matty

Agree.






Filler....

Raptor

How about this? The CBA calls for our hotels to be the same historically as they've always been. But, I have it from someone working in the area (that's all I can say without outing them) that the hotel folks were told to save 20% in each of their geographic areas when the company was going through its last cost cutting round.

Have you noticed all the hotels over the past year plus that aren't renewing us? They want to charge more and we can't/won't pay.

Noticed that the Marriott in LAX isn't there for us anymore and we now have the Hyatt place across the street.

Notice that the Belmar just a week and some ago no longer provides the free meal that was a $15 or so value to us. The front desk clerk said FedEx wanted to save the dollar (the dollar!) they were charged on this last renewal.

I don't see where the contract, in a rising cost environment, says hotel costs must be reduced and we can be downgraded in quality and brand. We have all kinds of Courtyards we stay at now. When I read we must stay at historical quality hotels, I expect costs to rise and they raise prices.

We all know what's been happening over the years with our hotels. This company is all about the dollar. Why does anyone think that when we see changes in blue or deletions in red that they don't have a carefully thought out plan to reduce costs--in ways we've not contemplated?

Remember the "hidden" $800 million in the last contract. A seemingly small change in a little section called 4.A.2.b got back every last penny of that "gained" $800 million. And, we disputed the wording on how they applied 4.A.2.b.

That's why I'm so hard up on wanting substantial pay raises. This COLA level BS doesn't cut it. I expect the company to follow past practice and take the yard when we think they're only given the inch. But, they can't get around paying me more and I expect large pay increases to offset my expectations of their "loose" interpretation in applying new contract language--or plans we haven't even though of yet in how they can take another nickel back. DON'T GIVE UP ANY QOL ITEMS UNLESS FORCED TO.

If I'm only going to get a COLA level pay raise, with no wow "I like that" moment reading the TA, I don't expect any language change that could possibly impact me. I know what they can and are doing now to abuse me and the CBA. Every red, green, and especially blue wording in the TA I MUST view with suspicion based on their past practice. To expect any less would be foolish. There's too much blue that's not a clear win for me to accept.

I plan to vote NO!

Sluggo_63

Far be it for me to get in the way of a good rant. I just want to throw some other information out there.

There is no industry standard for what constitutes "lie-flat," but the consensus is that "angled lie-flat" is less than 172 degrees. "Flat-bed" seats go 180(-ish).
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/bu...nted=all&_r=1&

The difference being on how they measure it. Since (as I'm sure you know) the airplane is not level to the ground while flying, most of the flat-bed seats are slightly pitched in reference to the deck to account for nose pitch when flying. I remember taking an engineering design course and they mentioned that the crew bunk areas on the 747 are pitched at about 4 degrees to make them level in flight.

Here's some charts that will maybe shed more light on the different airlines, their seats, and their ratings for comfort.

First Class and Business Class airline seat Star Ranking | SKYTRAX
First and Business Class flat-bed seat and angled lie-flat seat sleep rating

I do agree that not having aisle access is not great.

Raptor

I don't complain just to complain. I fill out PORs all the time. A lot of what I fill out has been fixed. I praise FedEx to everyone I meet and in every conversation that I strike up when deadheading, waiting for crew transport in uniform, etc.

I have read all the highlights, read the entire TA and paid attention to all the colors' meanings. I've read all posts on here. I've read all the postings on the ALPA website to include the Q&A. I have looked at every video. I have gone out of my way to find strong yes voters to find out why. I try to use facts in my postings. I don't find any MEC members or leadership wanting or in need of recall. I think the NC did the best they could with the leverage they had, but I think they pulled the trigger too early, for too little, and with too many givebacks and new fuzzy language. And, if this TA is turned down, I would think we need a fresh NC.

I heard the Ford CEO called FS when the Toluca flight didn't operate for two days in a row and a plant had to shut down as its just-in-time inventory didn't arrive. I heard that up to 14 flights a night for a week or more didn't operate because there weren't pilots to fill them. I saw a tremendous number of X-pairings added to try unsuccessfully to make up the backlog. I heard many, many pilots were repeated being called for draft--even when on the Do Not Call option.

These individual (not collective) actions of many because the company was pi$$ing them off allowed them to enjoy a great QOL with their families.

The company finally came to the table and I heard they opened their books under Non-Disclosure agreements. I heard the argument was that this contract takes a year's profits. I heard that raising the cap on the A plan took another year of profits and the company "couldn't afford it". I think that's why the NC and MEC are convinced this is the best we could do. But, I think that is a misleading assumption. FedEx is smart and their hired negotiating puppet masters (Ford and Harrison) are very skilled at these contract games.

The NC got what they could with the leverage they had at the time. Turning down the TA with a strong NO vote adds to the leverage and changes the equation. And, we may see clearer negotiating goals especially when I think there are 5 major reasons this TA will be turned down.

1) Duration--too long to fix the unexpected consequences of FedEx taking more than they are given. Too long at low pay rates.
2) Low pay raises. Higher ones would have made it feel like we had received something of value for our givebacks.
3) Very little gained in retirement. B plan gains of 2% are a joke since there's no cash over cap. A plan dies a slow death since no increase in cap.
4) Asking pilots to fly sick and fly extra to get retirement "bonus" at 50 cents on the dollar. Insulting and has trickle down consequences for Captains and F/O in QOL.
5) Making FDA pilots vote against it because of the Hotel In Lieu Of changes and many other pilots like me who value deviating and see section 8 as a big give back.

People fret about what's the path forward if we turn this down. I don't have that answer, but I know CD and the MEC have plans. Unlike the Delta MEC which seemed ill prepared when their TA was turned down, we have at least thought about the path forward after October 20th if the vote is NO.

I don't know if the company will do a quick sweetener right away to keep peak mellow or if they will drag it out another two years. I don't know if what we get in the TA after this will be better--I hope it is. I don't know if we will be better off financially with a new TA, but I know that we won't suffer some of these QOL issues that we will give up with this TA.

I think the new NC will see what didn't fly and fix it better that it is now. They will have additional leverage with a big NO vote for both the company and the NMB. If this takes two more years, that's OK by me. I won't see my medical costs rise more than 6% a year in the mean time. I won't see senior pilots flying sick and making me sick while they chase the shiny star at the end of the rainbow. I won't see senior pilots delaying needed medical procedures because they want to maximize their amount over $520,000. I won't see my QOL decrease by not having the senior pilots drop sweet international trips into open time. I won't have to pay for a couple of more vacations as I use hotel in lieu of deadhead to the max. I won't pay out of pocket to deadhead in coach because my bank was based on a foreign carrier's cheap business fare and I don't live near one of their gateways. I won't have to live with a TA without knowing in advance what I'm voting for: I don't know my medical costs since they are 18% of "something"; I don't know how the secondary working group will pan out since I have no vote--it's just the company and the union hashing it out without a pilot vote; I don't want to give the company and union carte blanche either to fix a potential FAR 117 cargo cut-out being applied (no one seems to have picked up on this language and discussed it yet)--once again without a pilot vote.

By waiting I will probably get to see Delta rates, SWA rates, and UPS contract and rates. We don't have a "me too" for pay raises like many of the PAX carriers do, so I think it would be nice to find out how the industry is leading us, instead of us leading the industry to a contract. I will get to see if the health care "Cadillac Tax" is repealed or modified for union workers (as we aren't the only ones who will be impacted by this). I will get to see actual numbers and plans instead of just some nebulous compensation will be returned to the pilot and when the question is asked on Q&A the union says it won't be guaranteed to be a cash payment! I expect the company and union to work out the new PBS plan while we're going around the second time on a TA. Then I will get to vote on the plan to see if I like how the PBS for secondary lines has its parameters set up, what the soft and hard parameters are, who holds the keys, the dispute process, etc. I would like to vote on that rather than have it presented to me as fait-accompli. Maybe it would be a deal killer in itself, but if we pass this TA, we're stuck with it as we get no individual say.

I don't know the road forward, but there are benefits to waiting just as there are detriments. So it's not all doom and gloom if it doesn't pass.

What I really want more than anything else is for everyone to read the TA and to listen to all points of view. I think it's sad that at this point the number I can see on the YouTube videos and from the union statements are that only 1/4 of the pilots are engaged enough to be doing their due diligence. I really do believe that since the union voted to send this to the pilots that many people will see only the positive side as presented to them. If they don't see and consider the negative side, there is no hope--it will pass. But, if we can get the word out and engage the majority of pilots either verbally or by someone putting out a good anti-TA handout I don't see how the majority of pilots will vote for this. I have to believe that people will consider how this will affect many pilots and not vote solely on how it will affect them.

If pilots had both points of view and were engaged, I really could live with a YES or NO vote. At least then, I would feel the system worked.

TonyC

You are obviously confusing our FAE cap with the IRS benefit limit for a Defined Benefit Plan.

Our FAE Cap is $260 K, which could result in a maximum BENEFIT of $130K.

The IRS Limit on BENEFIT from a Defined Benefit Plan is the lesser of 100% of an employee's average compensation from his highest 3 consecutive calendar years or $210K (for 2015).

$130K is well below $210K.

While we must improve our Defined Benefit Plan, I don't think anybody was expecting to raise the FAE Cap to $420K this time (which would provide a BENEFIT of $210K), so the IRS Defined Benefit Plan limit on annual BENEFIT is not a factor.

------------------------------------------------


The above applies to Defined Benefit Plans -- the IRS limits the annual benefit such a plan can deliver. The $255K, $260K, and $265K numbers you're talking about apply to Defined Contribution Plans, where the IRS limits the annual CONTRIBUTION to the plan. Benefit plans -- limit benefit; Contribution Plans -- limit contributions.

One way of limiting contributions is by establishing a total dollar value limit. In 2014, that IRS limit was $52,000. An employer could contribute no more than $52,000 to your Defined Contribution Plan. Once that limit is reached, no more contributions can be made from your wages pre-tax dollars. In 2015, the limit was raised to $53,000.

Another limit is to the compensation upon which those contributions are computed. In 2014, the Compensation limit for Defined Contribution Plans was $260,000. Once an employee reached $260,000 in total compensation for the year, again, the employer can make no more Contributions to the Defined Contribution Plan from pre-tax wage dollars. The 2015 limit was raised to $265,000.

As you might see, an employee that makes a lot of money will be "cut off" from contributions to his Defined Contribution plan when he hits $265,000 in compensation or the $53,000 contribution limit. When he reaches either limit, he receives no more contributions into his Defined Contribution Plan, even if the "definition" of his contributions is a percentage of his wages. Any additional dollars earned effectively lowers that percentage when compared to his compensation. In other words, a 7% B-fund becomes less than 7%, and you could make it a 50% B-fund and it wouldn't provide the employer a penny more benefit.


So, stop confusing "260" and "265" with our A-plan. They have nothing to do with it.






.

TonyC

Maybe you should consider that "higher class of service" does not mean only First Class.

The "Flat Bed Seat" satisfies any higher class of service requirement.

Do you rate Business Class? Here, have an Economy flat bed seat instead.






.

Sluggo_63

Remind me again which airlines have economy class flat bed seats that recline at least 175 degrees.

TonyC

That's not a new benefit. That's how it used to be. The Company took it away by fiat, and now we have to expend negotiating capital to get it back, and we consider it a victory? A gain?



And, by the way, I'm confused about the test you're applying with regards to how benefits or concessions apply to small groups of pilots or the pilot group as a whole. In this case, you admit it doesn't apply to everybody, but since it helps you it goes in your PLUS column.

But here ...

The quality of life concession only hits a relatively few pilots, and not you, so you flippantly dismiss it.


Is this a CBA for just you, or is it for all of us?


I would hope that we all look at it as a CBA for all of us. Sure, one particular part might not affect me directly, or affect me often, but it does affect my brother pilots. If I expect them to support me with the little things that affect me and not them, why shouldn't they expect me to support them with the issues that more often and more strongly impact them?


In the current economic and financial position where we find ourselves bargaining, I can't for the life of me understand why we would agree to give up Quality of Life benefits for anybody. When you think about how petty some are, and how little money (not little money in terms of my budget, but little money in the grand scheme of things) The Company will save on most, the grabs The Company is making are downright insulting.






.

TonyC

Remind me how we'll be able to reopen this section and change the wording to "Business Class Lie Flat Seats" when a carrier introduces the service next spring.


Would it have been than hard to specify Business Lie Flat?

You know, tying up all that loose language and all.


We already have examples of three carriers with 180 degree flat seats.






.

FDXLAG

Ok Tony tell me what you want the DB plan cap to be to get your yes vote. Give me a number 262 263 264 ... Stop me when I get there. 265 Fred's rich I say 266.