Not sure. It's pretty bad, I didn't know they had their own union lol

But I believe you are correct. That rep is senior also. So far this sucks for this block 2 dude

What about block 6 and HKG.

Look I'm no genius at any of this sh"t not sure about block 6 but I can only assume FDA isn't what is needed still. Off subject a little. Air China Cargo throws 6K a month at their guys for Shanghai living expenses alone.

Block 11 upset? Here is why
 

Won't say who but senior training pilot type ex chief pilot wants only Pros? Hmm that sounds bad IMHO

9-5 Vote? That's not a good sign.

This indicates a Weak Contract from the NC. Which will pass 60%-40%. Next TA won't be until 2023 or later. Think about that.

The vote was in open session, and recorded, so it's far from secret. I'm told the Anchorage Rep was a bit confused about what exactly was being voted on and would have voted No had he understood. That would have made it 8 to 6. Understand, the vote was not to approve a TA, or send it to the membership for ratification. The vote was to have the Negotiating Committee convert the concepts they had achieved into actual CBA language that could be reviewed and then approved or disapproved as a TA.

Despite the fact that the MEC Chairman has informed the media we have a TA, that decision is up to the MEC, and it will be made next Wednesday. Then it will be up to them to decide how to use their vote. Will they approve of the deal only if they feel it's worthy of their full support and membership ratification? Will they "approve" of the process to send it to the membership to decide? The process has already been approved of -- the questions should be about the TA. (Many have done this in the past in an attempt to wipe their hands of the responsibility of tough decisions. "I don't know, even though I have access to more information than the line pilot, so I'll just toss it to them to decide.") Or will they "approve" the TA out of fear of threatened alternatives, which could include a "Pause" from the NMB Mediator? We cannot control what the Mediator decides -- we can only control what WE do, and we shouldn't rush into inferior deals out of fear of possibilities. We've come too far and waited too long to mess this thing up in the last 0.3 miles of the 26.3 mile marathon.

I'm of the opinion that the MEC should not pass to the membership for ratification any deal they cannot wholeheartedly support and defend. Don't become a tool of The Company to test the waters and "see if it will pass" by a slight margin. We deserve better, and we don't need to waste our time and resources playing that game.




Yepp. And LCAs, and SCAs, etc.






.

The 9-5 vote was not on the TA. That vote will be next Wednesday. The 9-5 vote was on whether to take the last offer and put into full contract language, or just walk away from the table.

I agree. I hate jumping to conclusions but I am really [upset] if after all the BS this is the best this [hormonal] group can come up with. I am just stumped. Oh well Air China cargo is hiring 777 CAP. I'm laughing but I don't get management at all.

At this point in the process, neither party can just walk away from the table. When the mediator says meet, we meet.

But when the mediator says (and I have no idea if he said this or not, so don't construe it as a version of what has happened), "We'll meet today and tomorrow, and if you haven't hammered out an agreement by then, we'll meet next spring," it can force tough decisions.

If you read the Chairman's Message of August 6, 2015, you might notice a hint about those decisions. (It's the top link on the fdx.alpa.org page.)

Second sentence, highlight mine:

"As negotiations continue—either to a tentative agreement for the MEC to review, or paused by the National Mediation Board—it is important for FDX pilots to maintain discipline and focus."

In this case (and again, I have no inside knowledge, this is just an educated guess), the decision would not be to accept the last offer or walk away, it could be to accept the last offer or wait a long time for the next NMB mediated session.

The MEC Chairman also stated during the last Joint Council Meeting that he felt like as long as we were making progress (and he felt like we were at that time) the NMB mediator would continue to schedule dates to meet. Apparently, we've stopped making progress. We'll know the details soon, but since we were stuck on retirement at that time, my guess is we didn't make much progress on retirement.



Personally, I think there are a lot of things we could legally do during that wait, and enough angry pilots to make the wait uncomfortable for the other party in this process. And still, there's the distinct possibility that such an angry pilot might do something stupid to get himself fired, and that was the crux of the remainder of the above referenced Chairman's Message. That puts another spin on the decision, do we accept this TA, or do we wait for better and in the meantime risk losing pilots to stupid mistakes and then have to pay to get the hostages back?


Whatever the options or considerations, walking away is not one of them.






.

That is pretty much what I meant by walk away, just too lazy to type that much.

We need to make it cleared to management and membership that if any hostages are taken, no matter how stupid, no agreement until all hostages are returnd.

Isn't that exactly what the company would want? :confused:

Was going to say exactly that! They could drag this process out indefinitely and we wouldn't be "released" by the NMB and we" have very limited options as to what we could LEGALLY do about it.

MG2

Thanks quoting the oversized picture. It will screw up my scrolling for another 40 posts.;)

:D I actually thought about that, but didn't see a way around it.

Here's another contribution towards 80 ... ;)




.

You can change the number of posts per page and get rid of it quicker.

Hmm, that's true. I prefer to leave that value at the maximum (40), but I suppose this would be a time to use the minimum (5).

Wish there was a choice to leave it at 5 until 10 would do, then automatically increment up until 40 works again.


Or we could just create filler posts to make it moot -- until somebody else quotes the picture again ...

I need the rain to stop and the grass to dry so I can mow the lawn and stay out of trouble here. :eek:






.

9 - 5?

Pretty close to our ratification numbers, lately.

64% - 36%

A "timeout" from the NMB? Boy, I sure am glad that interim agreement negotiating protocol BS provided us with such a great relationship with the NMB.:rolleyes:

Tony...Please tell me you were joking about the ANC rep not knowing what he was voting on. Good grief!! That's troubling.

I'm sure there was some oversimplification, and maybe more lost in the translation, but I'm told he doesn't like what we've achieved so far, and that he's not likely to vote to approve this TA. You'd be amazed (or maybe you wouldn't) at how confusing it can get at that table. Heck, even the Chairman seems confused as to whether or not we have a TA. :o






.

If that is accurate about who voted for/against putting the language into TA format, I wonder if it is specifically because of whom they are representing. For example, blocks 1 and 2 might turn down almost anything without an A fund increase, as they are representing people who could be retiring very soon, and that is the one thing that affects them the most. Instructor and HKG blocks may have very specific interests that do not affect the other blocks, in general (unless they are still attempting to replace line pilot instructors, which affects us all). No clue about block 6.

I'm not making commentary on how people should/should not vote, since obviously the rest of us have no idea of what they are looking at. I am just speculating on why some blocks might vote against when then others voted for. Different blocks=different interests.

I'd hope both the CGN and the HKG reps would be NO votes without substantial improvements ($$$ ones) to the FDAs

While you're speculating, consider also different philosophies of voting. One Rep may vote FOR advancing the process for the sake of the process (let the membership vote) in spite of the fact he or she doesn't support the product, while another Rep votes FOR advancing the process because he or she likes the product.

Do you think we as a membership are capable of sending a strong, unambiguous message to The Company that a deal is not good enough by voting a TA down? Are we so greedy and impatient that we'll settle for anything, or can we stand up and be counted on to go the distance to get what we've earned?


(And, by the way, that vote tally is accurate. The reasons weren't recorded, but the votes were.)






.

It will be good to finally see what the actual product is, to make the decision for ourselves. Hopefully soon, all will be clear, one way or another.

I expect us to hold out for an excellent contract, however, not every single person will be happy with every single section. If we're holding out for that, we'll never have a contract. Here's hoping the contract they negotiated is a quality one.

"Current" inflation is startling low.

.2% so far in 2015 (low oil prices are a big factor)
-2014 was .8%
-2013 was 1.5%
-2012 was 2.1%
-2011 was 1.6%
-2010 was 1.6%

If you don't include 2015, the last five years have averaged 1.5%

I know the "norm" is 3%, but using the last 15 years, it's 2.21%.

Consumer Price Index (CPI): 12-Month % Change Data | Ann Arbor District Library (using the bls.gov site, you will get very close to the same numbers, but the numbers involve several links and a lot of leg work. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong using the BLS navigation nightmare.)

Using the BLS inflation calculator, Inflation Calculator: Bureau of Labor Statistics, someone making $100k in 2000 needs to be making 37% more in 2014 to keep up with inflation. In 2000, we were making $180 an hour as a maxed WB Capt. To keep up with a 37% inflation rate our maxed WB Captains needed to be making $246 an hour in 2014. We were/are at $261 for the last 3 years. We are at 45% since 2000 vs inflation of 37%.

If you look at our maxed WB rates in the years since we signed our last non-bridge contract up to 2014 (not including 2015 because it isn't over yet...just like I didn't include it above), a person making $100k in 2006 would need to see an increase of 17% to keep up. Our maxed rate in 2006 was $225. A 17% increase would be $263. This is obviously below our current rate of $261. Keep in mind, we haven't had a raise for 3 years. A rumored 2015 TA raise of 11% puts us at $290. That means we are at 29% vs inflation of 17%.

Am I saying this is good? No. Am I saying this is bad? No. I'm just laying out some numbers.

I may be jacking my numbers up...so feel free to tell me I'm stupid. I'm sure our resident CPI guru, George, will gladly jack me up...but, I'm just trying to get some sort of hard numbers out there.

I realize I'm not talking about time value of money...and that is one factor that needs to be discussed, but I can't do all the work! :D

I sure hope it's not you or me that gets left behind.

If they don't change to charmin tissue in the Aoc it's a no vote for sure.

Matty,

Current unemployment numbers are low, too, but we all know that they are based on a lie.

Current inflation numbers are based on a lie, too, so they are artificially low.

Food and fuel are not included in the inflation numbers.

More information here:

Why the official inflation rate seems low

Dude just stop. You're assuming because someone's pay might exceed the wacky government's definition of inflation that their quality of life or living standard is increasing. You couldn't be more wrong. Worse, by posting this wildly misleading information, you're underselling the crew force's chance for a decent and well deserved raise. It is as if the company came to the negotiating table and said, "why should we give you a raise, your pay rates exceed the cost of inflation!"

What will you do?
 

I know I don't have all the facts yet, but if it turns out to be a 10% pay raise and then 3% a year after and retirement isn't uncapped, I'm absolutely voting NO. To me that would merely be another contract extension. We have continued to have our schedules optimized. We are working harder, more days per month, with more legs, shorter layovers, no weekend layovers, ridiculous deadheads and unreasonable banks. Come on just look around, airlines who haven't made money in a decade are rapidly closing in on us when it comes to compensation.
Plus each year the retirement cap is maintained our retirement becomes less valuable. I used to buy a can of soda for 25 cents and now the same can costs a buck or more. I believe our pay rates are just keeping up with inflation, but we are working much harder than we used too. Simultaneously the value of our retirement continues to decline due to inflation. This contract will last almost another decade (Yes 6 years plus the 2-3 years it always takes to get a new contract), there is a higher probability of increased inflation which will further erode the value our earnings and retirement.
I remember the fact that our careers got extended out to 65. How about another week of vacation for 5 more years of service, how about increasing the multiplier so we can get credit for 30 years instead of 25 towards retirement (then we could at least earn 60% of our high 5) and how about increasing the pay scale out to 20 years so we have higher pay rates for our longer careers. I'm sick of trying to just maintain the status quo, how about some improvements to pay, retirement, vacation and quality of life. I want an exceptional TA and I don't have any problem saying that I want the best pay, benefits and compensation in the business because I think we have earned them.
Going into peak, record profits, pilot shortage, record stock price, rapidly growing executive compensation and bonuses--I guess we probably don't have any leverage do we? I'm sure if we wait another 10 years the company will reward us for our patience and loyalty and we will probably have just as much leverage then too. Can you blame the company for offering us another crappy deal? We have gladly taken every other one they have given us. I really like my job, I don't think the company is evil, I just want what I have earned--A real pay raise, protecting the value of my retirement, and some quality of life improvements. You do what you want, but if the rumors are true I'm absolutely voting NO!!!

+1. Same here. I'm actually hearing something like 10-0-4-0-3-0-3 for a total of 20% over 6 years. I've got lots of time left here and I need to see the A Fund cap increased to set the precedent now for future increases. If we let this go now, it might never be raised.

If it's only 20% over 6 years, I don't see how the rest of the TA could be so good to make me a "yes" vote. It would have to be absolutely gold plated everywhere else, which I don't think will be the case.

Oh it's gold plated all right! A gold plated POS.

Hey, you can put a POS in a box and slap a guarantee on it. All you have is a guaranteed POS! - Tommy Boy

Hey...Rage Against the Machine...settle down until we have all the facts. You're gonna have a heart attack before the TA even comes out!

They need 2 more days to look at the TA and decide by the Friday at 5pm standard......