We Are Not Worth 1 %
09-07-2015, 09:08 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 26
We Are Not Worth 1 %
Fact: The company values this TA at 1.7 Billion dollars over the next six years….
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
The company values the work we do at less than a 1% increase in the operating revenue over the term of the agreement. Pathetic.
I commend the NC for the work they’ve done, they’ve worked hard, but now it’s time to put in fresh crew. When I watch the TA Q&A videos, and see the ALPA National R&I chairman defending the company’s position on why they can’t afford to increase the A fund or B fund, I know it’s time for a new team.
Our work rules have not improved, but the company’s profits have. Either improve our work rules, or justly increase our compensation—10/3/3/3/4/3 will not cut it. And until someone has walked a mile in our hub turning shoes, no one can say we’re asking for too much…
1% is not asking too much.
My vote is NO.
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
The company values the work we do at less than a 1% increase in the operating revenue over the term of the agreement. Pathetic.
I commend the NC for the work they’ve done, they’ve worked hard, but now it’s time to put in fresh crew. When I watch the TA Q&A videos, and see the ALPA National R&I chairman defending the company’s position on why they can’t afford to increase the A fund or B fund, I know it’s time for a new team.
Our work rules have not improved, but the company’s profits have. Either improve our work rules, or justly increase our compensation—10/3/3/3/4/3 will not cut it. And until someone has walked a mile in our hub turning shoes, no one can say we’re asking for too much…
1% is not asking too much.
My vote is NO.
09-07-2015, 10:23 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 296
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
Fact: The company values this TA at 1.7 Billion dollars over the next six years….
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
The company values the work we do at less than a 1% increase in the operating revenue over the term of the agreement. Pathetic.
I commend the NC for the work they’ve done, they’ve worked hard, but now it’s time to put in fresh crew. When I watch the TA Q&A videos, and see the ALPA National R&I chairman defending the company’s position on why they can’t afford to increase the A fund or B fund, I know it’s time for a new team.
Our work rules have not improved, but the company’s profits have. Either improve our work rules, or justly increase our compensation—10/3/3/3/4/3 will not cut it. And until someone has walked a mile in our hub turning shoes, no one can say we’re asking for too much…
1% is not asking too much.
My vote is NO.
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
The company values the work we do at less than a 1% increase in the operating revenue over the term of the agreement. Pathetic.
I commend the NC for the work they’ve done, they’ve worked hard, but now it’s time to put in fresh crew. When I watch the TA Q&A videos, and see the ALPA National R&I chairman defending the company’s position on why they can’t afford to increase the A fund or B fund, I know it’s time for a new team.
Our work rules have not improved, but the company’s profits have. Either improve our work rules, or justly increase our compensation—10/3/3/3/4/3 will not cut it. And until someone has walked a mile in our hub turning shoes, no one can say we’re asking for too much…
1% is not asking too much.
My vote is NO.
09-08-2015, 04:32 AM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
Fact: The company values this TA at 1.7 Billion dollars over the next six years….
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
Signing Bonus and B fund contributions (back pay)
SLB (not eligible for ALL pilots and should be seen as a manning fix)
Advance Notice for Retirement(ditto)
09-08-2015, 05:03 AM
#6
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: Counting down the bid packs
Posts: 96
Originally Posted by HercMasterJ
Fact: The company values this TA at 1.7 Billion dollars over the next six years….
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
The company values the work we do at less than a 1% increase in the operating revenue over the term of the agreement. Pathetic.
I commend the NC for the work they’ve done, they’ve worked hard, but now it’s time to put in fresh crew. When I watch the TA Q&A videos, and see the ALPA National R&I chairman defending the company’s position on why they can’t afford to increase the A fund or B fund, I know it’s time for a new team.
Our work rules have not improved, but the company’s profits have. Either improve our work rules, or justly increase our compensation—10/3/3/3/4/3 will not cut it. And until someone has walked a mile in our hub turning shoes, no one can say we’re asking for too much…
1% is not asking too much.
My vote is NO.
Fact: FedEx had 47.4 Billion dollars in revenue this year…
Fact: FedEx had 2.57 net adjusted income this year.
Simple math, 47.4 x 6yrs = 284.4 Billion in revenue over the life of the contract.
1.7 Billion is .59% of the revenue FedEx will receive over the next six years…not counting growth or the TNT merger aspects.
The company values the work we do at less than a 1% increase in the operating revenue over the term of the agreement. Pathetic.
I commend the NC for the work they’ve done, they’ve worked hard, but now it’s time to put in fresh crew. When I watch the TA Q&A videos, and see the ALPA National R&I chairman defending the company’s position on why they can’t afford to increase the A fund or B fund, I know it’s time for a new team.
Our work rules have not improved, but the company’s profits have. Either improve our work rules, or justly increase our compensation—10/3/3/3/4/3 will not cut it. And until someone has walked a mile in our hub turning shoes, no one can say we’re asking for too much…
1% is not asking too much.
My vote is NO.
09-08-2015, 05:06 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Busboy
It's actually 1.7 billion over 8+ yrs. you should include the years since our contract became amendable.
Is this TA "Your Brain on Drugs?"
09-08-2015, 07:25 AM
#8
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
I have no problem with you or anyone else voting no. Free country, vote as you see fit. But please learn the difference between revenue and income and what Express contributes to the bottom line before you post such meaningless crap.
Thanks for the business lesson. You need one too. Express is not a separate business. Last time I checked there is one corp - FDX. You cannot separate the two as much as management would like you to when valuing your contributions. Ground is delivering packages that entered the system from Express. If the corp wants to waste money delivering my neighborhood with two different colored trucks, so be it. Without Express there is no Ground, Office, Custom Critical, Freight...TNT...
Maybe we should pay less to the guy who flies DSM than the guy who flies ORD because he doesn't carry as much high value freight.
09-08-2015, 08:23 AM
#9
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by ColCargill
Thanks for the business lesson. You need one too. Express is not a separate business. Last time I checked there is one corp - FDX. You cannot separate the two as much as management would like you to when valuing your contributions. Ground is delivering packages that entered the system from Express. If the corp wants to waste money delivering my neighborhood with two different colored trucks, so be it. Without Express there is no Ground, Office, Custom Critical, Freight...TNT...
Maybe we should pay less to the guy who flies DSM than the guy who flies ORD because he doesn't carry as much high value freight.
Maybe we should pay less to the guy who flies DSM than the guy who flies ORD because he doesn't carry as much high value freight.
09-08-2015, 09:35 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Retired
Posts: 404
Originally Posted by ColCargill
Thanks for the business lesson. You need one too. Express is not a separate business. Last time I checked there is one corp - FDX. You cannot separate the two as much as management would like you to when valuing your contributions. Ground is delivering packages that entered the system from Express. If the corp wants to waste money delivering my neighborhood with two different colored trucks, so be it. Without Express there is no Ground, Office, Custom Critical, Freight...TNT...
Maybe we should pay less to the guy who flies DSM than the guy who flies ORD because he doesn't carry as much high value freight.
Maybe we should pay less to the guy who flies DSM than the guy who flies ORD because he doesn't carry as much high value freight.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Breton
Hangar Talk
0
06-24-2005 02:53 PM
