Search

Notices

FedEx Attrition 2025

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-11-2025 | 01:39 PM
  #41  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 100
Likes: 51
From: 757 FO
Default

Originally Posted by skypine27
Why are dudes here so obsessed with screaming at each other over A/B plan stuff?

I’m a NO vote on anything less than UAL 777 rates, Delta per diem and zero concessions.

I’d like the money now, not when I’m 72 and ****ting myself.
Because retirement was the linchpin of this last TA and probably the biggest cause for the division in unity.
Reply
Old 09-13-2025 | 06:19 AM
  #42  
skypine27's Avatar
Proponent of Hysteria
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 5
From: "Part of the problem." : JL
Default

Originally Posted by TsimShaTsui
Because retirement was the linchpin of this last TA and probably the biggest cause for the division in unity.
I don’t think that’s why the TA failed memrat. We all knew what DAL (and then UA shortly before our vote closed) paid per hour. That got us a lot of NO votes before even looking at the rest of our TA.
Reply
Old 09-13-2025 | 07:47 AM
  #43  
Config 3
 
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,292
Likes: 214
Default

Originally Posted by skypine27
I don’t think that’s why the TA failed memrat. We all knew what DAL (and then UA shortly before our vote closed) paid per hour. That got us a lot of NO votes before even looking at the rest of our TA.
I think so too.

I firmly believe if TA’23 had pay rates at or close to legacy then it would have passed. It was the combo or crappy rates and a lackluster pension bump that sealed its fate.
Reply
Old 09-13-2025 | 10:05 AM
  #44  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 100
Likes: 51
From: 757 FO
Default

Originally Posted by skypine27
I don’t think that’s why the TA failed memrat. We all knew what DAL (and then UA shortly before our vote closed) paid per hour. That got us a lot of NO votes before even looking at the rest of our TA.
What I meant by that was they tried to sell the farm for retirement and didn’t care about the other cornerstone sections. I definitely agree that if the APRP or hourly were significantly increased, either one, it would’ve passed.
Reply
Old 09-13-2025 | 10:29 AM
  #45  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 290
Likes: 190
Default

Originally Posted by TsimShaTsui
What I meant by that was they tried to sell the farm for retirement and didn’t care about the other cornerstone sections. I definitely agree that if the APRP or hourly were significantly increased, either one, it would’ve passed.
Thankfully the company got too greedy with their ask, and the NC/MEC at the time was too willing to give them whatever they wanted including all the scope, vacation, AVA givebacks just to get a one time pension fix for a small group and ruin the rest of the job for everyone else in the process.
Reply
Old 09-13-2025 | 10:53 AM
  #46  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Jun 2025
Posts: 100
Likes: 51
From: 757 FO
Default

Originally Posted by Freds Ex
Thankfully the company got too greedy with their ask, and the NC/MEC at the time was too willing to give them whatever they wanted including all the scope, vacation, AVA givebacks just to get a one time pension fix for a small group and ruin the rest of the job for everyone else in the process.
Fortunately the loud majority of us want to make this a job worth coming to and staying for.
Reply
Old 09-13-2025 | 11:00 AM
  #47  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,481
Likes: 23
From: Crewmember
Default

Originally Posted by Freds Ex
Thankfully the company got too greedy with their ask, and the NC/MEC at the time was too willing to give them whatever they wanted including all the scope, vacation, AVA givebacks just to get a one time pension fix for a small group and ruin the rest of the job for everyone else in the process.
Nice spin. While you are somewhat correct, the "one time pension fix for a small group" is a lie.

While it was probably a "one time pension fix", everyone would have gotten it eventually.

For the record, I voted no, for scope, vacation, AVA givebacks, bump for training givebacks, and the low pay rates and low "retro pay" BS.

There were enough bad deals in that contract so that you don't have to lie about it.
Reply
Old 09-13-2025 | 11:05 AM
  #48  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 290
Likes: 190
Default

Originally Posted by Nightflyer
Nice spin. While you are somewhat correct, the "one time pension fix for a small group" is a lie.

While it was probably a "one time pension fix", everyone would have gotten it eventually.

For the record, I voted no, for scope, vacation, AVA givebacks, bump for training givebacks, and the low pay rates and low "retro pay" BS.

There were enough bad deals in that contract so that you don't have to lie about it.
I was not lying about it or spinning it. That “fix” would have locked out all new hires from the pension, would have essentially made the pension an item that couldn’t ever be improved again, and would have forced pilots on the list to make the decision between freezing their years of service at current plus 5 and never seeing a B fund improvement or committing to the one time micro-bump and never seeing a B fund improvement, neither option was even remotely appealing to anyone who wasn’t retiring soon. It also placed caps on what could go into your MBCP and B fund with no cash over cap options. That whole thing was designed for one group of pilots and that group only and would have forced the next round of negotiations to be centered on fixing it again for the pilots who didn’t have 20+ years behind them. It created more problems than it solved and divided the pilot group in a significant way. It should have never made it all the way to the pilot group to vote on.
Reply
Old 09-14-2025 | 05:09 AM
  #49  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Aug 2023
Posts: 703
Likes: 56
Default

Originally Posted by Freds Ex
I was not lying about it or spinning it. That “fix” would have locked out all new hires from the pension, would have essentially made the pension an item that couldn’t ever be improved again, and would have forced pilots on the list to make the decision between freezing their years of service at current plus 5 and never seeing a B fund improvement or committing to the one time micro-bump and never seeing a B fund improvement, neither option was even remotely appealing to anyone who wasn’t retiring soon. It also placed caps on what could go into your MBCP and B fund with no cash over cap options. That whole thing was designed for one group of pilots and that group only and would have forced the next round of negotiations to be centered on fixing it again for the pilots who didn’t have 20+ years behind them. It created more problems than it solved and divided the pilot group in a significant way. It should have never made it all the way to the pilot group to vote on.
Since you left for a legacy without a pension, it doesn't seem like it is really high on your priority list.

Maybe you should have read the TA a little closer because you got a few things wrong. We had three options regarding retirement if you were currently on property. There also wasn't anything in there that stated that the B plan couldn't be increased for those that stayed in the traditional pension. In fact, the MBCBP was the DB replacement for the traditional DB plan. So, if there was an increase in the B plan for the new retirement, it would be for everyone on property regardless of which DB plan you were in. This by no means should suggest that the TA was good, it wasn't.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to come to these forums after you have been gone for almost a year at least when you never posted while you were at Fedex. Enjoy your life at United. I hope you are happy there. However, please stop trying to sow more division here. It isn't helping our cause.
Reply
Old 09-14-2025 | 06:26 PM
  #50  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Mar 2025
Posts: 143
Likes: 20
Default

Originally Posted by JustInFacts
I'm not sure why you feel the need to come to these forums after you have been gone for almost a year at least when you never posted while you were at Fedex. Enjoy your life at United. I hope you are happy there. However, please stop trying to sow more division here. It isn't helping our cause.

for years, FedEx pilots looked down upon their peers at legacies. For years, FedEx pilots bragged about being “the best”. For years, FedEx pilots bragged about never being furloughed. For years, FedEx pilots bragged about their precious pension.

sorry, man, but when people are convinced to leave their airlines for FedEx when they have years of seniority with the promise of greener grass (save the “should’ve read the contract” talk, everyone bragged about how this place was the SH** and how kool it is to fly heavies), anyone who’s come here and flown the line absolutely has the right to come back and speak their minds to the pilot group, the union, and management. they’ve wasted their time when their peers told them that FedEx was the bees knees, when it never has been.

the last thing FedEx pilots need to worry about is the folks who have left who are “sowing division”, there’s bigger fish to fry within the pilot group, the union, and how to counter what management is doing. And truthfully, the pilot group here hasn’t a clue how to do it (save the “independent contractor BS, such a weak a** argument). too busy fighting amongst each other, recalling, no trust in the union.

its time to figure it the f out. too busy with “same ole games just a different year”. crazy how other airlines figured out how to move forward but the most profitable of them all haven’t.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
767pilot
UPS
34
01-19-2022 12:45 PM
howardhughes8
FedEx
9
10-21-2019 07:25 AM
vagabond
Cargo
15
03-18-2007 03:50 PM
angry tanker
Cargo
91
03-08-2007 08:56 AM
BigWatchPilot
Cargo
3
08-28-2006 09:00 AM

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