CloudSailor

Yeah brother! Let's be ready.

Hopefully that rumor above it is completely unfounded. Rumors will of course continue until we all have access to the document. Unfortunately in the past FDXALPA has agreed, with the Corp.'s full enthusiasm, to creating special carveouts in the CBA for the senior blocks or those close to retirement (i.e., retiring with full SCK bank in 2015TA).

We should all be able to hold the TA'd sections to read in their entirety BEFORE even the talk of a strike vote. Let me fking think and decide for myself NC!

ClncClarence

Serious question: Why would you need to see any TA’d sections before a strike vote?

If we get to that point, that means that the NC/MEC believes that the company is offering us a substandard contract. If that is the case, why would YOU need to see any language? Do you see a situation where YOU would think the TA was acceptable but the union did not? This would imply that YOU are willing to ACCEPT LESS than the NC/MEC whom you have assured us multiple times are going to send a concessionary contract. Is that the case? If not, then the TA’d sections should have no bearing on your potential strike vote. Substandard pay rates are a CONCESSION.

Are you willing to accept less than the NC/MEC to avoid a strike?

Tuck

the screw ups the 2015 MEC made regarding retirement were among the biggest in ALPA history. Their refusal to even consider alternatives to the current retirement was the chief reason our retirement had such little improvement that round. Let’s hope the current MEC isn’t as stupid.

USMCFDX

Oh they are much smarter. They found this new variable/stabilized/pancake plan that is perfect for you just ask them. Doesn't matter if you want it or not and they cant be bothered to even ask you if you want it.

kwri10s

The option offered, if I remember correctly, was to sell out those not on property yet. The A plan would terminate for new hires at the signing date. Rule number one, my 30 year ALPA member Dad always told me, is make the profession better for those that come behind you. That's what every generation of pilots prior to you has done. Don't screw yourself for those not yet here, but make their road a better road than the one you traveled. Improving new hire rates, getting hotels for indoc, not selling out their A plan, etc are items to keep our eyes on. Sell them out is what the company wanted last contract.

I'm very sympathetic to those that might retire just prior to a new retirement, but if they really cared they could have made sure the last contract did not pass. Keeping an eye on the long game is the way to play.

Nightflyer

I agreed with the decision to not split the retirement in 2015, but I don't agree with the union's decision to screw the guys who have been forced to retire (again, by "their" union, who came out in opposition to age 67 and where was the survey on that decision?) since the amendable date.

Many of them probably voted no. I certainly did. Also, if you really cared, you would tell your reps you will vote no unless there is a retro retirement. Next time, it could be your turn to get screwed by "your" union.

Remember, "My union speaks for me" only applies if you are lucky enough to not turn 65 between the amendable date and the contract signing.

If your birthday falls in that window, you will get "left behind", in spite of "our" union saying they will leave no one behind.

Then they wonder why we don't trust them? Seriously?

HvypurplePylot

Ahh you're an age 67 fan. It's starting to make sense now.

CloudSailor

Because I don't blindly trust my union leaders. Got screwed the last time around by wearing the "My MEC Speaks for Me" lanyard and then realizing we were being played like sheep by our Union, who was in turn played even harder by the company.

This NC tried to negotiate away our A Plan, against the wishes of the vast majority of our pilots, outside of Section 6. So yeah, there's that. Even if I did trust, I would still want to verify with my own eyes what has been TA'd so far. Why can't we? Nothing better than a 100% fully informed pilot group on just how $H!Tty the company's offer really is. That'll be perfect tinder for the strike vote.

I'm done with blind trust, sorry. We can each decide for ourselves just how lowball the offer is from this top Fortune 500 Company who suddenly is crying broke after raking in massive, massive profits during the years of our 2015 CBA.

CloudSailor

Dude, where were you last time? You sound confused. WE GAVE IN to the Company's 'line in the sand' (excellent catch phrase sold to us by our NC SL), regarding retirement, after 3 years of knowing fully well the Corp. could afford to improve both the A and B Plans.

Then, we agreed to zero improvement for the A Plan and we were told by both parties that this TA was us getting 'every nickel on the table'. That is, until a week after we voted it when The Chairman called it a 'cost neutral contract' due to efficiencies gained. In other words, he called us suckers a few days after the vote.

Nightflyer

I am not saying I would go to 67. I am saying I would like the option. Also, I would like a union that actually asks me in a legitimate survey my opinion on such an important topic.

The union is suppose to represent us, not tell us what "we want" without asking. The union's purpose should NOT be what makes the most money for ALPA national.

I am paying lots of dues money to be represented, not told what to do like a child.