Search
Notices

FDX-Fruitful Week?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-18-2015, 08:55 AM
  #131  
Line Holder
 
Flybywyr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Position: 767 Captain
Posts: 52
Default

I'm sure that they (FedEx) are looking at what Delta did some years back when they offered early outs, then hired back the Capt's as contract until they could man the seats. Capt's double dip, and the money doesn't come out of the contract pool of money. However can you imagine trying to get that side letter passed and the can of worms that would open up ! What a cluster this has become because FedEx wanted to save money in the short term.
Flybywyr is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 09:06 AM
  #132  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2009
Position: 767 Seat 1A
Posts: 222
Default

Originally Posted by Nightflyer View Post
I got hosed by age 65.
How so? I get that you did not move up the seniority ladder as fast as you would have if the rule had not changed, but you also have the option to work that extra 5 years if you either want or need to.

YOU may be an exception, but do you really think that your age demographic will retire at an earlier than maximum age when they are presented with the same scenario as you approach 60? I suspect the numbers staying until forced out will remain pretty much the same. We'll see.
Lineslug is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 09:38 AM
  #133  
Gets Weekends Off
 
appDude's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: B777 Capt
Posts: 613
Default

Originally Posted by TonyC View Post
...
My suggestion: give the pilot a financial incentive to announce his retirement in advance. The pilot gives 1 year notice of planned retirement, he receives one amount, 6 months notice is rewarded with 60% of that amount, 3 months gets 30%. The amount? Why not tap into the deferred compensation the pilot has already earned? The pilot has already earned his sick leave and disability account, and The Company already carries that on its balance sheet as a liability. Why not let the pilot have what he has already earned?
...

.
I proposed something very similar several years ago on this BB.
appDude is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 09:42 AM
  #134  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Crewmember
Posts: 1,377
Default

Lineslug,

If you don't understand how the junior guys were hosed by age 65, I am afraid there is no hope for you.

The guys that were already Captains had the option to stay until 65 or retire at 60. They also got an "extra" 5 years of Captain pay, that I will never have the opportunity to get.

Because my Captain upgrade was delayed by 5 years, I will need to stay until age 65 in order to make up for lost revenue, if I can continue to pass the physical, which is an unknown. I already have one friend who permanently out on disability at age 59.

I have heard more than one Captain, who advanced to wide body pay in his 40's or even 30's, tell me that they, too, were affected by age 65, because they didn't get their choice of bid lines each month. Cry me a river. I had to bite my tongue since it was a 12 day trip.

If anyone is deserving of a "bonus" chunk of money, it should be those crew members who were stuck as FO's for an extra 5 years. ALPA hosed us, then FDX ALPA added insult to injury by putting the FE's back in the Left Seat through manipulated bids, then insulted us again by giving 25k to the guys that stayed until 65! There should be "retro" pay for FO's!

And people wonder why I will vote no if I don't get my 25K?

Seriously?
Nightflyer is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 09:44 AM
  #135  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Bus
Posts: 60
Default

Originally Posted by Lineslug View Post
How so? I get that you did not move up the seniority ladder as fast as you would have if the rule had not changed, but you also have the option to work that extra 5 years if you either want or need to.

YOU may be an exception, but do you really think that your age demographic will retire at an earlier than maximum age when they are presented with the same scenario as you approach 60? I suspect the numbers staying until forced out will remain pretty much the same. We'll see.
Working an extra 5 years is/was never an option for me... so I got hosed, too! As did many, many, people on our seniority list that were opposed to the age change our Union ended up supporting. I am not trying to make this an age 65 debate again as that train left the station long ago. Please don't allow thread creep on that contentious topic.

Bottom-line is this; it appears the majority of APC followers, crew bus passengers, and AOC popcorn eaters feel that there should be no negotiating capital expended to prevent people from retiring before Peak. If we reach a TA before Peak, the manning issue is management's fault. I hope our negotiating committee feels the same since they speak for me, you, and every other FedEx pilot!
msduckslyr is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 09:44 AM
  #136  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Busdrivr's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 480
Default

I doubt the company is scrambling to improve our retirement. I think it's more likely they are trying to reduce current or future benefits.
Busdrivr is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 10:12 AM
  #137  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by Lineslug View Post
How so? I get that you did not move up the seniority ladder as fast as you would have if the rule had not changed, but you also have the option to work that extra 5 years if you either want or need to.

YOU may be an exception, but do you really think that your age demographic will retire at an earlier than maximum age when they are presented with the same scenario as you approach 60? I suspect the numbers staying until forced out will remain pretty much the same. We'll see.
If your Union works to get me 5 extra years in the penthouse and you 5 extra years in the outhouse would you complain?
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 10:56 AM
  #138  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by pipe View Post

We need to, as a group, stop worrying about retirements when we talk contract. We need to bargain for a contract for those of us who are going to fly under it. Mismanagement of retirement rates - not our problem.

The problem with all of this talk about incentives for guys to stay through peak and incentives to provide more notice is that the money will come out of another area. We (the ones working under the contract) shouldn't give up money to help cover for a management failure.

If that is something the company wants to pony up on their own, after a ratified contract, so be it. When we allow these things to become part of contract negotiations, we just guarantee that guys will hang around at the next negotiation.


Pipe

Originally Posted by Full pull View Post

The company made their own mess it's not up to us to fix it. Let the morons who created this get fired.

Originally Posted by Raptor View Post

+1

Worrying about this when the company put themselves in this position is not in our pilot's interests. The money used to keep retirements from flowing out the door would come from our overall monetary package if we permit this to be included in the TA.

I understand the "It's not our problem sentiment", and I agree. We did not create it, it's not our fault, and we shouldn't have to pay for the solution. However, when it becomes an obstacle to ratifying a deal, when THEIR problem prevents OUR success, when it's the only thing standing between us and an industry-leading contract, it becomes our de facto problem, too.

The money I propose for the solution doesn't come out of our hide -- it's money the pilot has already earned, his deferred compensation.



I'm always a little confused (not by these posts, but by others in the thread) how some people want senior pilots to "retire, get out of my seat", but they won't consider a benefit to encourage them to leave.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 11:03 AM
  #139  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by MaydayMark View Post

... our union successfully lobbied to change the regulated age.

Haven't we ploughed this ground enough? Our union did NOT lobby to change the regulated age.

If you really want to rehash, can we do it in a different thread?



Originally Posted by MaydayMark View Post

I'm not sure than ANY inducement for the senior guys to stick around should be included in ANY contract.



If it's the issue that prevents The Company from consummating a deal, we at least owe it to ourselves to consider it. Absent a deal, I don't see any pay rate increases on the horizon, and we still have the same old accepted fares problem. I could go on ...






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 08-18-2015, 11:09 AM
  #140  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by Nightflyer View Post

... then FDX ALPA added insult to injury by putting the FE's back in the Left Seat through manipulated bids, ...

Right, because FDX ALPA publishes Vacancy Postings and Excess Postings.

Chief Pilot Jack Lewis gets the credit for manipulating those bids, but he is somehow more remembered for his "charming" e-mails.






.
TonyC is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
viperdriver
Cargo
13
12-15-2011 06:35 PM
charleyvarrick
Cargo
34
08-27-2011 11:10 AM
beatupsuitcase
Cargo
56
08-22-2011 11:07 PM
DinoJet727
Cargo
46
05-02-2008 01:42 PM
AUS_ATC
Cargo
29
02-02-2007 06:17 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