Unfortunately we have a lot of dudes like P-3Bubba who can't see through the smoke and mirrors.

 

Reminder for the pilots on JF attempting to lower expectations:



Establish industry leading Hourly Rates of Pay (3.C. (p. 28))


This is from the opener. It doesn’t say, “establish industry leading total compensation package” based on some set of subjective scenarios. The section and page reference leads to the the hourly rate tables. Pretty simple.

 

Are Kronan, Rock and the like starting to let everyone know we are ready to vote YES, regardless of concessions, as long as payrates are good enough?

 

Tightening Scope is a big issue, will require a fair amount of negotiating capital. Besides this, pay rates and retirement, what are the biggest items you folks would realistically like to see improved? For example, our scheduling section is gonna require an enormous amount of capital, our biggest area needing improvement by far.

 

You do realize all these sections have already been TA’ed right? Pay snd duration is all that is left.

 

I do. But the world doesn’t know the content. Regardless, I sincerely hope once all sections revealed and a full TA reached, you folks knock it out of the park. Not only because it is good for our profession but because I have many friends at Fedex who will reap the benefits. Remember, we never get what we deserve, not in our line of work, we only get what we negotiate. And even
then our employers try to weasel their way out of contractually agreed provisions.

 

If a TA is rejected, anything can be revisited.

 

It’s a no for me, dawg.

SCOPE

 

Thanks Captain obvious.

 

Just curious, have you considered that it wasn’t a charitable decision? What would happen when 51% of voters do not have a pension and 49% do? I would think the bankruptcy laws that freeze an employees vesting years of service for a pension would not apply if a union group not in bankruptcy voluntarily votes to dissolve a pension for a better/different 401k/defined contribution .

Are you familiar with a specific law that would protect the not yet retiring pilots if the membership voted to scuttle the entire pension once a majority didn’t have even have one?

The idea that it’s impossible to “loose” pension equity from a past contract, is directly offset by every soon to retire pilots desire to “gain” pension equity right before retirement via a new contract. You feel it can go one way but not the other? Especially if half or more of the group were excluded from a pension.