Funny, my rep used the same tired excuse for not wanting to improve reserve, “it wouldn’t be fair to pilots that didn’t bid a position because they were avoiding reserve if we improved it.”

 

You seem to have taken umbrage with my use of "Corner case"....my point is that there are some mainstream items that act as a tide that lifts all boats, and "specialized items", that seem to float some boats more than others.....Are there pilots that can make a living just bidding LCA's and then getting bumped and flying extra to make a pile of cash....absolutely, but the vast majority of our pilot group does not.

A mainstream item that floats all boats would be ....pay rates.....and a "corner case" might be SMU.....this runs the risk of being an example of a strawman argument....but if you got huge payrates, fix to retirement that more or less benefitted all, would it be worth it to "concede" (other's words not mine) the SMU situation?

This is the conundrum all our block reps had to wrestle with. In TonyC's case, (I voted for him) and he stated in his letter that were many things that both he and the members of his block would want and benefit from. As a rep, he put the interest of the entire pilot group ahead of his block.... Perhaps the other reps did the same, though they came to a different conclusion.....

I won't presume to usurp Tony's individual vote on the TA as a member during ratification....but voting "NO" to send it to ratification is completely different from a yes or no vote during ratification. I could see how (let's say 2 or three others also voted "no" to send it out to the membership) but once they were outvoted, it would not be irrational to then vote "yes".....

My initial feeling is that I would like to think if I were an Rep, I would have voted "NO" to send it to ratification.....(Easy to say as a MEC outsider....I might have heard information during the discussion with the NC that might have influenced me to vote "YES" as did the other 12 reps).....but once it was out for ratification, the best option might be to vote "Yes", and continue the fight in 2028....Note I am saying the "Best" option and not the "desireable or 'Just option in a perfect word'"

 

So you want 5 different pay bands? Let's look at that. The MD is going away, so that pay band will possibly be short lived, especially if all the doom and gloom wet leasers are correct. You have the Airbus making less than our 767. So, if we are pattern bargaining, in 2027 the 777 makes $488, the 767 and 757 make $408 and the Airbus makes $390 per hour. That is based on Delta's 767-300 rate, which is banded with their 757. Isn't that how pattern bargaining works?

For those that are saying that total compensation is a smoke screen for substandard rates of pay, how do you justify those 777 FO's here that say they make more on the 777 than they would as a captain on the 75 working the same number of days. These aren't just junior FO's who would only be able to hold reserve on the 75, these are senior FO's who would be in the top 50% on that airplane. Are they lying? The 75 CAP pay rate is higher, so how do they make more for the same number of days worked if pay rates are what matter?

 

As pilots train on the 777, I think the high BLGs on that equipment will come down. It also seems that the SAM is trending down toward the 4a2b trigger.

My question is: will those high earning FOs still out earn 75 CAP while under 4a2b? What about 4a2c?

Slightly off topic: I didn’t like the union using average earnings for their TA compensation slides—especially while telling us we’re overmanned. I’d much prefer comparing earnings using min guarantee. To me that’s important because it seems that’s what many of us will be living on going forward.

 

You are predicting a prolonged economic downturn I think. Serious question: How do you square that with the "They can afford to pay us a whole lot more than PM Negotiated" sentiment. FedEx has long been a Bellwether and has often made moves before the rest of US Industry, for ups and downs which is one reason we've never furloughed. I'm not attempting to play "gotcha" and put words in your mouth...I'm trying to get a feel for your sense of the prolonged outlook. If we are in a "batten down the hatches" mode.....would it be better to take improved payrates while things are lean (Lower BLG's) and re-attack in 2027-2028?

 

LJ,
if you accept that you are willing to work for well less than your peers today, how do you plan to convince anybody that you deserve more (or even equivalent) pay in the future?

 

I don't believe I'll be working for less than my peers based on my entire contract and the likelihood that those contracts at Delta may not stand the test of time. In my Tenure I've seen multiple furloughs and concessions at other carriers that out-kick their coverage.

Look at the United thread...AIP not even officially announced and the disappointment has already begun. Mainly because "its not Delta".....guess what...read over there....they are mulling a cash balance DB plan that some like and see the tax advantage.....

FedEx has historically been recession resistant and I'll easily take my career earnings over any Delta, United, or American guy for a similar date of hire....by a long shot. I don't need a pay chart to see that.

I do know I will be working for less than I would have gotten if this TA fails for possibly 1/4 of my career....

If you can't recognize a gain today (although less than we would like) in the face of a declining economy, How do you plan to convince anybody that this pilot group can suddenly galvanize, organize and exert leverage now when we didn't when we were moving Covid Freight?

If the TA rates are "Well Less" than our Peers, then the current book is "Well Well Less"......and that didn't stop anybody from flying extra at those rates....it wasn't until people got to see their buddy with a bigger chart in his pocket, that they suddenly felt inferior.....How do you convince anyone to work for 17.9% less pay for an unspecified amount of time with no clear path if even the new payrates are "Well Less".....

I can articulate my rationale without guile forever and I will own it even if I'm wrong. Can you articulate your plan?

 

Ok, you accept it because you feel the compensation and QOL provisions at other carriers is unsustainable. Interesting argument

 

Hahaha, just wow.

 

You articulate well what a weak a$$ b!tch you are. say no more. we get it. weak. a$$. b!tch.