Anthrax

and yet you continue to post on here, telling everyone that you’re a yes vote. wait, now you’re undecided. take your meds.

by the way, your sense of humor is sharp, that bit about shawshank had me in stitches.

threeighteen

Why is it a dream world? UPS just secured increases (albeit meager ones) without giving it up for newhires or dividing their pilot group.

So what? that's why we had a strike vote.

No we haven't. We gave up the retirement for new-hires to fund the retirements of seniors. We just robbed peter to pay paul, and the company is getting a decent cut of that too.

We're not. We're just not easily led blindly into voting yes like some of the guys who think this is the best we're gonna get.

So if this passes, then we can start try to fix retirement in contract 2030, and then after that we start focusing on higher pay rates? Why not just vote no and fix retirement now, and secure the industry leading pay we deserve now? Why wait?

So then we should do it right, instead of this disaster.

And fall short of inflation, our peers, etc and we'll be working more to get them.

No I will throw CPI at you. It's absolutely relevant and some small 5 figure sums that you throw out can't dismiss that. 100k over 4 years is honestly pathetic.

One of the few good things, but not having industry leading pay negates it.

Westerner

When these negotiations started I don't think anyone anticipated that the retirement would be improved through concessions. When rumors started that this indeed was what was happening people were accused of spreading dis-informtion/hysteria similar to the current atmosphere here now.

Paying for retirement through these concessions is just passing the cost to future generations. It's hard enough to plan your own retirement, the outrage at working more for less to subsidize someone else's retirement is justified. The previous generation of FedEx pilots had their chance to take these concessions on the chin and fix the retirement in previous contracts. Waiting until now when many are set to retire caused the negative reaction here and has caught the attention of the rest of the industry.

Concessions are a showstopper and were the NCs big miscalculation. If retirement can't be fixed without them, leave the retirement alone and let future FedEx pilots have the option of a pension just like we all have.

UnusualAttitude

Facts:

ASL operates just over 75% of the Intra-Europe narrow body network. Many of the cities that ASL serves were previously served by FedEx 757's being operated by FedEx MSL pilots based in either MEM or CGN.

Idaho

The 12 year pay scale is an attempt to buy off FOs who will be stuck in the right seat, not by choice, but because there is no movement. Senior FOs who were bidding LCAs, anyone who wants to max out pay and retirement under the MBCBP, will upgrade, and there will be less jobs due to efficiency gains and outsourcing allowed by the TA.

The cost of any real and essential thing that we want to buy, housing, energy, healthcare, education, food, insurance, skilled labor to fix said property, transportation, is going up 20% per year. We need a fat raise right now to offset inflation. And I see a potential issue with the low raises in future years of all of the CBAs of 5/4, and worst of all a proposed 3 percent. Is there any way to revise this section during the CBA if inflation stays high or goes higher? When we said we wanted to fix retirement, we didn't mean by taking away hourly compensation for every year worked prior to that. Negotiating higher first year pay? That should be the company's problem to recruit new hires. How is that a win for anyone who can vote?

Stan446

[QUOTE=Idaho;3657135]The 12 year pay scale is an attempt to buy off FOs who will be stuck in the right seat, not by choice, but because there is no movement.

Really? 12 year pay scale aligns us with the other carriers. The 15 year scale has been a complaint. But hey, if you want pay raises spread out over 15 vs 12yrs, have at it. You like the term, "buy off" a lot. Its a shame you can't even look at a positive in the TA without turning it into verbiage that fits your narrative.

PurpleToolBox

Yes. Not only the 777 routes but also the 747s.

The CGN crowd is upset their base is closing. I would be too. However, we don’t know if ASL will fly the 757 lines going forward or will the company SIBA/deadhead the flying from Memphis.

threeighteen

Going to a 12 year pay scale is a good thing.

The fact that our year 12 pay lags DL by something like $35 is not.

Sunny1

Eventually we will be adding United, American and maybe even SWA to the list of carriers whose pay we lag behind by a significant amount.

if4not

Meanwhile. back at the original question...

Thanks UA. I AM here to get information. I'm worried about Scope. The union and NC have rightly pointed out that Scope wasn't on most people's radars during the surveying process. They fail to acknowledge that most, if not all of those survey's were taken prior to the Company's announcement of the CGN base closure and that the company has since started publicly saying they will use "partner lift" to move as much volume as possible. The union and NC tell us that the company hasn't wet-leased away our jobs before, so they won't do it now, and that they aren't referring to Express in these announcements/speeches/SEC filings. At the same time, they tell us that it will now be cheaper and easier for the company to wet-lease and that they can wet-lease more penalty-free under the proposed TA. Lastly, they completely dismiss as inconsequential the fact that the Founder is slowly pulling back from the company, the son has an unknown level of affinity for Express, the Board is quickly being stacked with people who are indifferent (at best) to Express, and that Express will be subsumed and merged with Ground into a single operating unit within the next 18 months. Lastly, the NC doesn't seem to think all the company announcements have anything to do with why the company asked to open Scope.

Because I've got another 15 years here, I'm trying to figure out if we've already lost flying under the current Scope and if that might be a model for losing more flying in the future under a BH based penalty system instead of a CR based system. I'd also like to know if we can get any of that flying back through IMPROVED Scope language. I'm not (immediately) worried about losing ALL our jobs to wet-leasing, but I am worried that we may never grow again. We are parking the MDs, we will park the Busses and 757, and the heir-apparent to the newly-merged company says we aren't going to buy 50 WBs because we are going move freight through other means.

As a related aside, I'm also bothered by the fact that we, as a group, seem to be stuck in a conversation about the lesser of two evils instead of saying BOTH sets of Scope language suck and we need something different all together. Given the company's language since Scope was TA's (yes, all the partner lift announcements started the month after that section was TA'd), I would hope the mediator would understand and support reopening that section, even if the company doesn't.

I will say the addition of language allowing us to get information on belly-freight is a good start. However, the company has essentially neutered that section with their letter limiting us to "specific questions" without defining what that means. Do we need to know an airline, and airport, a specific date, a flight or tail number? They can stall that indefinitely.

There is good and bad in this TA. I'm trying to get info from people who have a greater historical knowledge and experience here than I do to get context for my concerns. I specifically don't give 2 sh!ts about how Stan is voting. Nothing personal Stan.