threeighteen

We used to get paid min 7 hours for a trip. We gave that up for payrates that inflation ate away anyway.

We used to get paid for all conflict drops. We gave that up for payrates that inflation ate away anyway.

We used to get paid for passover. We gave that up for payrates that inflation ate away anyway.

We're probably going to get asked to give up something in this next contract.

For those that think we must give things up to get pay rates, what are we going to do when we run out of concessions to give to the company?

The time is now to stop accepting a single concession and start fighting to get our work rules BACK. If broke-ass legacy carriers can get 34% + lots of QOL with no concessions, WE CAN DO BETTER.

TELL YOUR REPS. NO CONCESSIONS.

magic rat

No concessions.

C2078

While yes some of us from Brown lurk in this forum, we all want the same thing: improvements AND NO CONCESSIONS. Fortunately or unfortunately for us, whatever FDX pilots achieve or don’t, it will impact us somehow. So we are rooting for and hoping you folks knock it out of the park, and center your arguments on management’s mishandling of the business and not the economy.

Stan446

We never got paid 7hrs, its been 6hr for at least 25 years.

fly2ski

Cost neutral, we were paid 7 CH a day. Thats how FPA sold it to us, I was at the meeting....

Nightflyer

You weren't here before the first contract.

We were paid 7 hours before the first contract. They said it would be "cost neutral" but it turned into us working more days per month. We used to work week on week off in the 727. 10 times 7 is 70. So ten days worked. Or maybe 11, to make 77. True week on week off. Now we have to work more days to get up to the same credit hours. Now to get to 72, we have to work 12 days. Unintended consequences, unforeseen (again) by the union. That is why there are few true week on week off lines anymore. You get week on week off, then you get an extra day or two in one of your weeks off.

It was a concession, and we were stupid for agreeing to it.

Nightflyer

I was there as well.

The union got played, again.

If the company says it is cost neutral, there is some other reason they want it. If they didn't have a reason, they wouldn't ask for it.

It's kind of like "lie flat seats".

TonyC

We were paid 7CH per day up until the first CBA was effective on May 31, 1999. By my math, that's less than 25 years.

And by my math, the conversion from 7CH per day to 6CH per day was not "cost neutral", as it was sold then, or in the previous, failed TA. The FPA Rep who briefed my new-hire class told us that they decreased the number of hours by 1/7, so they increased the hourly rate by 1/7 to make that up. That's not how math works. 6/7 * 8/7 < 1

PRIOR to CBA: PAY = 7CH * HOURLY RATE ($ / CH)

POST CBA: PAY = ( 6/7 * 7CH ) * (8/7 * HOURLY RATE ($ / CH))
= 6 CH * 8/7 HOURLY RATE
~ 6.86 * HOURLY RATE

(Or ... 6/7 * 8/7 = 48/49, and that's < 1 , so, again, not cost neutral.)

Instead of being cost neutral, the actual loss was about 2%.


I guess you could say my scrutiny of union leadership got an early start.






.

DLax85

I believe there were also 2nd order effects depending how a trip was paid.

What was "Duty Rig" back when trips paid 7 hrs per day minimum? I believe the 2006 contract changed Duty Rig from "4:1" to "3:75 to 1"

Changing the minimum pay per day clearly affected those trips which blocked less than 7 hours per day, but trips paying out based on block benefited. Interesting.

abides

Productivity based pay, in 1999, color me shocked. Yet here we are. More for less, every time. Show me the money.