Negotiating Committee - In or out?
 

In light of the MEC Chairman's message, what's your opinion? I for one, have a hard time ever trusting that group again. I'll take the delay in a deal over a TA1.1, but i'll listen to the other side.

The number of advocates trying to rush this thing shows we haven’t learned our lesson from the last time. Get the right contract. Not the right now contract.

I share similar sentiments, but we also have to acknowledge that we are not the proverbial 'man in the arena' either. We did our job when we turned down the TA and elected new leaders and reps. They are back engaged with the NMB and have bargaining dates pending with one new NC member. At some point we have to let those we elected do their thing.

Agree with the sentiment. Hard not to be frustrated when B7 ran on accountability, but is now prioritizing staying the course.

Well said.. Except is Pancake Pat more trustworthy now, then or ever for that matter…. I don’t think I can ever believe anything he says based on his snake oil sales job!

The NC proved themselves to be untrustworthy and lacking integrity, looks like the new block 7 guy is too. They all need to go.

100% agree! Isn’t the definition of insanity “doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results”?

From TA1 itself to the sales job…..I don’t trust this NC.

But, but, It was going to be different this time. The newly elected heros not following the masses?

So how many of you burn the house down guys are stepping up and telling your reps YOU will run for the NC position

The house needed to be burned down.

Close to retirement? Sorry, dude. Take the money and run ain’t gonna cut it around here anymore.

I am close to retirement but was a proud no voter

2 for take the delay for the right contract!

I will look at any TA presented but the MEC and NC have made their jobs x times harder with old NC in place. They will need to hit several home runs in multiple areas under even more intense scrutiny (read old NC puts the membership on alert for TA1.0-like repeat errors).

Actually I think it shows complete integrity. He literally won a popularity contest so that he could look out for the best interest in his block. He was well aware that his Block did not trust the judgement of the previous Block Rep and now he is reporting back what he knows....and is keenly aware it will be unpopular with those that shared his viewpoint and elected him. I think a Rep who is willing to tell you what he thinks, knowing full well that the assessment he made comes at the expense of his popularity is the very definition of integrity.

You could argue that his judgement is circumspect, or that he is too easily swayed, or that the snake oil salesmen have wicked mind control powers....but unless you are asserting that he lied to get elected, saying he lacks integrity and is untrustworthy is illogical.

I guess now he could also be recalled, and Block 7 could elect another person. What would happen if yet another Block rep gets elected and reports back similiar results? How many Reps must get elected and then recalled before his Block gets the "answer" they want? If the answer is "all of them"....then you are anouncing the triumph of ideaology over intellect.

At some point, you have to trust somebody, or you trust nobody. Perhaps the best thing we can do right now is trust the people we've elected to make their best assessment and show a little unity. Being tribal at this point is probably not the best way to work ourselves out of this problem. For the record, I did not vote for him.... But if I had the chance to do it again, I probably would. I have no interest in a Block Rep who has pre-determined a decision.

Yuko, to be clear, you seem to have genuine motivation, but I personally review your exhortations with "Intense Scrutiny' simply because you keep repeating what I believe are inaccurate (or probably just naive) assertions. For example, you constantly refer to the need to transition our company from a "Family Run" operation. I've been here 23 years, and I can assure you that since before I got to this company and for years previously I owned it's stock, it has never been a "Mom and Pop" operation, but a highly profitable international corporation. While that may be your impression, it seems at odds with its history.

In 2022 it named our corporation #16 of the worlds most admired companies. It was the 22nd year on the list.

In 2000, it was ranked 104 on the Fortune 500. and was ranked 50 by 2018.

In 2020 for example, it had 69 Billion in revenue, 1.3 Billion in net earnings, and 73 Billion in assets...

By continually repeating this assertion, you are diluting your message.

Hello fellow poster,

You should review it with intense scrutiny, that is your prerogative. .

I can see how you would think that. “Family run” business alludes to the heavy hand and rightfully so FS and family have over this company. It also alludes to folks like you (read senior you) telling me that “FS always take care of his pilots”, “we go for small gains over time, don’t worry about the other guys (read UPS, legacies), “we have a great relationship with management that you don’t see elsewhere”. Then TA1.0.

Are these themes that represent my experience here family enough for you?

Lastly, it does not pay me you being riled up, so let me know what adjective you would like me to use instead of “family run” to show the disparity

Until then I will use “your archetype corporate organization”. Will this work for you?

Hello fellow poster.

The only pilots I have ever heard saying what you claim are the "dirty 30" and non-union pilots. There aren't any of the "dirty 30" left and very few of the non members left. Nice try though.

Yeah, totally agree! Why the hell did that snake oil 169K improved pension and a totally sustainable new pension that adjusts for inflation ever get sold to us! Go sell that stink bomb somewhere else...give me my 130K pension now!!!

If snake oil = the best retirement in the industry, then count me in!!

Awesome job!!

Let me know how that works out when they re-open Scope and sell your retirement for furlough protection.

Yeah…no. The new plan wasn’t sustainable. It was literally capped. How do you not know this?

One of the primary reasons the TA failed.

Yeah you can hype that POS all you want, but the "new pension" was terrible (0% return lol) and 169k wasn't nearly enough of a bump to a pension that hasn't changed in 25 years. Pancake Pat needs to go.

You forgot the smilies…. That’s what people usually put at the end to let people know they are being sarcastic!

Wrong on both statements. It was in the TA if you read it (clearly you didn't). The MBCBP increases with IRS limits: I'll make it easy, I even made it bold in case you can't read through an entire paragraph>>>>>Summary: The MBCBP Pension is the definition of sustainable and actually increases with the IRC 401 limit. If our current pension had this, the entire issue would have been moot. More=Better, Sustainable=Indexes up with your income.

From the joint council meeting a few weeks ago, they showed us the survey results: News flash! The TA was not rejected for retirement...that's what was explained in our meeting.(Scope and Pay were ranked the highest).

7. Benefit Accruals
a. Benefit Accruals under the MBCBP shall equal Compensation Credits
plus Interest Credits.
b. Compensation Credits under the MBCBP shall be 11% of
Compensation. Compensation Credits will be credited at least quarterly.
A Compensation Credit based on a Pilot’s Compensation for the period
will be credited as of the last day of that period or as of the pilot’s benefit
commencement date, if earlier.
c. Compensation shall be as defined in the Pension Plan, except as
follows:
i. Compensation used to determine Compensation Credits shall be
subject to the compensation limit under Code §401(a)(17), as
indexed.

Was Scope sold for our TA 1.0 retirement gains?

Are we still maintaining that the MBCB Plan is better, but wouldn’t have given our, possibly irrational, future new hires a choice ?

What about R16, Student Lines, VBB and other QOL scheduling concessions we traded?

Is everyone now saying (admitting) the quiet part out loud?

An Interesting Negotiation mindset - that we must sell in order to achieve. I think that’s what led us to this division.

Let’s try TRUE Unity instead.

VR,
DLax

I don't remember being asked on the survey how we voted on the TA. Was that a question? If not, then there is no way to know why what the top items were for the no voters. They can only know the items least liked by those that took the survey. Also, if there was a question on how you voted, then results also require an honest answer to the vote question. I thought the survey was leading in many place and certainly would not give an very accurate percentage scale on many of the questions. It was not a weak and the previous survey but still lots of poor question phrasing.

Please define “sustainable”?

I think you’re taking the company’s perspective.

Why is the company willing to index the MBCB Plan cap to 401(a)(17) limits, but unwilling to index our current A plan to those exact same limits instead.

I think I (we) understand why, but I’m genuinely interested in your perspective.

What specific gains does the company make by switching to a MBCB Plan ?

(Note: It’s would have been mandatory for all future pilots. Zero choice)

What did the company trade us for getting these gains?

VR,
DLax

p.s. In capitalism, everything has a market clearing price. Everything. TA 1.0 just didn’t reach it

cap (ˈkap)

a real or imaginary point beyond which a person or thing cannot go // a cap on player salary expenditures was suggested as a way to keep small market teams competitive

Synonyms

bound, boundary, ceiling, confines, end, extent, limit, limitation, line, termination

Dude. I think you need to sift through the information a little more deliberately.

From the latest LEC 26 communication:

During the recent chaos, we have been working. Our two recent surveys, as well as in-person focus meetings, have identified the four areas that need to be re-addressed from the baseline of the TA. Here are two slides from the data.

1. Pay and compensation, including the Amendable Period Recovery Payment
2. Retirement
3. Scope
4. QOL items
5. Medical freedoms are a show-stopper for some and likely not costly to incorporate.

These are the issues left to “crystalize and compact” by your MEC.

100% said Pay and Compensation was #1. Over 80% saying retirement was #2. Of those 80%, more than 40% said retirement needed major improvements. Another 40% said it needed minor improvements.

Nope. You're misapplying it. Two separate graphs shared. One was the priorities of the next TA, with retirement being #2 behind pay and compensation. The next graph was of those 5 (Pay, retro, retirement, scope, QOL), what requires the most improvement from TA1. Retirement was #5 in that graph.

I take your point, but I don’t think I am. I’ll give you an example based on the graphs.

Retro is number one on graph two. If the company raises retro to $125K/$85K, that would address the major changes requested. But if they don’t add cash over cap to the new MBCBP, then we are headed to another no vote.

Flip the roles and let’s say we get 25% MBCBP with cash over cap and retro is bumped up to $50K/$35K. That will easily pass. You have to take in account the priority in graph 1 and weight it with the the desire for major/minor changes. Retirement is a behemoth. If you get massive retirement and massive pay rates, then the retro becomes less significant even though it polled highly for major changes. Just my opinion. You’re free to disagree.

Retirement wasn't perfect, but I don't think it's the reason it failed. The graph seems to show that. We fix pay/retro to industry leading, get rid of the QOL concessions, alleviate scope concerns, and I think retirement is fine. Of course, I'll take more money in retirement, but if I had a choice, I'd prefer more in the DC side instead of increasing beyond the 11% in MBCBP.

Just cause retirment was good for you, doesn't mean it was good for everybody dopey! Theres a whole slew of people in the middle senirority range that are too old for the new plan and young enough that they'll be screwed by inflation for another 20 years with this last and final change to the legacy A plan. Sorry you didn't get your retirement bump, hopefully you're gone before we get to TA2.0. Don't be such a bitter oooooolllld man !

Good comms by TC from Council 22.

Go to FDX.Alpa.org

Under News, read:

Council 22 Message from the Block 2 & 5 Reps - 11/14/23

“An orderly transition to a refreshed Negotiating Committee is in the best interest of regaining the pilots' trust and rebuilding unity. It’s a required step in moving us forward, together to our shared goals and priorities.”- TC

Those people in the middle had their years compressed in the pay increases to counter this.

Oh and maybe you'll be furloughed before we get to TA2.0. So there.

Their years compressed? lol. Was that only for the people in the middle ? What a great consolation prize. I definitely wont be furloughed, but thanks bub. And luckily for me and those below me, there's never been a better time in aviation histroy to be furloughed. So even if we furlough half the list, we'll all be fine.

Wouldn't everyone's retirement increase? Those who were about to retire made out best with the pension bump. And young pilots made out well in the MBCBP. So it makes sense the middle seniority might not see as much increase, but it shouldn't have ever been less than the old contract. 169k is always worth more than 130k, even when reduced by the same years of inflation. Plus there was some math with the MBCBP and a cap increase on frozen years of service. I remember flying with someone who would have made a ton of money by switching to the MBCBP and keeping his frozen pension too. I thought he was late 40s or early 50s. I guess it would depend on how long he'd been here.

Sheesh. I guess I don’t know what people want. I was hoping we’d negotiate a sustainable retirement this time. But I’m not going to accept a 15% effective savings rate in exchange for giving up the A-Plan.

My quick math says you'd have to make almost $450k a year to only see a 15% contribution. Which good for you if that's the case.

There's a ton of different opinions on retirement. I'd love a higher % contribution. But I'd like higher pay and less QOL concessions more. I also don't love the pension. I don't trust it after seeing what's happened in our industry and to some family friends. I'd rather have money in my own accounts. I know a lot of people think differently, and I understand their reasons.

lol a 3 year compress does not counter that.

the pay compression to industry standard was PM's response to his scope blunder.

Whenever we finally get a ratifiable TA, that would put most of our WB CAs at $450k/year.... to have them only getting 15% in lieu of a pension when right now they're getting 9% and a pension is not acceptable.

Wouldn't they still have a pension in any case? They could choose 169k or have a frozen pension plus the MBCBP. The guy I flew with was all about the MBCBP because he was still going to get a lot in his pension too.

I'm not arguing against more retirement. I'll take as much as I can. I just don't want it to come at the cost of getting paid now. Seems like focusing on retirement led us down our current path.

So the leading pay rate next year is $438. If we beat that by 1% and get $442, that’s basically every WB Captain over ten years getting capped. You make it sound like it’s a one off. Are you using 2023 pay rates?