole R day blocks dropping and create a solution for something the company was apparently concerned about, and problems solved.
Right. That's what everyone wants right.
Go Back to This
In the event of a phase-in conflict with an R-day(s) in the new bid
period, the R-day(s) in the new bid period shall be dropped and the
pilot shall be eligible to make up an R-day value(s),
Instead of This
If other than a vacation conflict, the block containing that R-day(s)
in the new bid period shall be dropped and the pilot shall be eligible
to make-up an R-day value(s),
Go back to This
If the pilot’s recurrent training conflicts with a block of
R-days but does not split that block (i.e., it does not leave
an R-day(s) both before and after the recurrent training),
then only the R-days in conflict with recurrent training shall
be dropped as a phase-in conflict and the pilot shall remain
responsible for the remaining R-days.
Instead of This
If a recurrent training session award conflicts with any
portion of a block of R-days, the entire block shall be dropped as
a phase-in conflict and the pilot shall not be responsible for any of
the R-days in that block.
Surveys Open.
And Pray Tell, please feel free to Exand on the "You got yours"
What, exactly did I get?
A better VTO system, True.
The expansion of disruption compensation, and new disruptions that resulted in the elimination\reduction of some CRS creativity, True.
A better B fund, True.
Better newhire rates, and a minimum rate for those assigned to FDAs, True.
Vastly improved 4A2B language, True.
PDO bumps, I never used to PDO bump people on a front end DH because a subsequent trip conflict would equal 0 pay. Now events like that trigger SUB.
Proffer ability, True.
R24, which I occasionally bid. Previously CRS was just tacking on extra HSBY days if they launched you. Now, done, period dot at the end of that last HSBY period. And if you're launched and return on that last day, it's back to R24 status. Can't hub turn you liked they can after a Flying R24 trip assignment.
A whole slew of things are better in 2015's CBA. Had the TA been voted down, IMO, vast majority of them would've also been in TA2016.
09-10-2020, 06:17 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Delta & SWA both voted down their initial TAs, and received substantially better TAs within 1 year. We can’t just talk unity, we must follow thru with steadfast resolve.
With the rise of Amazon, and pax carriers trying to use excess capacity to move cargo, FedEx Mgmt will always strive to protect our product and reputation: “World On Time”
The customer has ultimate power. How valuable is our role in customer satisfaction?
In Unity,
DLax
With the rise of Amazon, and pax carriers trying to use excess capacity to move cargo, FedEx Mgmt will always strive to protect our product and reputation: “World On Time”
The customer has ultimate power. How valuable is our role in customer satisfaction?
In Unity,
DLax
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
