sounds great why do we need an online poll?

 

You voted yes in 2015 after visiting road shows and not reading the contract, didn’t you?

 

WRONG! That would be the case for a fully randomized poll. A poll that allows self-selection bias (the APC poll), is far less accurate, and you would actually need closer to 60% minimum of the total population group to allow a confidence level over 90%.

Currently, there are less than 300 responses out of roughly 5,600 pilots. (5.6%) Not even close to 4,480 that you need to negate self-selection. FOYMI...

 

This new generation is going to save us from ourselves, and from the Pat May's and Art Luby's of the ALPA world.

 

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

 

If I were to go to my rep and to the union website to get all of the real information on the TA, where would there be any debate or opposition? Except for that one guy who voted against.

The younger crowd are the smaller demographic at the company right now, so it's hard for them to save us in a mob rule situation. If the TA is voted down the probationary members who don't get hired at Delta/AA/SW/UAL/UPS will all become eligible to vote.

 

You are right.

 

Nice fear mongering. But in what way is voting for the TA voting to eliminate your job? Many here keep saying the scope change is going to result in lost jobs, how? Have any of you read 4.A.2.b? Many here want to promote that as soon as the TA is signed, the company is going to lay off pilots. Absolutely not true. If the System Wide Average Metric (SAM) has fallen below 64/80/96 CH for two consecutive bid periods, notwithstanding the application of Section 4 .A .2 .b ., the minimum bid period guarantee shall be reduced to a minimum of 54/68/81 CH . For the bid periods during which Section 4 .A .2 .c . is implemented, unless otherwise agreed to by the Association, the following shall apply: ...see the current contract for the rest.

Before there are any furloughs or even 4.A.2.b, the flying basically across the fleet has to be at a level described above. The company can not just wet lease and then furlough. Tony C said the company can do this which is technically correct but events have to happen to reduce FedEx flying to invoke 4.A.2.b.

The company is committed to the fleet plan thats been around for at least a year and was affirmed again in the recent company business update by JB. The company didn't do mass hiring the last 3 years with the plan to do mass layoffs as soon as a new contract is signed.

And Pat and the NC have not negotiated for over two years with a TA that is going to result in lost jobs. If anyone doesn't think the NC and the MEC looked into the contractual language on Scope, you are wrong.

Scope is important and if that is a basis for a NO vote, great. But posting fear about soon to be mass layoff and career killing is total BS.

 

"The company can not just wet lease and then furlough. Tony C said the company can do this which is technically correct but events have to happen to reduce FedEx flying to invoke 4.A.2.b."

You invalidate everything said because you admit it IS POSSIBLE that the company now has a path going forward to reduce purple tails because of the language changes in C2023 -- as alluded to by TonyC.

What we know:
FY23 Q2: FedEx cut 8 international and 32 domestic Express flight routes.
FY23 Q3: FedEx cut 8% flight hours, parks 9 aircraft
FY23 Q4: FedEx announces sunsetting MD11, 12MD11s permanently parked with additional 6 aircraft, flight hours down 12%, All MDs gone by end Fy24. Another 29 aircraft to be parked in FY24. 3 bases closed.

What can happen:
1. park more 757s because ASL can handle that flying, no need to double deadhead pilots from MEM to CDG
2. siphon off 10-15 777s to be operated by ASL to fly Europe, intra-Europe, Europe-Asia, Asia-Asia flying. (extra-territorial flying).

But you say they couldn't do that because the SAM will fall. Yes, it will. However, they included the word WEIGHTED into the definition of SAM. What does that mean? We don't know. They never defined it in the CBA. The company can calculate the SAM as they see fit because they can weight an average as they see fit. Also, the RLA doesn't account for the extra-territorial flying. So when ALPA grieves the SAM and the probable furloughs from the loss of flying, the National Mediation Board doesn't and can't get involved because USA law doesn't extend to extra-territorial flying. OAK and ANC base closes as they furlough.

"FedEx would never do that"
"They want the control"
"They will lose efficiency"

Does that stop Amazon Air in their contractor model? Does FedEx Ground complain about all of those with their contractor model for Ground? They'll no longer have to fund A B and C funds, 401K and healthcare for the pilots affected. Let's go further.

At this point their SAM calculation is still above the minimum. So they enter in 2-3 long domestic contracts with Atlas and other ACMI carriers. Then they execute Network 2.0 which "UPS"s the FedEx network -- which they've already stated they're going to do. Right now UPS has roughly 55% of the pilots FedEx does ... and that includes all of their international flying. Hence, FedEx stands to lose A LOT of domestic flying.

Now that the leases are in place, they furlough even more pilots to "UP"S the Domestic system. GSO, AFW and IND sorts close. IND base closes. Done.

 

5.6% is several thousand times the percentage of many "registered voter" polls that are considered newsworthy, even assuming that 10% of this poll are not even Fedex pilots (making the further assumption that their vote is significantly different than the "average" Fedex pilot.)