My understanding is that the company, the mediator and the negotiating committee came to this agreement under mediation of the Railway Labor Act. The mediator wants to accomplish a collective bargaining agreement, a TA is not a CBA until member ratification. As such, I believe we go back into mediation and set a schedule based on the company, union and mediator. The process of that timeline is dependent on multiple items: Replacing the negotiating committee, recalling of reps that endorsed the failed TA, election of new reps, more polling I assume and then reengagement. The most recent example of the RLA was the railroad TA that got rejected by a few of their unions and they reengaged, did not come to an agreement, went to the PEB then had congress implement the PEB recommendation through legislation. When we return to the table, the company may want to open every section, they may not. We might have a framework with this TA, we might not. If this passes or fails in the 50% range, then half of our group is not being well represented. I would consider that a “area for improvement” however, it if passes or fails at 70%+, I would call it a successful outcome either way. If it passed, a large contingent is happy, if it fails, the union returns to the mediator and says that the perception of a zone of reasonableness was wrong according to our members. Then we have the unity of a 99% strike vote and an overwhelmingly rejected TA because it is inadequate. Will that help? Maybe. Will it hurt, for the short term, probably. Could the company furlough or wet lease or go into 4A2B/C? They are going to do what they need to do for their business. How long will it all take? Who knows. That is one of the unknowns. Will we get something better? I think it is possible. How do we get it? We eleven new reps, we gather new data, we maintain status quo, and we continue down the path of the RLA as we are permitted.

Small

 

That's about what Pat said.....There is a $70 Million opportunity cost lost each month of delay according to Road Show......I don't think they're selling fear.....its more realistic than saying there is no lost opportunity cost.....Also, the problem with asking for Delta Rates is then they may want us to look like Delta......no A Plan, less vacation, PBS.....that's why the emphasis is on total comp as opposed to highest pay rates.....

My problem is that people here are flaming away with emotion...these are the people saying we should vote it down.....it makes me lose confidence in the competency of our pilot group when whey refer to ALPA Representation vice Chair and Labor attorney...as some "old ninety year old dude"....and making the other ridiculous statements.....I wouldn't follow these guys to the bathroom if I had to take a leak....however, NC committee has been working on this for a long time, I like his approach and rationale, so I do trust him over folks that spend so much time on here, like I have over the last few days.... Good luck guys...I'm out!

 

Based on the MBCBP (A spillover benefit that Delta has at 2%) with their 16-18% Defined Contribution plan, I would argue that we are looking more like Delta in regards to retirement with this TA. It may be where the industry is going and that is why we are trying to set a high bar with it, but it is much more like Delta than it is our existing Defined Benefit that only factors in your high 5 and YOS up to 25 yes. That is why the trade off isn’t perceived as well as maybe it should be IMO. Retirement is also only 1 section of the contract and we must look at the whole contract in light of not just this one section or this one 4.5 yr period but as a whole career for each of us depending on where we are in that career.

Small

 

LJ— you’ve made it abundantly clear here on APC you do not believe FedEx pilots are worthy of the best pay rates and work rules in the industry and are choosing to vote Yes to this TA even though that would put us behind our peers after the past several years of extreme profitability, degraded QOL, and all the while working under a 2015 Contract that already has its obvious flaws. We hear you loud and clear sir.

 

You are arguing we can't ask for Delta pay rates because we have an A-plan, in a TA that sells away the A-plan?

 

Laughing_Jakal was using similar logic to sell the 2015 TA. Ready to support any argument that makes this TA look like a win, and to throw in the towel. Just like Pat.

A lot of guys like him unfortunately. That is who the company aims for. The major share of their 50%+1 Y goal will come from those senior (mostly) dudes.

However, they might be in for a surprise this time around. A lot of young pilots who won't vote in QoL concessions, and who won't sell out the future pilots without the option of an A Plan, knowing that Pat's overall retirement scheme just means further future division for the company to exploit.

 

Keeps telling me to go on Pat and the NC’s word…. Road Sale Show said blah, blah, blah.. I went and was unchanged and frankly unimpressed.. Lots of ASSumptions and “what it really means”. Has he actually read the TA.. That’s what really counts. What does the actual TA say; not what Pat, some ALPA lawyer, Cherion or any of the other snake oil salesman say. If you have to explain it, we know how the FedEx attorneys are going to interpet it. This is like a CBA2015 rerun.. Let me guess; “We got notes”

 

What’s the deal ? This is what it says on the poll.

Voters: 276. You may not vote on this poll

 

Who cares? Is this the new generation needing constant validation? Vote and you’ll learn the results soon enough.

 

Maybe it’s the new generation having a spine. Let’s hope so.