Yuko

I have asked directly thru DART and no reply.

…you say you are a show me kind of guy, then do you not owe it to yourself to at least ask your rep directly about the 2x expensive calculation?

I will even draft the message, all you have to do is hit send, I can even tell you where to find your block rep email on FDX ALPA

Dear Rep,

Can you provide me the calculation that shows wet leasing is twice as expensive?

TIA

We will need all not NO voters when this thing goes down.

what time is it! NO is the time!

StarClipper

The NMB job is not to make the company give us anything. It’s not up to the NMB. It’s our responsibility to negotiate what we deserve. I will not tell you how to vote, what I will say is based on you own words, you know the TA falls wayyyyyyyyyyy short. It’s all up to you to decide what you’re worth. AA DL and UA were all in the same boat.

ECCVref20

The company negotiates with us as a labor group not because they want to but because they have to. We have a direct influence on their bottom line, stock value, and the efficiency and cost of the operation. Those are the only reasons they engage with us at all and the roots of our leverage in every negotiation.

Believing that voting down an agreement that only (barely) meets one of the stated top three openers of our so called focused negotiations would lead to a worse outcome and then appealing to power goes against everything a Unionized workforce should stand for. I agree that rates aren't everything, but the insidious concessions on scope, work rules, and efficiency that make up this entire TA go far beyond the numbers with a "$" in front of them and will have a detrimental effect on every pilot with more than 5 years left or at the lower end of the seniority list for years to come.

The instant gratification you are validating as a business decision by changing your vote on this TA will be at the cost of long term earnings as well as progression and future career expectations.

FreightFlyer91

It's amazing how simple some people can be. If, and that's a big if, you believe our total compensation is higher............IT SHOULD BE. We have 85% of our pilots on wide body pay as opposed to the big 3 having maybe 20%. That obviously makes our total average compensation higher as it should be. It should be way way way higher than the big 3. If this TA was so great, why does ALPA need to use misleading slides comparing our 777 compensation to other airlines using min guarantee for those airlines and average BLG during covid for our guys/gals? The answer is because they know they are serving up a **** sandwich. You still have time to pull your head out of where it's buried and vote NO before tomorrow morning.

kwri10s

Well let me take a try at this. Our compensation package is no where close to being more heavily weighted towards retirement. Look at the pay rates multiply by 1000ish and then multiply by 5500. That is the pay portion of our compensation. Then take 169 and multiply that by 5500. Which number is larger? Now you might be trying to say that the TA improvements are more heavily weighted towards retirement, but even that does not pass the math test. Multiply the max change in retirement (39) by 5500. Is that number larger than the increase in hourly pay times 5500? Now we do get a larger percentage retirement increase in retirement compensation than everyone else did? Not sure about that there are a lot of IRS caps we'd have to figure out. As to our total compensation per pilot lets try that math also. We get an inflation adjustment to our A plan (nice), and in 4 years it will be 39k, but that's not compensation today, but years in the future. The MBCBP is just a replacement for the traditional A plan. So that's a wash. Yes there are pay raises but everyone else got bigger pay raises. Our pay raises are basically inflation adjusted pay rates, except for the condensation from 15 to 12. So how exactly is our compensation more? Even if I give you that the new plan is all new compensation instead of a replacement for the A plan you lose, it's only 11%. That equals max 33K at the cap. So if you are a new hire or if you change to the MBCBP 33K times 4.5 years is the max compensation in this contract that could be designated as "contributing" to our total compensation. HOW is ALPA getting to 3.8 B? They will not say. Not to mention the MBCBP has to be approved by the IRS before it can even be implemented.

NMB. Yes a complete wild card, but that does not mean it's bad. Just unknown. Both sides in this argument are guessing. We've never actually fought for anything. I still see dude/dudettes still walking around the AOC without the union lanyard. I see others talking to them like they are their friends. If this is voted down. This is stop number one on the fight trail. Either you are with the pilots or against us. No where in between. Think about this like a boxing match. So far we've stood around the ring and talked about fighting. Next we might be asked to put on some gloves (make sure everyone has a lanyard). Then we might have to start stretching and limbering up (insert next step Not advocating anything here). After a while we might have to get into the ring and jump around a bit. Then we might touch gloves. Later a fight might actually start. Yes we might get punched in the mouth, but we might also punch back. Who knows. All you can do right now is wear your lanyard showing you support your fellow ALPA pilots and their families. Fly what you bid and do what you are contractually required to do. Fighting is down the road.

Time value of money. Certainly a concern.....but..... if the economy is sliding, then the market will slide. See actually you might save money by not investing it now.

I try to find strength in one of my favorite quotes. You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshanks' table that you've missed your God-given right to something better. This should be every union's theme.

StarClipper

Just remember, your career lies not in the hands of the NMB or the NC/MEC. It’s lies in your hand! Your Vote! You get to decide what you deserve by the way you vote.

Yuko

Those infamous charts were only corrected after one of the line pilots did a detailed analysis and highlighted the numerous errors.

There was no retraction just a change in the narrative from the Union as the slides miraculously updated. These guys tried their best and it is okay to say it was not good enough. It is not good enough. This is why we practice go-arounds and PMR!

let us send this concessionary TA around for another try!

magic rat

Well, if you voted yes, then don’t complain when I collect my wet lease check while you’re furloughed!!!Bahahaha!!!

hockeypilot44

This is a pilots that bought what the union is selling.

HercMasterJ

Here's what I got off the internet, take it with a grain of salt...According to a 2015 article by 24/7 Wall St., a monthly lease for a Boeing 767-300F freighter can cost between $150,000 and $480,000, depending on the age of the airframe. This is an example of a dry lease cost, which means that the lessee is responsible for the crew, maintenance, insurance, and other operational costs. The article also states that FedEx placed a firm order for 50 767-300F freighters in July 2015 for a total of $9.97 billion at list prices, which implies an average purchase price of $199.4 million per aircraft.

According to a 2020 article by Forbes, leasing a new 767 costs between $600,000 and $650,000 a month. This is likely an example of a wet lease cost, which means that the lessor provides the aircraft, complete crew, maintenance, and insurance (ACMI) to the lessee, which pays by hours operated. The article also states that Amazon bought 11 used 767s from WestJet Airlines and Delta Airlines in January 2020 for an undisclosed price2

Based on these estimates, one can compare the costs of leasing versus buying a 767-300F freighter in some hypothetical scenarios. For instance:

• If Amazon wants to operate a Boeing 767-300F freighter for one year at 500 block hours per month, it would cost them between $360 million and $390 million to wet lease it (assuming a monthly lease rate between $600,000 and $650,000), plus positioning costs and livery. They would not have to pay for the crew, maintenance, insurance, or other operational costs.

Wet leasing is expensive.