TheBear

It’s all fun and games until a second TA fails and age 67 never happens.

Stan446

[QUOTE=Air Mission;3726157]Posts like this that make smug reference to the "Tony Ticker" are a great example of hubris via seniority. They showcase a proud, arrogant group of old guys who see themselves as strategic political geniuses, who in reality are a collective of half-literate drunks, underestimating the junior guys at every turn between visits to their second families in VCP.

So far, the "young guys"

God, Enough of the young guys are the heros. Nice way to broad brush a group of pilots who have been at FX for decades and fought for better contracts. FX pay used to suck and lag the majors for decades. Those, "old guys" you hate so much got our pay rates up to industry standard. Nice to be an arrogant prick of a, "young guy".

JackStraw

[QUOTE=Stan446;3726214]Because voting “yes” on every TA that passes in front of you for 30 years take so much guts. Bravo and thank you.

Stan446

If the "Young guys" are so determined to do, "business", they could have done so when all the extra flying was going on, the majority of the, "Young guys", were happy to pad their pocket. We could of had a great TA if the majority had done the right thing and not supported the company when we had record volumes. Now that the extra flying is gone, the, "Young guys", are ****ed that the TA wasn't what they wanted. Well, "Young guys", your brought it on yourselves with your greed.

jackryan

Greed? GMAFB, go look at some of the calendars of the blk 1 and 2 777/-11 CA’s flying extensions and draft all of COVID.

If I recall, the 1.2 million dollar guy wanted to extend passed Christmas while doing IOE on a newhire with a wife and young kids at home.

They all tripped over themselves to go vote YES for TA .75 so they could secure their retirement bump on the way out the door while leaving the rest of us hanging.

Greedy booms.

Air Mission

I never said that, but since you brought it up let's look at the data. Blocks 7 and 8 voted to reject at a stunning 77.9%, while blocks 5 and 6 voted to reject in excess of 70%. Meanwhile, block 1 voted over 82% in favor, block 2 voted 69% in favor, and block 3 voted 62% in favor. Those "arrogant prick young guys" (your words) were the bulk of the no voters that enabled the rejection of the concessionary TA1. You called them heroes, but they don't like the label. Glad we got that cleared up.

As for all the decades-senior guys, cool. Pay rates or not, that group voted in multiple concessionary contracts and stood idle in the face of union corruption that was so blatant and offensive it's hard to believe in hindsight. It's crazy to think we've made no gains on the A-plan since 1999, seeing how all-important that part of section 28 is to them. Most of those guys are alright, but it's a tough sell to say they're good at contracts given their track record.

Although it's fun to watch all the smug ALPA-establishment-fellating senior guys get roasted on APC/JF, the whole point of my original reply was that it would be better if you stopped obstructing the majority of the pilot group while we work to send the remainder of the corrupt ALPA establishment back to the line. Only after that's done can we move forward and start negotiating a good contract for everyone (including you).

Or don't, and keep angrily boomerposting hoping it gets us somewhere. Your call

PurpleToolBox

[QUOTE=Stan446;3726214]Or perhaps the passenger airlines went into bankurptcy and the industry lagging pay rates at UPS/FDX suddenly became attractive.

threeighteen

besides July 2023, when was the last time FedEx pilots have stood and fought for a better contract? Not once during this century. If you had, your pension would have been fixed already.

The only reasons why our pay has been above majors are:

1. they temporarily suffered under some bankruptcy contracts
2. we gave up work rules/benefits that saved the company more $$ than we gained.

Otherwise this pilot group hasn't stood up and fought for jack **** since before wifi was in everyone's home and before the TSA even existed.

The young guys are trying to change that. Most of the old guys (except for some real good dudes who voted no), are trying to fight the young guys.

exactly.

4a2c

Not quite why someone of your obvious intelligence would have chosen to join the ranks of such a sad sack bunch who voted in concessionairy agreements over and over. I guess you are the one who made the poor choice.

BTW we secured a B Fund in 1998 as a method to increase the total retirement package. The company and Union agreed at that time that the new money would be in DC and they (company) had no desire to increase the A. What did happen was a couple of age based multiplier bump tables to account for the lack of time left on property for older types to gain a more equal footing on total increase in monies. This last TA simply did the same thing but it included a bump to ALL pilots (even those freezing their plan) in order to transition to the type of plans being offered and desired by the new(er) generation. The only reason we got the proposed increases to the A plan this time , for all, was due to the sunset of new entrants into the A plan, no more need to ever address that plan again. All future increases to the B and MBCBP would be the method to further move the retirement money upwards, for all.

bitwiser

Nope. PM wants pancakes, most of us don't. In general the younger crowd wants a much larger B fund contribution with cash over cap. PM didn't want to hear it, though.