|
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
(Post 3671432)
As someone who voted no the first ten seconds the vote opened up, I've come to a new understanding.
Here’s what I’ve concluded. Our compensation package is not only about pay rate but more heavily weighted towards retirement—far more than any other airline. Our total compensation per pilot exceeds any other airline by far…it might not in pay rate, but the total value of the package is industry leading. If we turn this down now, we may get an increase in pay rate, but the total compensation I doubt would grow very much, if any…especially if the NMB has any say, and they do. Our back pay per month, exceeds all other airlines…that’s what the NMB is looking at and they won’t push for any more from the company. If we go for a TA2, we will never capture the lost investment dollars, ever, and that’s because our compensation is so heavily retirement weighed. Yeah, this TA is not what I wanted, but this is where we are. We’re screwed…. TA2 can possibly put more monthly pay in our pockets, but it’d come out of retirement…and even if it didn’t, we’d never capture the interest lost—effecting the younger guys on the property the most. I don't feel that this TA will reduce my quality of life. I'll accept the incremental improvements and pocket the cash...after all, this is all why we are here, to make money. This is a business decision. your desire to have cheap cash and take Pennies on the dollar is exactly the problem with this pilot group. You do you man but if this TA passes I’m sure you’ll never admit to it in person. |
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
(Post 3671503)
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 $650,000 a month. This is likely an example of a wet lease cost, which means that the lessor provides the aircraft, complete crew, maintenance, and insurance (ACMI) to the lessee, which pays by hours operated. The article also states that Amazon bought 11 used 767s from WestJet Airlines and Delta Airlines in January 2020 for an undisclosed price2 Based on these estimates, one can compare the costs of leasing versus buying a 767-300F freighter in some hypothetical scenarios. For instance:
|
Originally Posted by BeanBurrito
(Post 3671507)
The question is this….Why would Fed Ex want a less restrictive Scope clause from the pilots if an ACMI carrier is more expensive?
VOTE NO!!! |
Originally Posted by ECCVref20
(Post 3671477)
The company negotiates with us as a labor group not because they want to but because they have to. We have a direct influence on their bottom line, stock value, and the efficiency and cost of the operation. Those are the only reasons they engage with us at all and the roots of our leverage in every negotiation.
Believing that voting down an agreement that only (barely) meets one of the stated top three openers of our so called focused negotiations would lead to a worse outcome and then appealing to power goes against everything a Unionized workforce should stand for. I agree that rates aren't everything, but the insidious concessions on scope, work rules, and efficiency that make up this entire TA go far beyond the numbers with a "$" 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. -- SAM now only has all bid pack BLG averages…does not include secondary lines which routinely bring the SAM down. If SAM falls below 68/85/102 for two consecutive bid periods, 4.A2.b.i comes into play -- Training is now paid the month of training, not the following month. -- AVA pay goes to 175% if awarded BLG/ RLG is equal to or greater than MBPG.
|
Originally Posted by Jma313
(Post 3671504)
your desire to have cheap cash and take Pennies on the dollar is exactly the problem with this pilot group. You do you man but if this TA passes I’m sure you’ll never admit to it in person.
|
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
(Post 3671511)
I miss the days of city purity, where once you got senior you could hold a line that went out and back from your home town...we had these throughout the country. Alas, newer computers and a new optimizer mostly put an end to that. This is a tough job no matter how you slice it. I voted no on the last contract because I felt it gave up work rules and QOL, without getting a substantial increase in our pay and retirement. This TA is better than the last and I'm leaning on the incremental improvements we'll get with this TA. I hate to give away anything, but negotiation is going to be give and take. I've only just listed a few improvements, but now I've got to get some sleep. Ultimately, I believe our lives will improve after this. -- SAM now only has all bid pack BLG averages…does not include secondary lines which routinely bring the SAM down. If SAM falls below 68/85/102 for two consecutive bid periods, 4.A2.b.i comes into play
-- Training is now paid the month of training, not the following month. -- AVA pay goes to 175% if awarded BLG/ RLG is equal to or greater than MBPG.
I also love "new hire pay" while the union (not the company, mind you) tells us we're 800 pilots overstaffed and likely to furlough. But we improved new hire pay for those non-existent new hires! You also claim that the SAM definition change is good because the secondary lines "routinely bring the SAM down". Have you ever considered that immediately after this definition changes, the company will suddenly shift more flying out of the bidpack and into the secondary lines? Nah, they'd never do that! |
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
(Post 3671517)
Why wouldn't I. This is my opinion and I'm sharing. You're welcome to disagree. Sure I'd like more, but I understand the reality of the situation differently from you and others I suppose.
|
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
(Post 3671503)
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:
for example you had the energy to research wet lease on the internet but not the energy to email your rep to ask. I don’t think wet leasing is a big hang up as you stated. Nothing is wrong with that but I do you think that you may have some inward searching to do to figure what kinda voter you really are for TA 2.0 (Again don’t know you but I think you are a time value of money right now kinda person regardless of what else is in the deal). look forward to your vote on TA 2.0. in closing NO to depress wages NO to Union busting pension schemes NO to cheaper and looser scope and one of my favorites NO to throwing in the cold the 300 retirees that will see no improvements to their A plan what time is it! NO is the time! |
Originally Posted by Laughing_Jakal
(Post 3671524)
HercMasterJ……They’re looking to discredit you because you’re not succumbing to their group think. Good on you for making your own decision. Pragmatism over wishful thinking and unchecked emotion.
hey now LJ, no one is doing that, in fact I think most of the posts are civil. I do think you are concerned about this outcome and you should. It can work anyone up. Vote results are made up of all kinda of voters so it will be unnatural to think that a vote can be 100% not NO or 100% NO. until the vote closes take care of yourself, we will need you on the other side of this for TA2.0. |
DHL Airways (later known as ASTAR because it went from an American company to a German owned company who could not own more than 49% of and American airline) had Art Luby to negotiate with DHL. …. DHL/ASTAR had the “best scope in the industry “ according to ALPA.
Simplified short version as I can best recollect …. DHL made guarantees of everything the ASTAR Pilots wanted and even threw in a 2 year no furlough clause…all the pilots had to do is agree to drop the SCOPE lawsuit against DHL. Mr. Luby felt it was the best deal and advised the MEC to vote YES. The MEC agreed with Art and the pilot group agreed with the MEC. The airline began parking jets within 3 months of contract signing … 90% of the pilot group was furloughed by March 2008 and paid (Furlough Clause) for 2 more years until March 2010. Some pilots never flew again….some scattered to all the airlines and started at the bottom of seniority list one or two more times. ASTAR and 10% of its remaining pilots no longer existed by 2012. They were replaced by ACMI Carriers like KALITTA, ABX, ATI, ATLAS, POLAR,SOUTHERN AIR for half the money while cutting each others throats for the chance to fly the DHL contract. Great deal for DHL because they got pilots for half….did not have to pay vacation, sick time, training, staff, 401k, health insurance, workman’s comp, pension…etc When one pilot group asks for more money….DHL simply takes the jets THEY OWN and give them to the other ACMI….or add a new ACMI to the mix. Amazon loved the whipsaw so much that they have now adopted the DHL way of running an airline. Basically the way major Airlines played regionals against each other in the 90’s Just a wild scenario here….What if Fed Ex could start a wet leasing company of its own called Titan (oops that one is already taken by Atlas) so I’ll make up another name…say ACME leasing…..buys jets…….wet leases them to FED EX for profit and gets the depreciation write off….. gives them to an ACMI carrier who bids the lowest cost…and takes them away and give to another ACMI when the previous gets too demanding while making a profit off of the jets they own through their WET leasing company. That could be one way…. Or like DHL and AMAZON just buy your own jets outright and then pay the ACMI carrier to fly your jets. I could be wrong….oversimplified…, but, the ASTAR story is true to my best recollection….the pilots didn’t even agree to revised scope language….they simply agreed to drop a Scope Lawsuit that DHL apparently thought the pilots would and could win. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:15 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands