Memphis road show 9-10
09-10-2015, 10:16 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 313
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
This is a business decision, you may not like his decision, but there is no reason to question his judgement. I am a probable yes vote because I think the NC did the best they could given the restrictions we gave them. They got us what we asked for. On the whole most of the deviation, scheduling, and pay sections are plusses. I don't like some of the minuses but the plusses out weigh them.
A no vote wont break my heart as now maybe we will be willing to negotiate in good faith on retirement. I can wait two years as well as the next guy, I would just prefer not to. Be a shame to cheat all of those new hires in HKG out of $100 and hour min pay.
A no vote wont break my heart as now maybe we will be willing to negotiate in good faith on retirement. I can wait two years as well as the next guy, I would just prefer not to. Be a shame to cheat all of those new hires in HKG out of $100 and hour min pay.
For contract ratification, we need to see enhancements to our “A” Plan and get an increase in company contributions to our “B” Plan. In the end, management will need to see your resolve to protect and improve our retirement plans.
Thank you for your time.
I've read through the TA a couple of times and I haven't yet found an "enhancement" to our A plan. Of course I'm on vacation right now so I wasn't able to attend the MEM Road Show, so maybe I missed something. I would say the NC failed....or in fighter pilot lingo, "we got schwacked!"
09-10-2015, 10:53 AM
#23
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Position: MD-11
Posts: 81
Originally Posted by GetRealDude
TBD
I've detailed plenty on "things I don't like about the TA" thread.
Read the TA from cover to cover first.
I've detailed plenty on "things I don't like about the TA" thread.
Read the TA from cover to cover first.
Originally Posted by GetRealDude
Default A summary of the CONCESSIONARY TA NONSENSE
Everyone needs to read this deal cover to cover to see just how anemic and concessionary it truly is for the pilots. Productivity and financial gains for the company are many.
Please educate yourself. If this is passed, we'll have to live with it for the next 6-10years. That's a long time to get beat up (QOL) with no recourse.
BIG ISSUES:
- no increase in A Plan High 5 (degradation in benefits year after year)
- pathetic B Plan bumps (1% DOS the wait four years for added 1%)
- no cash over cap provision for B fund + 401k limits (big issue here)
- hourly rates insultingly too low (Minimum $300/CH WB Capt DOS)
- annual increases to pay also too low (should be 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 annually)
- retro payout is pathetic based on delays (RUFKM?)
- healthcare premium increase (significant and change annually)
- 6 week bid months (might be good for the SIG but a HUGE problem) - see TonyC breakdown on page 10 of this thread)
- vacation negatively affected by 6-week bid periods
- CRS no real time trip trading improvements
- CRS can still move R days w/o approval (but you get a 3 CH bump)
- CRS can still extend you in the field w/o approval
- CRS can throw you on a Company J/S practically at will
- CRS manipulation of open time with ghost ASBY/HSBY not fixed
- Higher % of bidpack will be VTO (this is mini-PBS)
- no resolution to our sick leave doctors note BS harassment grievance
- the loss of hotel room on a 4 hour hub turn
- no increase in vacation and sick leave credit per day
- no increase to the base housing allowance for the FDAs
- the Dash 8 400 deal in EUR is BS
- loss of first class DH when lie flat business class is available
- 767 Company DH (Jumpseat to Europe - say it ain't so)
- 18 hour deviation check-in reqmt (intercontinental)
- Pilot pays for each deviation booking fee up to $25 each time (BS)
- loss of hotel in lieu of DH (bad deal here)
- scope concerns (6 week bid period clause, TNT deal)
- POP is gone with bidding for ITU.
This list falls short of the MANY areas of concern and manipulation found in this deal. But it hits a lot of important areas to consider (QOL) and total compensation.
Who votes YES on this TA?:
Anyone looking at retirement from DOS + 6 years (plus the crowd that's just tired and weary from extended negotiations). Get your anemic pay raise, your signing bonus, and your DSA money and run with it. FYIGM. Typical FDX pilot view from the past. But, many will vote YES because they are afraid we won't be able to make substantive changes later. The delay in that process is lost income while we wait. Time value of money.
Who should vote NO on this TA?:
Pretty much anyone else that actually reads this POS deal. The reality is more complicated. NMB says they will never release us. It takes 3 to tango - FDX, NMB, ALPA. Two of the three aren't interested in talking anymore. Could be a tough road to follow I'll admit.
Scared? Nope, I ain't skeered. I've waited this long for a deal that acknowledges our collective contribution to this company. This ain't it. The money I've spent on dues alone doesn't even meet the offset of the signing bonus after taxes. You and I paid for this deal.
Delta saw a POS deal and kicked it back, made the MEC and NC changes and are moving forward. We shall see. At least give them credit for having the stones to call a spade a spade. At a minimum if we vote this down, we need to thank the current NC for their efforts and replace them. Burning down the house isn't required. Those guys need a break anyway.
Peak will get very interesting if we vote the TA down.
No job action required whatsoever - that would of course be illegal.
We're significantly undermanned to met the demands of current and peak flying.
Company has made some significant miscalculations in retirement planning and hiring.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Not sure this FDX pilot group will ever stand up for what we have earned and deserve.
No indication from past actions that I've seen since the first ever CBA.
Everyone needs to read this deal cover to cover to see just how anemic and concessionary it truly is for the pilots. Productivity and financial gains for the company are many.
Please educate yourself. If this is passed, we'll have to live with it for the next 6-10years. That's a long time to get beat up (QOL) with no recourse.
BIG ISSUES:
- no increase in A Plan High 5 (degradation in benefits year after year)
- pathetic B Plan bumps (1% DOS the wait four years for added 1%)
- no cash over cap provision for B fund + 401k limits (big issue here)
- hourly rates insultingly too low (Minimum $300/CH WB Capt DOS)
- annual increases to pay also too low (should be 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 annually)
- retro payout is pathetic based on delays (RUFKM?)
- healthcare premium increase (significant and change annually)
- 6 week bid months (might be good for the SIG but a HUGE problem) - see TonyC breakdown on page 10 of this thread)
- vacation negatively affected by 6-week bid periods
- CRS no real time trip trading improvements
- CRS can still move R days w/o approval (but you get a 3 CH bump)
- CRS can still extend you in the field w/o approval
- CRS can throw you on a Company J/S practically at will
- CRS manipulation of open time with ghost ASBY/HSBY not fixed
- Higher % of bidpack will be VTO (this is mini-PBS)
- no resolution to our sick leave doctors note BS harassment grievance
- the loss of hotel room on a 4 hour hub turn
- no increase in vacation and sick leave credit per day
- no increase to the base housing allowance for the FDAs
- the Dash 8 400 deal in EUR is BS
- loss of first class DH when lie flat business class is available
- 767 Company DH (Jumpseat to Europe - say it ain't so)
- 18 hour deviation check-in reqmt (intercontinental)
- Pilot pays for each deviation booking fee up to $25 each time (BS)
- loss of hotel in lieu of DH (bad deal here)
- scope concerns (6 week bid period clause, TNT deal)
- POP is gone with bidding for ITU.
This list falls short of the MANY areas of concern and manipulation found in this deal. But it hits a lot of important areas to consider (QOL) and total compensation.
Who votes YES on this TA?:
Anyone looking at retirement from DOS + 6 years (plus the crowd that's just tired and weary from extended negotiations). Get your anemic pay raise, your signing bonus, and your DSA money and run with it. FYIGM. Typical FDX pilot view from the past. But, many will vote YES because they are afraid we won't be able to make substantive changes later. The delay in that process is lost income while we wait. Time value of money.
Who should vote NO on this TA?:
Pretty much anyone else that actually reads this POS deal. The reality is more complicated. NMB says they will never release us. It takes 3 to tango - FDX, NMB, ALPA. Two of the three aren't interested in talking anymore. Could be a tough road to follow I'll admit.
Scared? Nope, I ain't skeered. I've waited this long for a deal that acknowledges our collective contribution to this company. This ain't it. The money I've spent on dues alone doesn't even meet the offset of the signing bonus after taxes. You and I paid for this deal.
Delta saw a POS deal and kicked it back, made the MEC and NC changes and are moving forward. We shall see. At least give them credit for having the stones to call a spade a spade. At a minimum if we vote this down, we need to thank the current NC for their efforts and replace them. Burning down the house isn't required. Those guys need a break anyway.
Peak will get very interesting if we vote the TA down.
No job action required whatsoever - that would of course be illegal.
We're significantly undermanned to met the demands of current and peak flying.
Company has made some significant miscalculations in retirement planning and hiring.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Not sure this FDX pilot group will ever stand up for what we have earned and deserve.
No indication from past actions that I've seen since the first ever CBA.
That is why I asked you to make your argument for a "no" vote using some valid contract points and not just your misunderstanding of some contract points.
09-10-2015, 10:53 AM
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 258
Thank You FDX ALPA MEC negotiators. Great job.
I especially find the videos informative, I encourage all to watch them.
From what I seen heard and read I vote YES.
If we vote yes now with the UPS strike? looming. I think FDX will be very profitable this peak. If its good for the Company It will be great for us.
We will dominate the air freight world. More planes more pilots! Everyone moves UP in seniority. You can gain seniority from people retiring or dropping off the top of the list. But this is slow. If you can build from the bottom. Like we did with the postal contract we will grow. Look at all the day time flights. When I first got here 20 years ago their were none. Lets seize this opportunity.
I especially find the videos informative, I encourage all to watch them.
From what I seen heard and read I vote YES.
If we vote yes now with the UPS strike? looming. I think FDX will be very profitable this peak. If its good for the Company It will be great for us.
We will dominate the air freight world. More planes more pilots! Everyone moves UP in seniority. You can gain seniority from people retiring or dropping off the top of the list. But this is slow. If you can build from the bottom. Like we did with the postal contract we will grow. Look at all the day time flights. When I first got here 20 years ago their were none. Lets seize this opportunity.
09-10-2015, 11:02 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,051
Originally Posted by Dakota
How old are you.........10?
Old enough to know the difference between fact and opinion.
Old enough to accept that any activity involving trading services for money is business and that while business involves personal relationships, it is not a personal relationship.
Old enough to know that I'm not always going to get everything I want.
Old enough to have an identity outside my chosen profession.
Old enough to find this website usually more entertaining than it is informative.
I would expect the average 10 year old to have a grasp of all those concepts. I'm not certain everyone on this site does. So I'll roll with your guess of 10.
09-10-2015, 11:34 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B777 Capt(retired)
Posts: 163
Thanks Baron!
Thanks for redlining the errors in your example of emotional bias of some on this forum.
Many of us are NOT going to stick around for a year for a paltry 50 cents on the dollar of zero DSA balance or $40k. If this passes I will vanish off the list in late Dec THIS year. (Tax reasons to hang around till then, Not 65) The gains for new hires are good. If I had 10 plus years left I would rather have 401K money than an increase in an A plan. (Look at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp numbers to see how much they cover the A plan for us). The retirement medical section is much improved. Overall the TA is reasonable, a little low in some areas but a gain overall. Solid yes vote.
Many of us are NOT going to stick around for a year for a paltry 50 cents on the dollar of zero DSA balance or $40k. If this passes I will vanish off the list in late Dec THIS year. (Tax reasons to hang around till then, Not 65) The gains for new hires are good. If I had 10 plus years left I would rather have 401K money than an increase in an A plan. (Look at the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp numbers to see how much they cover the A plan for us). The retirement medical section is much improved. Overall the TA is reasonable, a little low in some areas but a gain overall. Solid yes vote.
09-10-2015, 11:42 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2014
Position: MD
Posts: 194
TBD and S6
The red items ... we agree to disagree.
I consider them points of concession, no improvement (A-Plan), or neutral at best (need improvement).
It's not emotional. It's just my career.
I'm just pointing them out and you would prefer to wear blinders and follow the NC spin.
At the very least, each of the items should have been much improved.
The B-Plan is an improvement. I didn't say it was a concession. I said it was pathetic.
Big difference.
The only one on that list I would amend is the deviation re-booking fee.
Only triggered after the second re-booking based on NC video, but it still applies.
In all things, you get what you negotiate and we got schwacked IMO.
Outmaneuvered and intimidated once again.
I've read the TA and the items on my list are definitely in play.
Your depth of knowledge is either based on being uninformed, a lack of understanding, naive at best, or a non-line pilot.
The company and CRS will max maneuver and exploit any and all language.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the efficiencies we're giving them - which directly correlates to giving up QOL.
Either way, I don't care which way you vote.
IF you're a line guy (?), you'll see the QOL issues in short order if this passes.
The red items ... we agree to disagree.
I consider them points of concession, no improvement (A-Plan), or neutral at best (need improvement).
It's not emotional. It's just my career.
I'm just pointing them out and you would prefer to wear blinders and follow the NC spin.
At the very least, each of the items should have been much improved.
The B-Plan is an improvement. I didn't say it was a concession. I said it was pathetic.
Big difference.
The only one on that list I would amend is the deviation re-booking fee.
Only triggered after the second re-booking based on NC video, but it still applies.
In all things, you get what you negotiate and we got schwacked IMO.
Outmaneuvered and intimidated once again.
I've read the TA and the items on my list are definitely in play.
Your depth of knowledge is either based on being uninformed, a lack of understanding, naive at best, or a non-line pilot.
The company and CRS will max maneuver and exploit any and all language.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the efficiencies we're giving them - which directly correlates to giving up QOL.
Either way, I don't care which way you vote.
IF you're a line guy (?), you'll see the QOL issues in short order if this passes.
Last edited by GetRealDude; 09-10-2015 at 12:02 PM.
09-10-2015, 11:46 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: B777 Capt(retired)
Posts: 163
MD11 Hog, Name calling just shows your lack of information on overall retirement planning. You need to go to a retirement seminar. The TA kept the A plan for new hires. The B fund increases are not great but a start. Grumpy
09-10-2015, 12:16 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Dakota
Really? I don't think so. This is straight from my Block Rep (LEC 22, B5):
For contract ratification, we need to see enhancements to our “A” Plan and get an increase in company contributions to our “B” Plan. In the end, management will need to see your resolve to protect and improve our retirement plans.
Thank you for your time.
I've read through the TA a couple of times and I haven't yet found an "enhancement" to our A plan. Of course I'm on vacation right now so I wasn't able to attend the MEM Road Show, so maybe I missed something. I would say the NC failed....or in fighter pilot lingo, "we got schwacked!"
For contract ratification, we need to see enhancements to our “A” Plan and get an increase in company contributions to our “B” Plan. In the end, management will need to see your resolve to protect and improve our retirement plans.
Thank you for your time.
I've read through the TA a couple of times and I haven't yet found an "enhancement" to our A plan. Of course I'm on vacation right now so I wasn't able to attend the MEM Road Show, so maybe I missed something. I would say the NC failed....or in fighter pilot lingo, "we got schwacked!"
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
