Four years for this TA
 

I am not impressed at all with state of our TA. Go back to the table! Peak is around the corner?

And it's getting closer every day.

Which peak? Not this one. If we are lucky it MIGHT be next year. The time to "stop this train" was at the table before the MEC vote.

We will get what we collectively believe we are worth.

For some reason, Delta has a culture where they know the great position they are in to negotiate, and they have chosen to stand up and proceed on the 'road less traveled', which is full of uncertainty, for the sense of value they provide to their company. Did their MEC and roadshows warn them that voting the TA down was a very bad idea? Of course. That's what roadshows are all about. Just wait for ours - the dissenting 30-50% will be beaten down to accept this is as good as it gets, or we will be risking the loss of everything we have ever had. From what I understand, ALPA was almost threatening when the notion of rejecting the TA came up (nothing like fear of the unknown to motivate the masses). That's what the roadshows are all about. As I have repeatedly said, I was at ALPA roadshows that sold PBS to a crew force willing to fully trust their leadership. The results after implementation were disastrous to QOL.

I hope our young guys here realize what we have lost, at the most prime time in negotiations we will likely ever see. And I hope that our guys here with 15-20+ years realize this is not what they have earned. From what I understand out on the line, this TA has the feel of 65% voting yes. It's as if all the guys who voted NO in the last 3 opportunities for improvements, have been beaten down to feel, "this is as good as it gets", and now guys in my seniority range, have taken their spot. I completely get it though, after 5 more years of hub turning, and no significant improvements (in my personal opinion), I will probably be numbed to this as well and feel, well... it's as good as it gets here, or - these concessions don't apply to me, so I just don't care.

My appreciation for the collective fortitude of the Delta pilot group has doubled in the last 3 days of discussions on this forum.

This is what we believe we are worth.

Comparing Delta's TA to ours is a stretch. They literally bought their pay raise by giving up profit sharing, sick leave rights, and trips for FOs. With ours, I do not see any major give backs, granted there aren't many improvements, but no major give backs.

Yeah, and comparing our balance sheet to Delta's in the last 15 years would also be a stretch, but we seem to do it.

I guess that's where the philosophical difference is, I see the fact that we don't have "many improvements" as you state as a huge concession during this environment.

But FDXLAG, "I'm not going to debate you" (line from 'Fargo' I love), I know where you stand. So, we will let the majority decide.

I know you don't want to debate me before you debated me but a concession was giving up CGN for 2 three percent raises. It was a concession for DALPA to give up trips out of the FOs bid pack and profit sharing. It is not a concession to keep what you have and get some improvements.

But you don't know where I stand. Real time trip trading is a disappointment to me. No fix to sick notes is a disappointment to me. That being said with this TA I think Fedex Pilots are easily the most highly compensated in the industry and will be for at least the first 4 years of this contract. If after the TA is released I no longer think that I will vote no. Either way I will be fine with whatever the majority decides.
*by compensated I am not just talking pay.

Can somebody give me one good reason why I should vote for this contract? I'm in no hurry to accept anything less than what we have earned.

That is why they have roadshows.

ROADSHOW = SALES PITCH
I'd rather hear the opinions of the actual line pilots

And the 5 (then 4) dissenting votes will have the best information on why to vote no.

I know everyone is tired of negotiations and wanted the moon and stars. I also know we didn't get everything we as individuals wanted. We have said for several years now "My NC speaks for me". Now we have a TA that very few have seen and all are speculating about. Why not wait until everyone sees it and reads it completely, then ASK THE NC why each decision was made. We have talked of unity and now we destroying good will by bashing someone just cause they look at something differently. Take a breath, ask questions and LISTEN to the answer! Then make an informed decision.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Wouldn't you rather read the contract and form your own decision? :confused:

Compare our section 6 openers, and what we initially wanted, with what's in the TA........just sayin'......."Luceeee, you got some 'splainin' to do....

I'll throw this out too.

I've been one of the 12 angry men. I threw a fit about the original FDA online, raised a stink, and eventually ran and won an MEC seat. I then spent 3 years as a block rep, a couple years as a lobbyist for ALPA, and a little less than a year on a National Committee. What I learned along the way was this is a hard, hard business and there are times due to forces outside your control you have to make tough decisions. Wrong decisions can cost your friends and co-workers their money, their jobs, and affect the industry for decades. Its harder than it looks, so saying "well…they shoulda given us this or gotten us that…" ignores the real environment which these guys have to operate. Unlike many here…my name is known and if you want to chat or email I am in VIPS.

Like the Delta guys…we have a great luxury. None of us should be missing any meals right now. If we reject this TA, we'll live with current book for a while….a year or two, perhaps a couple more. I can live with that. Maybe we will recoup any money lost with a delay. Maybe we won't, but less money overall will be offset with improvements we wanted more. We aren't faced with a company threatening furloughs or bankruptcy if they don't get a deal.

What I will say is this… Our chairman has my trust. Our Veep has my trust. RZ has my trust. SL and his NC team have my trust. My rep…and the other reps on the team…even guys I sometimes argued with on the opposite sides of issues like MA and DM have my trust. By that I do not mean I am going to blindly follow them or allow them to make decisions for me without weighing my own thoughts and the ramifications to my family. I will certainly be interested in hearing the counter-TA positions and the reasons at least 4 reps had some concerns. (FYI…I haven't looked at who voted no yet…but my HKG rep was apparently one so I"m sure we'll have some conversations in detail).

Here's what I will say. There is nobody on that team that I worked with at any time that wants to screw over our pilot group. There is nobody on that team that did not want big improvements to the A plan and a host of other areas. Chimenti, Eissler, Gustafson, Irgins, and Larsen all have had their turn at bat the last decade. Guess what--not a single one of them has managed to walk out with a perfect deal. We've had SIG people on and off the team, R&I guys come and go, and host of other faces pass through. Track those guys down on the line and ask them about the environment they work in. While I have seen factions come and go, and some guys more than others seem to crave union office, the fact is even the guys I didn't alway like were doing their best to help the rest of us. We often fought about the best way to get there, but I honestly think we were all trying to get to the same point.

When I see someone say these guys are going to put a sales job on you, I disagree. I fought with RZ in Desert Storm. He would probably be happier chilling with his wife in an FDA or flying the line, but he's here. CD could be skiing in his time off living in Colorado…but instead he spent years trying to keep the committees working together without killing each other and working quietly in the background to prepare us for….well…a strike if required. These guys are not career politicians, and they when this is over one will retire and one likely will retreat to the line. I'm not saying I am voting yes…but I am saying if these guys offer a recommendation its because they really think its the best we can do…for all of us, not for them.

Now--that doesn't mean we have to agree. I suspect some of those who voted against the TA will have some ideas and opinions on how we go forward if we reject the TA. I plan to listen to them just as closely as I do the other ideas.

And…when its done…I'll make the call I think is best for me…and my family. But regardless of how you vote…these guys aren't car salesmen. They are your fellow pilots. We voted for many of them, and asked them to do this for us. Now they are back to show what they have (or have not) accomplished. I would expect them to tell us it was the best that they could do or they would not be those positions. That's not a sales job--that's just pride in a hard fought job. But it will be up to us to decide what we do with their work…and its going to be close.

But regardless of how you vote--these guys deserve some respect. That job wrecks families, health, and morale in ways its hard to understand until you see it first hand. So don't forget to say "thanks". They have earned it.

Looking at our openers, it looks like we got at least 75% of what we were looking for. The only "splainin'" that needs to be done is why people are so mad about the highlights when we haven't seen the actual TA. Maybe they should have complained more about our openers. If you thought we would get everything we asked for in our openers, then you don't understand what negotiations are.

Absolutely!

I don't think anybody here equated them to car salesmen or was that insulting, but they have a job to do, and after recommending a TA to be passed, they will be presenting a biased view (just as any other roadshow you've seen right?, nothing personal), just as much as the dissenters would present a biased view if they were allowed to present it in roadshow form.

And I completely agree with your sentiment: MEC Chairman CD is completely a 100% stand-up guy, and also has his heart the right place. I look forward to discussing all this in person with him, as he's the only guy I know somewhat well.

Albie and professional friends ...

I always try to attend the Roadshows hoping that the folks who have lived this drama see details that I may have overlooked.

I thought it was interesting that the FPA did not give us the courtesy of distributing copies prior to their Roadshows? I left the FPA presentation thinking that (after I read the TA) I would probably vote for it. When my copy of the TA arrived in the mail I spent several days reading it. My opinion; the Roadshow only highlighted the good points. There had been no mention of the bad points. I felt as if I had been deceived and voted NO!! It's very interesting to me that the FPA Negotiating Committee Chairman was subsequently promoted to VP of Flight Ops (and has NOT been our friend)!*?

Another NC Committee Chairman was subsequently promoted to SCP (and has not been our freind)!*?

I've worked at airlines where Management was on the same side as the pilots. If you got in trouble in was their job to see if there was a reasonable way to get you out of trouble. Management was your friend. It's not that way here ... I think that's sad.

:confused:

Mayday Mark I've worked at airlines where Management was on the same side as the pilots. If you got in trouble in was their job to see if there was a reasonable way to get you out of trouble. Management was your friend. It's not that way here ... I think that's sad."

Bill, I get your point, but aren't you being a little disingenuous. Management probably saved your life...

Your Joking, right? Or very misinformed with everything it seems. "FDX the most highly compensated for the next 4 years???"

Maybe 4 months.

DL, UAL, and UPS will be higher in the next year than a lame 10% cola raise. Your TA Hourly pay is below the Voted down DL TA already!

DL VOTED DOWN TA pay was $320 an Hour in Jan. 2017 vs. FDX TA at $295 in Oct. 2016. And it stays at that separation till 2021.

Please do some research before babbling incorrect info.

Please do some research before babbling incorrect info. "Commando"

Says the man who previously posted FDX pilots had never voted down a TA. Maybe you should do some research too.

What TA was turned down?

99.9% of the time I agree with Albie and he is often the voice of reason. I could be convinced that the smart move is to accept this and move on except for one MAJOR problem:

SIX YEARS!!

If it was a four year deal, one could lick their wounds and move on, mentally preparing for the next round. With this deal, it will account for half or more of our career for many of us. It's just not good enough for that (and I'm talking pay/retirement numbers only)

Pipe

Which one?

We voted down an 'ALPA 1" TA and the first "FPA" TA.

But maybe that was before you got into the industry and became an expert :cool:

Once again, it's Christmas morning at fedex, and we're sifting through socks and underwear...do we finally make a stand and send it all back to "Santa" with a note saying, Where's my Coleco Vision??...or do we once again take the socks and underwear, because... well, I do need new socks and underwear.....

No. We'll debate the point when you can tell me how much UPS coughs up per pilot for A Plan, B Plan, vacation, sick leave, and then average pay per pilot. Pay isn't the only thing, I wouldn't fly some of your schedules for twice the pay.

My grandmother used to give me a shoe horn and a lint brush every year for xmas.

Deja vu......

Unless I'm given access to the Payroll Dept. in ATL, no one knows those exact numbers. And one can twist each separate category you referred to.

But Hourly is Black and White. And it's what 90% of Compensation is based off of. Like DL's Green slips for example.

So just looking at your lame COLA raise after four years of talks and for the next 6 years, your Hourly is not close to "the highest compensation in the Airline Industry" for the next 4 years. Like I said earlier, it's already lower than a turned down TA.

And our Schedules do sux. But I'm not on a Domestic Bird doing Hub Turns. I do one leg to the Hotel.

Hourly pay is certainly black and white but it is only about 50% of a pilots compensation package.

Other parts of our compensation are retirement, medical, work rules, etc. The "improvements" to retirement were incredibly small (1% B fund increase, and 1 more in 4 years). Healthcare is going to be significantly worse, but we'll have to see the fine print. Be careful when the Cadillac tax is enacted. I really didn't see any meaningful improvements in work rules. Sure you might get 1.5 credit hours if you get a new disruption (how many times per year do you think you will see these?). I didn't see trip rig and duty rig improvements in the highlights (and those equate to real money).

Now reserves will be supporting our sims which decreases the instructor force. Not sure if the professional instructors are allowed to accomplish more events now or it's just codified (ask a flex, I really don't know). Passover pay has ended.

Six week bid months? Really? Why?

Overall improvements in Deadheads despite a few set backs. It sounds expensive, but what is the real cost to the company? I'm not turning in my hotel for $30 dollars of bank.

I don't have the details of the 40K, one year retirement notice. But why don't we all get that? Sounds like another 25K Veba deal. I also don't want to encourage people to fly sick and the SLAB (or whatever you call it) will do so. I'd rather not have this in our contract.

I'll read the full TA and go to the roadshows (or at least watch the video if I'm flying). But I just don't see any way I can vote "yes". Maybe I am missing a lot.

I can wait a year or two without a new contract rather than settle for something I think is not good enough. And it's for SIX years.

I would also reconsider retirement changes (for the right price). If the MEC sees no chance of increasing the A fund, I would consider looking into changes in retirement. If I was a 35 year old new hire (with up to 30 years of work ahead), what would that 130K pension be worth in 2045? Withering on the vine was possibly the best description I've read. Would a 16% B fund be a better alternative? I have no intention of screwing the new guys, but are we screwing them by keeping them on the A plan? Let the union actuaries take a look and show us the numbers. If we went down this path, possibly have an opt in/out for everyone (those with 25 years, it's an easy decision). Of course make it cash over cap. For those on property and stay, give them 10% and continued A fund. I don't know, just an idea.

Again, I'm not for settling on a B scale. If it's advantageous to new hires, I would certainly consider changing the retirement. Of course, we need to see something in return (hourly rates).

"I don't have the details of the 40K, one year retirement notice. But why don't we all get that? Sounds like another 25K Veba deal."

What? Why don't we all get that? It's obviously an incentive for people to give notice of retirement. I would guess that anyone will have access to that, but obviously, they have to give the required amount of notice.

Some of the complaints here don't even make sense.

Ditching the A plan for newhires would make sense for very few of them. In order to replace 130K annual income at age 60, you'd need a lump sum of about 2.5 million, for something that got a mediocre return. Not going to get that unless you are a good investor, hired very young. As disappointing(but not surprising) that we were unable to get an A fund increase, I'd rather keep it for the new guys. Yes, it won't be worth near as much 20 years from now, but pension plans are going the way of the dinosaur, look around you. The equivalent of 2.5 million is still a lot of money, get your best revenge and live for a long time.

Obviously, this is something asked for by the company. They don't want to get left short handed. Pilots 54-64 are going to be offered this, according to the gouge sheet. If they want this to take effect, simply leave out the age and offer it to all pilots when they retire. We'll have to read the fine text, but I see it as anyone under 54 doesn't get this benefit. This certainly isn't my biggest issue though...

I would just like to see a good look at the numbers. We can all use a calculator and guess what inflation will be over 30 years, but I'd rather see an expert's numbers. Of course it will be a best guess. But what will 130k (minus survivor benefit if applicable) be worth in 2045? What would 16% times 30 years (at an average of 300k??) be worth? Of course the B fund rides the market (pilot determines risk), which could be really good or really bad depending on investment choices and market performance.

My take is that if we can't get an A fund improvement now (possibly the best time to negotiate a contract in the last decade), will we ever see an improvement?

I think most of us agree an A and B fund is the way to go. Sort of limits market risk and the A fund is a monthly check so you don't spend strictly from savings. But if the A fund isn't at least cost of living adjusted, what is it's real worth? I just think it's something to look at, that's all. I don't advocate throwing new hires under the bus, but will they see a better deal overall if they just have a higher paying B fund???

Uh, you can't retire until you are 55. Thats why it only affects those above that age.

I thought that meant for pilots who put in their notice at that age, not those who were at that age now. If so, that would not be evenly applied, I agree.

That's just the way I read it, we'll see the real thing tomorrow. But, regardless it's not a make or break issue either way...

One way of looking at this would be to make a golf game analogy, whereby each section of the contract represents a hole, with the length of the contract in years representing the par for each hole. Now I know there's no such animal as a golf course with the same par on every hole, let alone a 6-par.
Anyway, it would be nice if someone made a pro/con analysis of the contract like a DL bubba did earlier, except say whether section was par(no real gain), bogey(concession), or birdie (gain). Further refinements could be made on double bogeys, eagles, etc.

Back to the point: Playing 18 holes of 3-par/hole, one wouldn't be too unhappy to come away with a par game with an occasional bogey offset by a birdie. (Also a quicker way to spend an afternoon vs. conventional course.) However, if I (or a lot of others) were to play 18 holes of 6/par per hole, there had better be a lot of birdies (with an eagle or 2 thrown in), and ZERO BOGEYS for one to be a happy camper. Such a "course" with too many bogeys would make for a very long day, never mind an afternoon. Best wishes going forward.// vroll

I understand there are issues here,but in my heart I just can't vote for this TA. When as a pilot group have we really said to FedEx, enough is enough? Never. This is my last contract and so it really won't make much difference to me. I feel sorry for the rest of the hard working crew getting exploited for the next 10 years. We have never had a better opportunity to really make this an industry leading contract. 767 sims , new hires quitting, ie the $4000 new hire pay/fda pay. Vacation cancellations in all seats except 75 FO, Trips not being operated due to no crew! Max BLG, no drops, ect due to staffing. We didn't create this issue FDX did! Its is time to show some resolve and tell it to the MEC and NC. We are tired! You have to do what is right and acceptable. Wait til the next divert? We made this company what it is and I am sick of begging for the scraps. Peak is just around the corner and if FDX expects the good will of the pilot crew force to make stuff happen again, I hope collectively we can respond! Hello, we need testicular fortitude! I just made that up, Ha.
Never forget , we are the amazing pilots that make this FDX thing work in the worst conditions possible know to man! or women. Sorry
I know there are people that will disagree, that is good, but the bottom line for me. I can Not vote for this in good faith for me and my fellow crew members. If Im wrong tell me what it like to be "spam in a can" in the 767 in a few years.
PS . this post is for entertainment only , and is not intended for public viewing so I don't get put on special secret probation. " No guts, No Glory" !!

Agree 100%!! An 18% B fund doesn't hold a candle to what we have now, even if you are young. Although, the lack of an increase in the A fund is my biggest reason for leaning NO at this point. But in fairness, I will wait to read the entire TA and attend the road shows before making final judgement.