Company provided rally cry!
03-28-2024, 11:01 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2023
Posts: 67
Company provided rally cry!
The latest blistering missive from the company on our union’s disfunction since TA1 was rejected was a tough read. It’s a scathing indictment of our current state as a union and pilot group. How did we get here? Is there any hope? What is the way forward?
First, some background (as I see it):
In the immediate aftermath of TA 1’s rejection, Jetfliers/Jetcriers, Whatsapp, APC, Bookface Messenger, etc. all devolved into a two-sided and contentious argument about why we had a rejected TA after two years of “focused negotiations”, and what was the best way forward. This state of discourse has led to two distinct and vocal camps.
(NOTE / DISCLAIMER / CAUTION: I acknowledge that there is NO single qualifier for what puts a pilot in one camp or the other. There are ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters in both. Young and old. Senior and Junior. Mil and Civ. New Balance sporting silverbacks and skinny jeans wearing youngins. Furthermore, I propose, with absolutely NO proof, that a great majority of the pilot group falls somewhere between the extremes of these two camps.)
The first camp TENDS to be demographically younger, more junior, a no voter, never been in management or held senior union positions, and typically have more fitted uniform shirts that I do. Sometimes referred to with varying amounts of pride or derision as FedEx Freedom Fighters, youngins, skullduggery plotting no-voters, ‘idiots’, the burn-it-down crowd, TC acolytes, etc. This group has become the face and force behind the desire to move away from the establishment that got us TA 1.0, CBA 2015 and previous, and a cozy relationship with FedEx management. They have arguably done a pretty good job organizing, recalling, and electing like-minded block reps. I have little actual insight into their inner circle other than what the most vocal post on Jetfliers, Messenger Contract Corner, and APC. Like most 2 sided arguments, it seems the most vocal and prolific posters tend to be on the far extreme end of the issues spectrum. Think of the most vocal as the ones offering 30+ page missives claiming dubious impropriety by the “other” camp, and offering up such gems as “we will burn this place to the ground”, and “we can wait 10 years for the RIGHT contract”. These statements and similar ones were likely offered up as hyperbole, but you shouldn’t underestimate the most extreme in any group, even if you agree with much of the sentiment. I don’t like any of the names coined so far for this group so I’ll call them Junior (as in seniority) Progressives (as in not business as usual), or ‘JP pilots’ for short.
The other camp is demographically older, more senior, a yes voter, has some former and current management, NC, MEC, and chief pilot types, and may or may not own >3 pairs of new balance. Occasionally referred to with varying degrees of pride or derision as the SM, the TA-1.1 NOW crowd, company shills, geezers, Management-fluid, among others. A self-proclaimed Silent Majority, they are certainly not silent, and are very doubtfully a majority given the last 6+ months of recall votes. The SM WhatsApp group was born circa Nov 23 as those who do not identify with the JP crowd saw the FedEx and FDX-ALPA partnership begin to crumble. The early stages of the SM group were pretty extreme (see examples in CTs 36 page career suicide note). As the group grew, it has self-tempered thanks to some calmer inputs from some of the more prolific posters. While SM isn’t exactly true to form for many pilots within this camp, I think most are OK with the SM moniker. So ‘SM pilots’ it is.
So how did we get here?
In the late 20th century, the pension as we know it today was codified. It hasn’t changed significantly in the 24+ years since. That’s certainly bad from just about any way you look at it. I don’t know how bad it is because that depends on who you ask. What isn’t up for debate is that the FAE x YOS x 2% (no idea if I have the notation right) formulation has resulted in a MAX pension payout of $130k/yr. This hasn’t changed with inflation. It apparently has been ATTEMPTED to be increased with each successive CBA, but for varying reasons these efforts have been unsuccessful.
(SIDE conversation: While the a-plan hasn’t changed, some things have. I don’t know when, but we got the B-plan. And it HAS increased some in the past. So to me the real question is: has our TOTAL retirement benefit package kept up with our peers. I KNOW that’s a difficult question. I know comparing our A plan + B plan is an apples and oranges to others 401ks, MBCBPs, profit sharing, etc. But in ballpark numbers, are we really that far behind? I truly have NO idea.)
So that set the stage for some post-CBA15 reflection and planning to establish a long-term goal to raise the pension. Efforts were doubled. Pizza-parties were tripled. An out of cycle change to the retirement was presented to the pilot group and FedEx. Surveys were done. And whether or not you agree with HOW the survey question(s) were asked, a consistent conclusion was that increasing retirement (read pension) was one of, if not THE most, important issues for our next CBA. In short, some within the union got extremely invested in the pension bump increase. In hindsight, probably TOO invested. But the consistent results, along with what I consider a SM pilot-centric MEC and NC, led to retirement (specifically raising the pension) being the absolute most important issue handed to PM and the NC for this round of negotiations. Subsequently TA1.0 was negotiated. Along the way we got Scope-woke, but too far along for the NC to consider adjusting course. The MEC voted 13-1 to approve TA1 to send to the pilot group for ‘ratfication’. Pilot group rejected said TA by 57%. And the quagmire began. You all have watched the three-ring circus for the last 6-9 months. I won’t recap that for you. But here we are. JP pilots have a slim but growing majority in the MEC. The long serving and often vilified NC are turning over. And we asked the NMB to be released.
I think what’s hardest to understand between SM and JP groups is to see the other groups perspective and understand how they reached their conclusions. And I think it’s mainly because each group does not understand or appreciate what the other group truly values.
From the SM perspective, the decades long fight to raise the a-plan seems to be causing some blindness to the rest of TA1 that wasn’t so great. The lack of a pension increase has been a thorn in the SM’s side for a very long time. And TA1 brought a long-awaited win in the retirement game tantalizingly close. This represents great value to a great many of the SM.
From the JP perspective, TA1 burned way too much of its monetary value in the pension bump. It’s not that they didn’t want a bump, but not to the detriment of MANY/MOST other issues that the JP values. Simply put, the pension bump wasn’t nearly as valuable to the JP pilots as it was to SM pilots.
(Another side conversation: Even though the A-plan increases were definitely a great step and potential win for the NC and pilot group as a whole, it was still only a PARTIAL win because:
a) it was the beginning of the end of the A-plan,
b) it would forever split the pilot group vote until the last a-plan pilot left the property,
c) no credit towards the TA was given for the present and future savings to the company,
d) 60-75% of the “value” added to the TA for the A-plan increase was (by law) tied up in insurance,
e) and of course, the rest of the TA!)
That’s not to say the TA itself wasn’t valuable. As I’m sure you read in the FedEx response to the NMB today:
“The ALPA National finance team valued the TA as a $3.8 billion improvement over the last Agreement. It was hailed by ALPA leadership as “the highest value achieved among major carriers in the last twenty years” and deemed a substantially greater value per pilot than 2023 deals at Delta and American. ALPA President Jason Ambrosi said of the TA “we’ll strive to build on this pattern in future pilot contracts.”
TA 1 WAS valuable, the 10# brain types at ALPA said so. Fine. I’ll accept that because I don’t have proof otherwise and I ain’t doing the maths. I will say that while reading the TA, it did NOT scream “most valuable contract in ALPA history” to me. But that’s different than not believing in the monetary valuation. Again, the real difference is where the opposing groups, and more importantly the individual pilot, place value.
Way forward:
First and foremost, we have to unify. Regardless of what the NMB comes back with after the FedEx reply to our request for release, a single unified front is key. After we somehow manage that, there are about three paths to TA2 as I see it:
1. FedEx comes to the table with about another $2.5B, making almost all pilots happy. But MANY in the SM contend (loudly and repeatedly) that the company simply will NOT come to the table with more money.
2. The JP pilots accept a TA1-like CBA with the money shuffled around a bit, maybe a little additional cash from FedEx, and hopes to “fix the rest of the stuff” next time. The determination of the JP group and recent success leads me to believe this isn’t very likely either.
3. Barring either 1 or 2, the SM realizes that the current seniority list is not going vote in a factually valuable pension increase to the detriment of nearly everything else in the contract. SM either accepts a significantly smaller pension increase than TA1, or more likely some other retirement improvement with a mechanism to make those nearing retirement “whole”. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what this other retirement improvement should be, but it most definitely should not be utilized in a way that 60-75% of it’s monetary gains goes toward PBGC insurance requirements.)
I think it’ll be a little of path 1, and a lot of path 3. Basically, punt the TA1 pension bump and utilize the monetary value of the contract for real pay increases, real APRP, QOL enhancements without givebacks, and a more fiscally sound, less costly retirement benefit improvement that has provisions to make pilots on property about to retire whole somehow.
What “we” have learned…I hope:
- Surveys are like statistics. They can be full of lies, damned lies, and half-truths. Answers depend on how the question was asked and the wording of the question. Beware how you answer loaded questions. “Do you want an A-plan bump?” 100% yes please!!!!! “Do you want an A-plan bump instead of industry standard pay, and are you willing to give up QOL to get it?” Much less than 100%, probably.
- Retirement IS important.
- Scope is importanter.
- Not giving everything away for an A-plan bump is importantest.
Final disclaimer: ALL of the above is my opinion, or facts as I know them. None of it is presented as absolute fact, nor properly researched. No info was taken from VIPS, and this was definitely not composed on company time or on company IT devices. Void where prohibited. No representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the completeness, accuracy, fitness for a particular purpose, or utility of these materials or any information or opinion contained herein. Actual mileage may vary. Prices slightly higher west of the Mississippi. All models over 18 years of age. No animals were harmed during the production of this product. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, or events, past, present or future, is purely coincidental. This product not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or company, nor as the adoption or promulgation of any guidelines, standards or recommendations. Some names have been changed to protect the innocent. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Package sold by weight, not volume. Contents may settle during shipment. No user-serviceable parts inside. Use only as directed.
First, some background (as I see it):
In the immediate aftermath of TA 1’s rejection, Jetfliers/Jetcriers, Whatsapp, APC, Bookface Messenger, etc. all devolved into a two-sided and contentious argument about why we had a rejected TA after two years of “focused negotiations”, and what was the best way forward. This state of discourse has led to two distinct and vocal camps.
(NOTE / DISCLAIMER / CAUTION: I acknowledge that there is NO single qualifier for what puts a pilot in one camp or the other. There are ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters in both. Young and old. Senior and Junior. Mil and Civ. New Balance sporting silverbacks and skinny jeans wearing youngins. Furthermore, I propose, with absolutely NO proof, that a great majority of the pilot group falls somewhere between the extremes of these two camps.)
The first camp TENDS to be demographically younger, more junior, a no voter, never been in management or held senior union positions, and typically have more fitted uniform shirts that I do. Sometimes referred to with varying amounts of pride or derision as FedEx Freedom Fighters, youngins, skullduggery plotting no-voters, ‘idiots’, the burn-it-down crowd, TC acolytes, etc. This group has become the face and force behind the desire to move away from the establishment that got us TA 1.0, CBA 2015 and previous, and a cozy relationship with FedEx management. They have arguably done a pretty good job organizing, recalling, and electing like-minded block reps. I have little actual insight into their inner circle other than what the most vocal post on Jetfliers, Messenger Contract Corner, and APC. Like most 2 sided arguments, it seems the most vocal and prolific posters tend to be on the far extreme end of the issues spectrum. Think of the most vocal as the ones offering 30+ page missives claiming dubious impropriety by the “other” camp, and offering up such gems as “we will burn this place to the ground”, and “we can wait 10 years for the RIGHT contract”. These statements and similar ones were likely offered up as hyperbole, but you shouldn’t underestimate the most extreme in any group, even if you agree with much of the sentiment. I don’t like any of the names coined so far for this group so I’ll call them Junior (as in seniority) Progressives (as in not business as usual), or ‘JP pilots’ for short.
The other camp is demographically older, more senior, a yes voter, has some former and current management, NC, MEC, and chief pilot types, and may or may not own >3 pairs of new balance. Occasionally referred to with varying degrees of pride or derision as the SM, the TA-1.1 NOW crowd, company shills, geezers, Management-fluid, among others. A self-proclaimed Silent Majority, they are certainly not silent, and are very doubtfully a majority given the last 6+ months of recall votes. The SM WhatsApp group was born circa Nov 23 as those who do not identify with the JP crowd saw the FedEx and FDX-ALPA partnership begin to crumble. The early stages of the SM group were pretty extreme (see examples in CTs 36 page career suicide note). As the group grew, it has self-tempered thanks to some calmer inputs from some of the more prolific posters. While SM isn’t exactly true to form for many pilots within this camp, I think most are OK with the SM moniker. So ‘SM pilots’ it is.
So how did we get here?
In the late 20th century, the pension as we know it today was codified. It hasn’t changed significantly in the 24+ years since. That’s certainly bad from just about any way you look at it. I don’t know how bad it is because that depends on who you ask. What isn’t up for debate is that the FAE x YOS x 2% (no idea if I have the notation right) formulation has resulted in a MAX pension payout of $130k/yr. This hasn’t changed with inflation. It apparently has been ATTEMPTED to be increased with each successive CBA, but for varying reasons these efforts have been unsuccessful.
(SIDE conversation: While the a-plan hasn’t changed, some things have. I don’t know when, but we got the B-plan. And it HAS increased some in the past. So to me the real question is: has our TOTAL retirement benefit package kept up with our peers. I KNOW that’s a difficult question. I know comparing our A plan + B plan is an apples and oranges to others 401ks, MBCBPs, profit sharing, etc. But in ballpark numbers, are we really that far behind? I truly have NO idea.)
So that set the stage for some post-CBA15 reflection and planning to establish a long-term goal to raise the pension. Efforts were doubled. Pizza-parties were tripled. An out of cycle change to the retirement was presented to the pilot group and FedEx. Surveys were done. And whether or not you agree with HOW the survey question(s) were asked, a consistent conclusion was that increasing retirement (read pension) was one of, if not THE most, important issues for our next CBA. In short, some within the union got extremely invested in the pension bump increase. In hindsight, probably TOO invested. But the consistent results, along with what I consider a SM pilot-centric MEC and NC, led to retirement (specifically raising the pension) being the absolute most important issue handed to PM and the NC for this round of negotiations. Subsequently TA1.0 was negotiated. Along the way we got Scope-woke, but too far along for the NC to consider adjusting course. The MEC voted 13-1 to approve TA1 to send to the pilot group for ‘ratfication’. Pilot group rejected said TA by 57%. And the quagmire began. You all have watched the three-ring circus for the last 6-9 months. I won’t recap that for you. But here we are. JP pilots have a slim but growing majority in the MEC. The long serving and often vilified NC are turning over. And we asked the NMB to be released.
I think what’s hardest to understand between SM and JP groups is to see the other groups perspective and understand how they reached their conclusions. And I think it’s mainly because each group does not understand or appreciate what the other group truly values.
From the SM perspective, the decades long fight to raise the a-plan seems to be causing some blindness to the rest of TA1 that wasn’t so great. The lack of a pension increase has been a thorn in the SM’s side for a very long time. And TA1 brought a long-awaited win in the retirement game tantalizingly close. This represents great value to a great many of the SM.
From the JP perspective, TA1 burned way too much of its monetary value in the pension bump. It’s not that they didn’t want a bump, but not to the detriment of MANY/MOST other issues that the JP values. Simply put, the pension bump wasn’t nearly as valuable to the JP pilots as it was to SM pilots.
(Another side conversation: Even though the A-plan increases were definitely a great step and potential win for the NC and pilot group as a whole, it was still only a PARTIAL win because:
a) it was the beginning of the end of the A-plan,
b) it would forever split the pilot group vote until the last a-plan pilot left the property,
c) no credit towards the TA was given for the present and future savings to the company,
d) 60-75% of the “value” added to the TA for the A-plan increase was (by law) tied up in insurance,
e) and of course, the rest of the TA!)
That’s not to say the TA itself wasn’t valuable. As I’m sure you read in the FedEx response to the NMB today:
“The ALPA National finance team valued the TA as a $3.8 billion improvement over the last Agreement. It was hailed by ALPA leadership as “the highest value achieved among major carriers in the last twenty years” and deemed a substantially greater value per pilot than 2023 deals at Delta and American. ALPA President Jason Ambrosi said of the TA “we’ll strive to build on this pattern in future pilot contracts.”
TA 1 WAS valuable, the 10# brain types at ALPA said so. Fine. I’ll accept that because I don’t have proof otherwise and I ain’t doing the maths. I will say that while reading the TA, it did NOT scream “most valuable contract in ALPA history” to me. But that’s different than not believing in the monetary valuation. Again, the real difference is where the opposing groups, and more importantly the individual pilot, place value.
Way forward:
First and foremost, we have to unify. Regardless of what the NMB comes back with after the FedEx reply to our request for release, a single unified front is key. After we somehow manage that, there are about three paths to TA2 as I see it:
1. FedEx comes to the table with about another $2.5B, making almost all pilots happy. But MANY in the SM contend (loudly and repeatedly) that the company simply will NOT come to the table with more money.
2. The JP pilots accept a TA1-like CBA with the money shuffled around a bit, maybe a little additional cash from FedEx, and hopes to “fix the rest of the stuff” next time. The determination of the JP group and recent success leads me to believe this isn’t very likely either.
3. Barring either 1 or 2, the SM realizes that the current seniority list is not going vote in a factually valuable pension increase to the detriment of nearly everything else in the contract. SM either accepts a significantly smaller pension increase than TA1, or more likely some other retirement improvement with a mechanism to make those nearing retirement “whole”. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what this other retirement improvement should be, but it most definitely should not be utilized in a way that 60-75% of it’s monetary gains goes toward PBGC insurance requirements.)
I think it’ll be a little of path 1, and a lot of path 3. Basically, punt the TA1 pension bump and utilize the monetary value of the contract for real pay increases, real APRP, QOL enhancements without givebacks, and a more fiscally sound, less costly retirement benefit improvement that has provisions to make pilots on property about to retire whole somehow.
What “we” have learned…I hope:
- Surveys are like statistics. They can be full of lies, damned lies, and half-truths. Answers depend on how the question was asked and the wording of the question. Beware how you answer loaded questions. “Do you want an A-plan bump?” 100% yes please!!!!! “Do you want an A-plan bump instead of industry standard pay, and are you willing to give up QOL to get it?” Much less than 100%, probably.
- Retirement IS important.
- Scope is importanter.
- Not giving everything away for an A-plan bump is importantest.
Final disclaimer: ALL of the above is my opinion, or facts as I know them. None of it is presented as absolute fact, nor properly researched. No info was taken from VIPS, and this was definitely not composed on company time or on company IT devices. Void where prohibited. No representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the completeness, accuracy, fitness for a particular purpose, or utility of these materials or any information or opinion contained herein. Actual mileage may vary. Prices slightly higher west of the Mississippi. All models over 18 years of age. No animals were harmed during the production of this product. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, or events, past, present or future, is purely coincidental. This product not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or company, nor as the adoption or promulgation of any guidelines, standards or recommendations. Some names have been changed to protect the innocent. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Package sold by weight, not volume. Contents may settle during shipment. No user-serviceable parts inside. Use only as directed.
03-29-2024, 06:31 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: let it snow, let it snow, let it snow
Posts: 829
How do you define "near retirement" to make whole? I"m 58 and would have probably gone out at 60 but if the bump is redispersed and I"m too young for "near retirement" programs then I'll likely take a big hit on what was offered in TA1
03-29-2024, 09:44 AM
#3
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2023
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by NoHaz
How do you define "near retirement" to make whole? I"m 58 and would have probably gone out at 60 but if the bump is redispersed and I"m too young for "near retirement" programs then I'll likely take a big hit on what was offered in TA1
In your case, I don't think you'll like what you will get vs. TA1. The 57% no vote told me that the bump was too large compared to the rest of the contract gains. So LIKELY it has to get smaller IF we stick to a pension bump. But my hope is that with either some more FedEx $, and/or less contract $ going into pension insurance, we can come up with a solution that doesn't leave folks on their way out the door out in the cold.
03-29-2024, 02:30 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2023
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by FedUpWilson318
I think that's a great question, but I am not the one to answer it. My understanding is it's been done before, perhaps in the B-plan implementation and I think the last time we bumped the b-plan percentage. But there are certainly union folks who can better come up with an equitable plan.
In your case, I don't think you'll like what you will get vs. TA1. The 57% no vote told me that the bump was too large compared to the rest of the contract gains. So LIKELY it has to get smaller IF we stick to a pension bump. But my hope is that with either some more FedEx $, and/or less contract $ going into pension insurance, we can come up with a solution that doesn't leave folks on their way out the door out in the cold.
In your case, I don't think you'll like what you will get vs. TA1. The 57% no vote told me that the bump was too large compared to the rest of the contract gains. So LIKELY it has to get smaller IF we stick to a pension bump. But my hope is that with either some more FedEx $, and/or less contract $ going into pension insurance, we can come up with a solution that doesn't leave folks on their way out the door out in the cold.
Anyone who thinks that we are stagnating and shrinking and wants to see upward movement should rethink reducing the DB benefit in TA1. What would be the incentive to retire before mandatory retirement if the pension isn't improved?
03-29-2024, 02:39 PM
#6
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2023
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by JustInFacts
You really should do some research on PBGC insurance premiums. You will see that your statements about the cost of the insurance for the pension are totally false.
Anyone who thinks that we are stagnating and shrinking and wants to see upward movement should rethink reducing the DB benefit in TA1. What would be the incentive to retire before mandatory retirement if the pension isn't improved?
Anyone who thinks that we are stagnating and shrinking and wants to see upward movement should rethink reducing the DB benefit in TA1. What would be the incentive to retire before mandatory retirement if the pension isn't improved?
Sure I'd like to see upward movement, but not if TA1 is the price to pay for said movement!
03-29-2024, 05:43 PM
#7
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2011
Position: RJ Capt
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by FedUpWilson318
The latest blistering missive from the company on our union’s disfunction since TA1 was rejected was a tough read. It’s a scathing indictment of our current state as a union and pilot group. How did we get here? Is there any hope? What is the way forward?
First, some background (as I see it):
In the immediate aftermath of TA 1’s rejection, Jetfliers/Jetcriers, Whatsapp, APC, Bookface Messenger, etc. all devolved into a two-sided and contentious argument about why we had a rejected TA after two years of “focused negotiations”, and what was the best way forward. This state of discourse has led to two distinct and vocal camps.
(NOTE / DISCLAIMER / CAUTION: I acknowledge that there is NO single qualifier for what puts a pilot in one camp or the other. There are ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters in both. Young and old. Senior and Junior. Mil and Civ. New Balance sporting silverbacks and skinny jeans wearing youngins. Furthermore, I propose, with absolutely NO proof, that a great majority of the pilot group falls somewhere between the extremes of these two camps.)
The first camp TENDS to be demographically younger, more junior, a no voter, never been in management or held senior union positions, and typically have more fitted uniform shirts that I do. Sometimes referred to with varying amounts of pride or derision as FedEx Freedom Fighters, youngins, skullduggery plotting no-voters, ‘idiots’, the burn-it-down crowd, TC acolytes, etc. This group has become the face and force behind the desire to move away from the establishment that got us TA 1.0, CBA 2015 and previous, and a cozy relationship with FedEx management. They have arguably done a pretty good job organizing, recalling, and electing like-minded block reps. I have little actual insight into their inner circle other than what the most vocal post on Jetfliers, Messenger Contract Corner, and APC. Like most 2 sided arguments, it seems the most vocal and prolific posters tend to be on the far extreme end of the issues spectrum. Think of the most vocal as the ones offering 30+ page missives claiming dubious impropriety by the “other” camp, and offering up such gems as “we will burn this place to the ground”, and “we can wait 10 years for the RIGHT contract”. These statements and similar ones were likely offered up as hyperbole, but you shouldn’t underestimate the most extreme in any group, even if you agree with much of the sentiment. I don’t like any of the names coined so far for this group so I’ll call them Junior (as in seniority) Progressives (as in not business as usual), or ‘JP pilots’ for short.
The other camp is demographically older, more senior, a yes voter, has some former and current management, NC, MEC, and chief pilot types, and may or may not own >3 pairs of new balance. Occasionally referred to with varying degrees of pride or derision as the SM, the TA-1.1 NOW crowd, company shills, geezers, Management-fluid, among others. A self-proclaimed Silent Majority, they are certainly not silent, and are very doubtfully a majority given the last 6+ months of recall votes. The SM WhatsApp group was born circa Nov 23 as those who do not identify with the JP crowd saw the FedEx and FDX-ALPA partnership begin to crumble. The early stages of the SM group were pretty extreme (see examples in CTs 36 page career suicide note). As the group grew, it has self-tempered thanks to some calmer inputs from some of the more prolific posters. While SM isn’t exactly true to form for many pilots within this camp, I think most are OK with the SM moniker. So ‘SM pilots’ it is.
So how did we get here?
In the late 20th century, the pension as we know it today was codified. It hasn’t changed significantly in the 24+ years since. That’s certainly bad from just about any way you look at it. I don’t know how bad it is because that depends on who you ask. What isn’t up for debate is that the FAE x YOS x 2% (no idea if I have the notation right) formulation has resulted in a MAX pension payout of $130k/yr. This hasn’t changed with inflation. It apparently has been ATTEMPTED to be increased with each successive CBA, but for varying reasons these efforts have been unsuccessful.
(SIDE conversation: While the a-plan hasn’t changed, some things have. I don’t know when, but we got the B-plan. And it HAS increased some in the past. So to me the real question is: has our TOTAL retirement benefit package kept up with our peers. I KNOW that’s a difficult question. I know comparing our A plan + B plan is an apples and oranges to others 401ks, MBCBPs, profit sharing, etc. But in ballpark numbers, are we really that far behind? I truly have NO idea.)
So that set the stage for some post-CBA15 reflection and planning to establish a long-term goal to raise the pension. Efforts were doubled. Pizza-parties were tripled. An out of cycle change to the retirement was presented to the pilot group and FedEx. Surveys were done. And whether or not you agree with HOW the survey question(s) were asked, a consistent conclusion was that increasing retirement (read pension) was one of, if not THE most, important issues for our next CBA. In short, some within the union got extremely invested in the pension bump increase. In hindsight, probably TOO invested. But the consistent results, along with what I consider a SM pilot-centric MEC and NC, led to retirement (specifically raising the pension) being the absolute most important issue handed to PM and the NC for this round of negotiations. Subsequently TA1.0 was negotiated. Along the way we got Scope-woke, but too far along for the NC to consider adjusting course. The MEC voted 13-1 to approve TA1 to send to the pilot group for ‘ratfication’. Pilot group rejected said TA by 57%. And the quagmire began. You all have watched the three-ring circus for the last 6-9 months. I won’t recap that for you. But here we are. JP pilots have a slim but growing majority in the MEC. The long serving and often vilified NC are turning over. And we asked the NMB to be released.
I think what’s hardest to understand between SM and JP groups is to see the other groups perspective and understand how they reached their conclusions. And I think it’s mainly because each group does not understand or appreciate what the other group truly values.
From the SM perspective, the decades long fight to raise the a-plan seems to be causing some blindness to the rest of TA1 that wasn’t so great. The lack of a pension increase has been a thorn in the SM’s side for a very long time. And TA1 brought a long-awaited win in the retirement game tantalizingly close. This represents great value to a great many of the SM.
From the JP perspective, TA1 burned way too much of its monetary value in the pension bump. It’s not that they didn’t want a bump, but not to the detriment of MANY/MOST other issues that the JP values. Simply put, the pension bump wasn’t nearly as valuable to the JP pilots as it was to SM pilots.
(Another side conversation: Even though the A-plan increases were definitely a great step and potential win for the NC and pilot group as a whole, it was still only a PARTIAL win because:
a) it was the beginning of the end of the A-plan,
b) it would forever split the pilot group vote until the last a-plan pilot left the property,
c) no credit towards the TA was given for the present and future savings to the company,
d) 60-75% of the “value” added to the TA for the A-plan increase was (by law) tied up in insurance,
e) and of course, the rest of the TA!)
That’s not to say the TA itself wasn’t valuable. As I’m sure you read in the FedEx response to the NMB today:
“The ALPA National finance team valued the TA as a $3.8 billion improvement over the last Agreement. It was hailed by ALPA leadership as “the highest value achieved among major carriers in the last twenty years” and deemed a substantially greater value per pilot than 2023 deals at Delta and American. ALPA President Jason Ambrosi said of the TA “we’ll strive to build on this pattern in future pilot contracts.”
TA 1 WAS valuable, the 10# brain types at ALPA said so. Fine. I’ll accept that because I don’t have proof otherwise and I ain’t doing the maths. I will say that while reading the TA, it did NOT scream “most valuable contract in ALPA history” to me. But that’s different than not believing in the monetary valuation. Again, the real difference is where the opposing groups, and more importantly the individual pilot, place value.
Way forward:
First and foremost, we have to unify. Regardless of what the NMB comes back with after the FedEx reply to our request for release, a single unified front is key. After we somehow manage that, there are about three paths to TA2 as I see it:
1. FedEx comes to the table with about another $2.5B, making almost all pilots happy. But MANY in the SM contend (loudly and repeatedly) that the company simply will NOT come to the table with more money.
2. The JP pilots accept a TA1-like CBA with the money shuffled around a bit, maybe a little additional cash from FedEx, and hopes to “fix the rest of the stuff” next time. The determination of the JP group and recent success leads me to believe this isn’t very likely either.
3. Barring either 1 or 2, the SM realizes that the current seniority list is not going vote in a factually valuable pension increase to the detriment of nearly everything else in the contract. SM either accepts a significantly smaller pension increase than TA1, or more likely some other retirement improvement with a mechanism to make those nearing retirement “whole”. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what this other retirement improvement should be, but it most definitely should not be utilized in a way that 60-75% of it’s monetary gains goes toward PBGC insurance requirements.)
I think it’ll be a little of path 1, and a lot of path 3. Basically, punt the TA1 pension bump and utilize the monetary value of the contract for real pay increases, real APRP, QOL enhancements without givebacks, and a more fiscally sound, less costly retirement benefit improvement that has provisions to make pilots on property about to retire whole somehow.
What “we” have learned…I hope:
- Surveys are like statistics. They can be full of lies, damned lies, and half-truths. Answers depend on how the question was asked and the wording of the question. Beware how you answer loaded questions. “Do you want an A-plan bump?” 100% yes please!!!!! “Do you want an A-plan bump instead of industry standard pay, and are you willing to give up QOL to get it?” Much less than 100%, probably.
- Retirement IS important.
- Scope is importanter.
- Not giving everything away for an A-plan bump is importantest.
Final disclaimer: ALL of the above is my opinion, or facts as I know them. None of it is presented as absolute fact, nor properly researched. No info was taken from VIPS, and this was definitely not composed on company time or on company IT devices. Void where prohibited. No representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the completeness, accuracy, fitness for a particular purpose, or utility of these materials or any information or opinion contained herein. Actual mileage may vary. Prices slightly higher west of the Mississippi. All models over 18 years of age. No animals were harmed during the production of this product. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, or events, past, present or future, is purely coincidental. This product not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or company, nor as the adoption or promulgation of any guidelines, standards or recommendations. Some names have been changed to protect the innocent. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Package sold by weight, not volume. Contents may settle during shipment. No user-serviceable parts inside. Use only as directed.
First, some background (as I see it):
In the immediate aftermath of TA 1’s rejection, Jetfliers/Jetcriers, Whatsapp, APC, Bookface Messenger, etc. all devolved into a two-sided and contentious argument about why we had a rejected TA after two years of “focused negotiations”, and what was the best way forward. This state of discourse has led to two distinct and vocal camps.
(NOTE / DISCLAIMER / CAUTION: I acknowledge that there is NO single qualifier for what puts a pilot in one camp or the other. There are ‘yes’ and ‘no’ voters in both. Young and old. Senior and Junior. Mil and Civ. New Balance sporting silverbacks and skinny jeans wearing youngins. Furthermore, I propose, with absolutely NO proof, that a great majority of the pilot group falls somewhere between the extremes of these two camps.)
The first camp TENDS to be demographically younger, more junior, a no voter, never been in management or held senior union positions, and typically have more fitted uniform shirts that I do. Sometimes referred to with varying amounts of pride or derision as FedEx Freedom Fighters, youngins, skullduggery plotting no-voters, ‘idiots’, the burn-it-down crowd, TC acolytes, etc. This group has become the face and force behind the desire to move away from the establishment that got us TA 1.0, CBA 2015 and previous, and a cozy relationship with FedEx management. They have arguably done a pretty good job organizing, recalling, and electing like-minded block reps. I have little actual insight into their inner circle other than what the most vocal post on Jetfliers, Messenger Contract Corner, and APC. Like most 2 sided arguments, it seems the most vocal and prolific posters tend to be on the far extreme end of the issues spectrum. Think of the most vocal as the ones offering 30+ page missives claiming dubious impropriety by the “other” camp, and offering up such gems as “we will burn this place to the ground”, and “we can wait 10 years for the RIGHT contract”. These statements and similar ones were likely offered up as hyperbole, but you shouldn’t underestimate the most extreme in any group, even if you agree with much of the sentiment. I don’t like any of the names coined so far for this group so I’ll call them Junior (as in seniority) Progressives (as in not business as usual), or ‘JP pilots’ for short.
The other camp is demographically older, more senior, a yes voter, has some former and current management, NC, MEC, and chief pilot types, and may or may not own >3 pairs of new balance. Occasionally referred to with varying degrees of pride or derision as the SM, the TA-1.1 NOW crowd, company shills, geezers, Management-fluid, among others. A self-proclaimed Silent Majority, they are certainly not silent, and are very doubtfully a majority given the last 6+ months of recall votes. The SM WhatsApp group was born circa Nov 23 as those who do not identify with the JP crowd saw the FedEx and FDX-ALPA partnership begin to crumble. The early stages of the SM group were pretty extreme (see examples in CTs 36 page career suicide note). As the group grew, it has self-tempered thanks to some calmer inputs from some of the more prolific posters. While SM isn’t exactly true to form for many pilots within this camp, I think most are OK with the SM moniker. So ‘SM pilots’ it is.
So how did we get here?
In the late 20th century, the pension as we know it today was codified. It hasn’t changed significantly in the 24+ years since. That’s certainly bad from just about any way you look at it. I don’t know how bad it is because that depends on who you ask. What isn’t up for debate is that the FAE x YOS x 2% (no idea if I have the notation right) formulation has resulted in a MAX pension payout of $130k/yr. This hasn’t changed with inflation. It apparently has been ATTEMPTED to be increased with each successive CBA, but for varying reasons these efforts have been unsuccessful.
(SIDE conversation: While the a-plan hasn’t changed, some things have. I don’t know when, but we got the B-plan. And it HAS increased some in the past. So to me the real question is: has our TOTAL retirement benefit package kept up with our peers. I KNOW that’s a difficult question. I know comparing our A plan + B plan is an apples and oranges to others 401ks, MBCBPs, profit sharing, etc. But in ballpark numbers, are we really that far behind? I truly have NO idea.)
So that set the stage for some post-CBA15 reflection and planning to establish a long-term goal to raise the pension. Efforts were doubled. Pizza-parties were tripled. An out of cycle change to the retirement was presented to the pilot group and FedEx. Surveys were done. And whether or not you agree with HOW the survey question(s) were asked, a consistent conclusion was that increasing retirement (read pension) was one of, if not THE most, important issues for our next CBA. In short, some within the union got extremely invested in the pension bump increase. In hindsight, probably TOO invested. But the consistent results, along with what I consider a SM pilot-centric MEC and NC, led to retirement (specifically raising the pension) being the absolute most important issue handed to PM and the NC for this round of negotiations. Subsequently TA1.0 was negotiated. Along the way we got Scope-woke, but too far along for the NC to consider adjusting course. The MEC voted 13-1 to approve TA1 to send to the pilot group for ‘ratfication’. Pilot group rejected said TA by 57%. And the quagmire began. You all have watched the three-ring circus for the last 6-9 months. I won’t recap that for you. But here we are. JP pilots have a slim but growing majority in the MEC. The long serving and often vilified NC are turning over. And we asked the NMB to be released.
I think what’s hardest to understand between SM and JP groups is to see the other groups perspective and understand how they reached their conclusions. And I think it’s mainly because each group does not understand or appreciate what the other group truly values.
From the SM perspective, the decades long fight to raise the a-plan seems to be causing some blindness to the rest of TA1 that wasn’t so great. The lack of a pension increase has been a thorn in the SM’s side for a very long time. And TA1 brought a long-awaited win in the retirement game tantalizingly close. This represents great value to a great many of the SM.
From the JP perspective, TA1 burned way too much of its monetary value in the pension bump. It’s not that they didn’t want a bump, but not to the detriment of MANY/MOST other issues that the JP values. Simply put, the pension bump wasn’t nearly as valuable to the JP pilots as it was to SM pilots.
(Another side conversation: Even though the A-plan increases were definitely a great step and potential win for the NC and pilot group as a whole, it was still only a PARTIAL win because:
a) it was the beginning of the end of the A-plan,
b) it would forever split the pilot group vote until the last a-plan pilot left the property,
c) no credit towards the TA was given for the present and future savings to the company,
d) 60-75% of the “value” added to the TA for the A-plan increase was (by law) tied up in insurance,
e) and of course, the rest of the TA!)
That’s not to say the TA itself wasn’t valuable. As I’m sure you read in the FedEx response to the NMB today:
“The ALPA National finance team valued the TA as a $3.8 billion improvement over the last Agreement. It was hailed by ALPA leadership as “the highest value achieved among major carriers in the last twenty years” and deemed a substantially greater value per pilot than 2023 deals at Delta and American. ALPA President Jason Ambrosi said of the TA “we’ll strive to build on this pattern in future pilot contracts.”
TA 1 WAS valuable, the 10# brain types at ALPA said so. Fine. I’ll accept that because I don’t have proof otherwise and I ain’t doing the maths. I will say that while reading the TA, it did NOT scream “most valuable contract in ALPA history” to me. But that’s different than not believing in the monetary valuation. Again, the real difference is where the opposing groups, and more importantly the individual pilot, place value.
Way forward:
First and foremost, we have to unify. Regardless of what the NMB comes back with after the FedEx reply to our request for release, a single unified front is key. After we somehow manage that, there are about three paths to TA2 as I see it:
1. FedEx comes to the table with about another $2.5B, making almost all pilots happy. But MANY in the SM contend (loudly and repeatedly) that the company simply will NOT come to the table with more money.
2. The JP pilots accept a TA1-like CBA with the money shuffled around a bit, maybe a little additional cash from FedEx, and hopes to “fix the rest of the stuff” next time. The determination of the JP group and recent success leads me to believe this isn’t very likely either.
3. Barring either 1 or 2, the SM realizes that the current seniority list is not going vote in a factually valuable pension increase to the detriment of nearly everything else in the contract. SM either accepts a significantly smaller pension increase than TA1, or more likely some other retirement improvement with a mechanism to make those nearing retirement “whole”. (Disclaimer: I have no idea what this other retirement improvement should be, but it most definitely should not be utilized in a way that 60-75% of it’s monetary gains goes toward PBGC insurance requirements.)
I think it’ll be a little of path 1, and a lot of path 3. Basically, punt the TA1 pension bump and utilize the monetary value of the contract for real pay increases, real APRP, QOL enhancements without givebacks, and a more fiscally sound, less costly retirement benefit improvement that has provisions to make pilots on property about to retire whole somehow.
What “we” have learned…I hope:
- Surveys are like statistics. They can be full of lies, damned lies, and half-truths. Answers depend on how the question was asked and the wording of the question. Beware how you answer loaded questions. “Do you want an A-plan bump?” 100% yes please!!!!! “Do you want an A-plan bump instead of industry standard pay, and are you willing to give up QOL to get it?” Much less than 100%, probably.
- Retirement IS important.
- Scope is importanter.
- Not giving everything away for an A-plan bump is importantest.
Final disclaimer: ALL of the above is my opinion, or facts as I know them. None of it is presented as absolute fact, nor properly researched. No info was taken from VIPS, and this was definitely not composed on company time or on company IT devices. Void where prohibited. No representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to the completeness, accuracy, fitness for a particular purpose, or utility of these materials or any information or opinion contained herein. Actual mileage may vary. Prices slightly higher west of the Mississippi. All models over 18 years of age. No animals were harmed during the production of this product. Any resemblance to actual people, living or dead, or events, past, present or future, is purely coincidental. This product not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or company, nor as the adoption or promulgation of any guidelines, standards or recommendations. Some names have been changed to protect the innocent. This product is meant for educational purposes only. Some assembly required. Batteries not included. Package sold by weight, not volume. Contents may settle during shipment. No user-serviceable parts inside. Use only as directed.
What has been utterly remarkable is the selfish nature of the top 20%. Instead of one of their "leaders" saying "we should probably do some self reflection here" they instead opt to call junior pilot names, talk smack, and run their mouthes in broad daylight for everyone to see. In their minds, these "selfish JP's" were foolish to reject the deal that got them their $39k pension bump. Remember too they are already fully vested in the current A plan, had 25+ years of earning under the current CBA, and have literally no downside to throwing everyone else under the bus. They are determined to do it! News flash - they're woefully in the minority and totally naieve as to what it will take to get anything close to what they want with regards to an improved pension. I think the best was watching this one guy at the council meeting, barely able to stand up straight from old age and night flying, trying to recruit for their gay little group of name callers with a card featuring a list of "benefits to being in their chat group." Pure comedy. News flash - talking smack doesn't get you the majority on a council recall vote.
As much as I want the group to come together, I don't think it's happening. I think it's going to likely come down to a unified junior contingent who will continue to call the shots in the union until they return to the table to hash out something significantly more fair to the bottom of the list. Our soon to be former NC should be absolutely ASHAMED at what he has done to this pilot force. The removal from the NC job he has served in very poorly for many years will be our parting shot. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
03-30-2024, 03:42 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2023
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by JustInFacts
You really should do some research on PBGC insurance premiums. You will see that your statements about the cost of the insurance for the pension are totally false.
Anyone who thinks that we are stagnating and shrinking and wants to see upward movement should rethink reducing the DB benefit in TA1. What would be the incentive to retire before mandatory retirement if the pension isn't improved?
Anyone who thinks that we are stagnating and shrinking and wants to see upward movement should rethink reducing the DB benefit in TA1. What would be the incentive to retire before mandatory retirement if the pension isn't improved?
As far as saying we have smart guys in the union that can figure it out, don't be so sure. We elected a 777 Capt that thinks the earth is flat. He lives in his own reality much like people that can't believe it costs so much to increase the pension.
I believe that we will have a bunch of guys leave no matter what happens with the A plan. The union will tell you the average age to retire is 62. Guys will retire when they are ready to retire, The only reason many of them are staying around now is to see if they will get more in retirement. If we don't get an A plan bump many will leave even prior to the contract vote being counted.
03-30-2024, 03:50 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: FO
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by Maddog64
…As far as saying we have smart guys in the union that can figure it out, don't be so sure. We elected a 777 Capt that thinks the earth is flat. He lives in his own reality much like people that can't believe it costs so much to increase the pension.
03-30-2024, 04:18 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2023
Posts: 299
Originally Posted by Maddog64
It's not just the PBGC insurance it is also the law that requires the pension fund to be "fully funded". How many years will the company need to pay that extra 39K in retirement. it isnt just a one time payment like the MBCBP. The MEC also didn't believe that it costs the company 4 dollars for every 1 we see so they hired an independant accounting firm and had them look at increasing the a plan. They told our MEC the same thing 4 to 1.
As far as saying we have smart guys in the union that can figure it out, don't be so sure. We elected a 777 Capt that thinks the earth is flat. He lives in his own reality much like people that can't believe it costs so much to increase the pension.
I believe that we will have a bunch of guys leave no matter what happens with the A plan. The union will tell you the average age to retire is 62. Guys will retire when they are ready to retire, The only reason many of them are staying around now is to see if they will get more in retirement. If we don't get an A plan bump many will leave even prior to the contract vote being counted.
As far as saying we have smart guys in the union that can figure it out, don't be so sure. We elected a 777 Capt that thinks the earth is flat. He lives in his own reality much like people that can't believe it costs so much to increase the pension.
I believe that we will have a bunch of guys leave no matter what happens with the A plan. The union will tell you the average age to retire is 62. Guys will retire when they are ready to retire, The only reason many of them are staying around now is to see if they will get more in retirement. If we don't get an A plan bump many will leave even prior to the contract vote being counted.
I disagree that pilots will leave before they have to if there isn't an increase to the DB plan. Would you leave if you had 25+ years, were near the top of the seniority list, had max vacation, and could make 3.5-4 times the amount you would make in retiremet and not have to pay the higher medical insurance costs if you only had to work about 19 weeks a year and get the best trips? Or would you stick around, maybe even pick up some extra work to make up for the lack of retirement improvement, and keep your current medical insurance. I know I could probably retire under this next contract, or I could easily wait for the following contract, maybe two. If the majority decides to take away from the retirement in TA1 in order to get Delta rates or higher, I know what I will do.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
