Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo > FedEx
Wilson Says - FDX ALPA New Regime meets NMB >

Wilson Says - FDX ALPA New Regime meets NMB

Search

Notices

Wilson Says - FDX ALPA New Regime meets NMB

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-22-2023, 08:38 PM
  #61  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,123
Default

Originally Posted by BertMacklinFBI
We have nothing to gain as a group by giving up negotiating capitol for guys who have already retired since amendable date. They should have planned for 2015 contract retirement.
Look, it's binary. if you reward the company for delaying negotiations past amendable date, they will delay as much as you can. If you demand full retro back to amendable, they will be less motivated to do so.

You either want to reward the company, or you don't. That's it.
threeighteen is offline  
Old 10-23-2023, 03:28 AM
  #62  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2023
Posts: 437
Default

Originally Posted by Yuko
I have heard this said but the reality does not hold true. If it was not allowed, why did TA1.0 have a retirement bump for retirees who retired on or after May 30 2023 (page 237 of the TA document that was circulated)?

Edit: The ratification vote did not occur until July



The reason that the retirement bump went for anyone who retired on or after May 30, 2023 is that was the day the TA was agreed to. It was not just some arbitrary date. If they were truly looking back to cover pilots who had already retired, why not go back to the beginning of the year or all the way back to the amendable date? So maybe, they were doing exactly like Tuck has said and covering everyone on the MSL on the date they had an agreement. We chose not to accept that agreement, so here we are.
JustInFacts is offline  
Old 10-23-2023, 08:59 AM
  #63  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DA-40
Posts: 290
Default

Originally Posted by BertMacklinFBI
I understand that. What I mean is by negotiating for ourselves and current FedEx pilots. Ultimately it will (probably) be good for pilots to come on in the future. We have nothing to gain as a group by giving up negotiating capitol for guys who have already retired since amendable date. They should have planned for 2015 contract retirement.
We voted TA 1 down for several reasons. I, for one, will again vote “no” on the new TA if it doesn’t include those who retired from the amendable date and has significant defined benefit (A Plan) improvements.
MalteseX is offline  
Old 10-23-2023, 12:07 PM
  #64  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2018
Posts: 296
Default

Originally Posted by MalteseX
We voted TA 1 down for several reasons. I, for one, will again vote “no” on the new TA if it doesn’t include those who retired from the amendable date and has significant defined benefit (A Plan) improvements.
ok. That’s your choice. But I bet it’s not in there. Unless you want to keep the same pay and other QOL givebacks. Along with probably an even lesser retirement. That’s just my opinion. I’m usually wrong
BertMacklinFBI is offline  
Old 10-23-2023, 01:03 PM
  #65  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Nov 2021
Posts: 22
Default

Originally Posted by BertMacklinFBI
I understand that. What I mean is by negotiating for ourselves and current FedEx pilots. Ultimately it will (probably) be good for pilots to come on in the future. We have nothing to gain as a group by giving up negotiating capitol for guys who have already retired since amendable date. They should have planned for 2015 contract retirement.
Originally Posted by BertMacklinFBI
ok. That’s your choice. But I bet it’s not in there. Unless you want to keep the same pay and other QOL givebacks. Along with probably an even lesser retirement. That’s just my opinion. I’m usually wrong
Bert. I definitely hope that you're wrong (re: your reply to MalteseX).

One thing I'm certain you're wrong about is using negotiating capitol on the amendable date. I'll certainly accept that my argument here will seem self-serving on the surface, but the underlying facts stand on their own. Our union should fight for "retro amendable date" because the precedent needs to be set with the company (Southwest did this BTW). In this, you're not really fighting for ONLY the 300+ who have retired since the amendable date, but for those on the seniority list now, who will be in the same position for future negotiations. This has already played out just like this in all our previous negotiations. So, if you don't do it now, you will have another group, a different group, of 300+ who be similarly situated... and they ARE current dues paying ALPA members.

This has been a pure business decision on the part of the company. I can certainly understand their MO because, based on our previous acquiescence, every day of delay during negotiations represents a finite net improvement to the company's balance sheet ("Just Culture" my a**). So... you, and others like you Bert, who are espousing this position can choose. But, you should do this for yourselves, every FDX ALPA member, not the "current 300+" (it's a nice thought BTW &#128077.
ChipD is offline  
Old 10-23-2023, 03:42 PM
  #66  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 278
Default

Originally Posted by BertMacklinFBI
ok. That’s your choice. But I bet it’s not in there. Unless you want to keep the same pay and other QOL givebacks. Along with probably an even lesser retirement. That’s just my opinion. I’m usually wrong
I do think it is a lose situation for us with no retro retirement to amenable date.

- company will understand there is no financial penalty for a delay
-it will further fracture us for future negotiations (that is any Pilot nearing retirement will understand that our group has no appetite to secure contract wins for those retired). This will make it easier for the company to get qol givebacks. We can’t say we won’t take care of those folks nearing retirement (within 2-3 years of section 6 negotiations) and then chide them for taking care of themselves (read voting in substandard TAs). Pick one, we can’t have it both ways.
-we talk about just culture and doing what is right when it comes to the company but we need to start extending that to ourselves if we expect our Pilot culture to change

I don’t have a perfect roadmap how to work it in there. However, I do believe it will make us more united as a group for this and future negotiations. It will also be truly industry leading and send a resounding message to the company (retirement is too important and has been delayed too long).

Last edited by Yuko; 10-23-2023 at 03:55 PM.
Yuko is offline  
Old 10-24-2023, 01:21 PM
  #67  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Aug 2023
Posts: 437
Default

Originally Posted by Yuko
I do think it is a lose situation for us with no retro retirement to amenable date.

- company will understand there is no financial penalty for a delay
-it will further fracture us for future negotiations (that is any Pilot nearing retirement will understand that our group has no appetite to secure contract wins for those retired). This will make it easier for the company to get qol givebacks. We can’t say we won’t take care of those folks nearing retirement (within 2-3 years of section 6 negotiations) and then chide them for taking care of themselves (read voting in substandard TAs). Pick one, we can’t have it both ways.
-we talk about just culture and doing what is right when it comes to the company but we need to start extending that to ourselves if we expect our Pilot culture to change

I don’t have a perfect roadmap how to work it in there. However, I do believe it will make us more united as a group for this and future negotiations. It will also be truly industry leading and send a resounding message to the company (retirement is too important and has been delayed too long).
It would be great if we could get this in the next TA. However, no one has shown that any of our peers have done this.

Have you asked the MEC or retirement folks if this is even allowed? People on here saying that it is with no proof doesn’t mean that pursuing this isn’t a fool’s errand.
JustInFacts is offline  
Old 10-24-2023, 03:51 PM
  #68  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2017
Posts: 278
Default

Originally Posted by JustInFacts
It would be great if we could get this in the next TA. However, no one has shown that any of our peers have done this.

Have you asked the MEC or retirement folks if this is even allowed? People on here saying that it is with no proof doesn’t mean that pursuing this isn’t a fool’s errand.
I have spoken to my reps and the standard answer is we will see if it polls high enough and have enough folks telling them (reps) it is important. At the end of the day, it is on us. Write your reps!
Yuko is offline  
Old 10-24-2023, 05:57 PM
  #69  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Adlerdriver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 3,989
Default

Originally Posted by Yuko
- company will understand there is no financial penalty for a delay
The only way you impose a penalty that might discourage future negotiation delays would be to actually impose a penalty greater than paying full retro. We all know that ain’t gonna happen.
Making the company pay full retro after a two to three year delay would have no effect on them choosing to delay again in the future. They still get the benefit of keeping that money in their pocket throughout the delay. If they pay on time with a TA the day after the amendable date, they’re still paying the same amount. With the delay, they keep that money working for them and pay the same later. So let’s not fool ourselves by thinking full retro for the delay is any kind of disincentive.
Adlerdriver is offline  
Old 10-24-2023, 06:42 PM
  #70  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,396
Default

Well, its better than them paying 40% retro, which was offered in TA1.
Nightflyer is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jerryleber
=> United Contract 2022
61
09-02-2022 11:51 AM
Boeing Aviator
=> United Contract 2022
16
08-27-2022 07:19 AM
Birddog
United
236
08-11-2016 07:55 AM
flyharm
Mergers and Acquisitions
0
02-18-2008 06:49 PM
rjlavender
Major
26
10-19-2006 08:48 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices