Just found the email from the union Scope Committee a few weeks ago. We all got it. Many appear to have not read it. Lays it all out clearly. To be clear, I’m all for scope improvements. Lets not act like this is a new dynamic though. If it was cheaper the company would be outsourcing more not buying new airplane after new airplane. Hiring is at its highest rate in company history per the fleet updates sent out recently. Are we chasing our tails a bit? Before we know it we wont even know what we are trying to accomplish this round of negotiations. Retirement, pay, a few quality of life things.


“Our scope language addresses wet leasing. The Company may wet lease a minimum of two aircraft for up to four bid periods per calendar year with three of those bid periods required to be consecutive. Three unique penalty triggers then may apply.
The first is provided in Section 1.B.6.a. and covers wet lease operations that “assume flying regularly and historically performed by FedEx crewmembers” for more than two bid periods. Such wet lease operations which exceed two bid periods begin to accrue penalties through the conclusion of the wet lease. This is the situation for the two Western Global MD-11s mentioned above.
The second trigger is provided in Section 1.B.6.b. and covers wet lease operations that exceed the maximum number of aircraft based upon the net number of hulls the Company adds to the fleet during the calendar year. The most recent scope penalty payment was based on this provision.
The third trigger is provided in Section 1.B.6.c. and covers wet leasing done beyond the previously mentioned four bid periods. Penalties under this provision are significantly higher than the preceding two.
From a recent historical perspective, Company wet lease activities resulted in penalties from 2015, 2016, and 2020. Notably, the duration of some of the current wet leases are running significantly longer than past wet leases. We are carefully following this development and have highlighted this aspect to the MEC and the Negotiating Committee”

 

Key words from the update.

"Notably, the duration of some of the current wet leases are running significantly longer than past wet leases."

That's the problem. Yes, they have to pay a penalty. But don't under estimate the company.

 

To be fair, only 20% of Southwest passengers fly during bad weather….


Also, you say that it is less expensive to outsource…I’m not sure that it is. Perhaps it is, but again maybe it is not. FedEx has tremendous economies of scale and the marginal (next one hired) pilot’s training costs likely are not as high as you think. The last round of penalty payments was roughly $2,000,000. Atlas has to cover all of their operating costs (with must smaller economies of scale), account for higher and increasing pilot turnover, and still make a profit (they ain’t doing it for free). So, in my opinion, I really do not believe outsourcing, when coupled with ongoing penalty payments, is significantly cheaper than covering internally.

Does anyone have figures regarding what FedEx is paying Atlas and what it would cost FedEx to purchase some MD-11s that were already cargo ready? We are taking 777 as fast as Boeing produces them.

Do not get me wrong, I 100% hate someone other than a FedEx pilot flying FedEx freight. However, if we stretch our fleet too thin and start leaving freight on ramps, that affects our customers and would affect our customers confidence in our business. I’m hopeful this robust hiring rumor and potential aircraft order is true and allows us to expand capacity and limit external contracts in the future.

 

Ooooh look! Shinny object!

Contract negotiations anyone? Rumors lol

 

Id love to talk about negotiations. Unfortunately I still have no idea what my union is proposing for retirement improvements, because negotiating is best done in secret with the company because that strengthens our negotiating position?!? I do love our negotiations grid though, what a wealth of information.

You know what a real rumor is “Outsourcing to Atlas is cheaper than flying in house.” The reason that’s a rumor is because the terms of the deal aren’t public. I was simply laying out an argument as to why it may in fact not be cheaper to outsource in this instance where there are constraints on acquiring new aircraft and there will soon by crew hiring constraints (which atlas is already dealing with due to their high attrition and competition with us and legacies for new hires).

 

QUOTE=USMCFDX;3316424]Ooooh look! Shinny object! Contract negotiations anyone? Rumors lol[/QUOTE]

^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

And don’t forget, bids can be canceled and they’ve done it in the past! So can airplane orders. A380 anyone?? 😡


I am not a union apologist or secretly a volunteer. And I understand the frustration of not knowing our position. After attending a LEC meeting where the President of the Negotiating Committee spoke (I think that’s the correct title), he explained that retirement is perhaps the biggest deal in our contract and that negotiating a retirement setup that pleases everyone is nearly impossible because everyone’s financial situation and goals are different. However, he promised what’s being proposed would increase everyone’s position. Releasing the position might cause some to be upset and further divide the pilot group.

IF and when we get a TA, if the NC and company go down the wrong road with retirement, then it is up to us to vote accordingly. We the pilots are in control. If a TA is voted down, the leaders can be recalled and we elect leaders who will listen. Right now we need UNITY and PATIENCE. We have leverage. We must not throw it away like we did in 2015.

I also like the negotiation scoreboard. What is worrisome is some of the sections the company opened up. Specifically, vacation. They didn’t open up vacation because they want to give us more days off or more credit. They want concessions there. Or more “efficiencies”.

I refuse to give up anything in Section 7 Vacation. Absolutely nothing !!!

I refuse to have my quality of life get whittled down here and there.

 

^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^

And don’t forget, bids can be canceled and they’ve done it in the past! So can airplane orders. A380 anyone?? 😡




I am not a union apologist or secretly a volunteer. And I understand the frustration of not knowing our position. After attending a LEC meeting where the President of the Negotiating Committee spoke (I think that’s the correct title), he explained that retirement is perhaps the biggest deal in our contract and that negotiating a retirement setup that pleases everyone is nearly impossible because everyone’s financial situation and goals are different. However, he promised what’s being proposed would increase everyone’s position. Releasing the position might cause some to be upset and further divide the pilot group.

IF and when we get a TA, if the NC and company go down the wrong road with retirement, then it is up to us to vote accordingly. We the pilots are in control. If a TA is voted down, the leaders can be recalled and we elect leaders who will listen. Right now we need UNITY and PATIENCE. We have leverage. We must not throw it away like we did in 2015.

I also like the negotiation scoreboard. What is worrisome is some of the sections the company opened up. Specifically, vacation. They didn’t open up vacation because they want to give us more days off or more credit. They want concessions there. Or more “efficiencies”.

I refuse to give up anything in Section 7 Vacation. Absolutely nothing !!!

I refuse to have my quality of life get whittled down here and there.[/QUOTE]

I wear the lanyard and both pieces of flair and I pay my dues. I hope our union succeeds in delivering a quality TA.

You sort of drive my point home for me…a retirement plan is impossible to satisfy everyone (true statement). The union is promising a retirement package that benefits everyone (can’t be true if the first statement is true). Releasing the position could upset some and cause division….well not if it’s truly good for everyone as he promised.

So, here we go blindly down this path and months later we have a TA and we finally discover what our sides retirement position is…and now that it is public it is going to drive tons of decision because they can’t let us know now because it is divisive. So we vote down said TA because nobody likes it and we have a recall. Was all this necessary? Not if we were allowed as a body to voice our opinions first. Instead it’s a secret and if we vote it down we have now wasted finite resources for no real purpose which hands the company the easiest win on the planet.

I hate the pancake plan concept and I’ll vote it down if that is what is presented to me. However, if it was put out to us in a survey with several
clear retirement options and I saw that 70% of pilots support it, well in that case I’m not going to vote it down because I’ll see that I’m in a small minority on that issue thanks to up-front transparency.

If someone is ever trying to convince you transparency is bad, they are likely doing something behind the scenes that isn’t in your best interest.

Regarding aircraft orders, yes they can be cancelled. We have made big moves in Europe. We cancelled an Airbus order over a decade ago. We recently replaced the Airbus fleet in Europe with the 76. I’d be willing to bet that the next order we place is for an Airbus type…it’s a diplomatic play, its an efficient product, and it would get us access to newer airframes at a faster rate than further increasing our Boeing orders.

 

So.........the MEC spends months or years and a significant amount of our negotiating capital and limited funds to fight their way to a secret retirement proposal and only then does the membership get a look? And then, if we don't like it, we further delay our own contract to fix what should have been made right in preparation for negotiations as we install a new negotiating committee that is crippled from day one.

Sorry, but this seems like a really poor way to do business (unless you're the company).

Merle

 

I agree with you. But I also agree with the union. With an item as big and as sensitive as retirement, there's no proposal that they could make that would satisfy everyone. None.

What they are doing, and have promised, that the proposal they are submitting to the company increases everyone's retirement. And you ask, if that's the case why would someone be against that? Answer: I've flown with young FOs who want a big B Fund with cash over the top (even though we kind of have that) and don't want an A Fund. So that's a situation where the union publicly announces their proposal and some pilots would be upset and thus we lose UNITY.

Without out unity we have nothing. We have to put some trust into the union that they're doing us good. Notice the company didn't post their proposals ... not even their goals. They don't want us to unite around their bs "efficiency gains" ... or what I would call givebacks.

We really are our own worst enemy. I was once told that contracts not only protect you from the company, but also your fellow pilot.

 

I’m not sure what you mean by 20% of SWA passengers?

As for outsourcing costs, the training facility is maxed out. They put an MD10 sim in the falcon building a couple of years ago to make room for one more Boeing sim. And then they decided not to spend the capital to expand training facilities. We have 5000 pilots and trying to hire another 2000 in the next couple of years. Pretty soon after that we may be the size of the SWA pilot group. Guess how much SWA paid for their facilities in order to train that many pilots versus just outsourcing? So it’s not just incremental costs for the next pilot hired. It’s the cost of building another couple dozen sim bays and simulators and all associated infrastructure. Of course that is more expensive than the next new hire class plus penalty payments. So should we feel ok that they outsource a few of our jobs in the past and some more now to temporarily save on capital expenditures or are they done with those expenditures and hence the reason why they opened up scope in negotiations?