Originally Posted by kronan
(Post 1968740)
Need to add loss of Hub turn rooms to the Red column as it is incorrect. It is applicable only in certain circumstances, and never applies to Day Hub turns.
Pilot non-use of their contractual hotel room during night Hub turns is a recurring issue, and is an interest of concern currently as indicated by ALPA Comms. Personally, no issue with anyone who doesn't want to waste the travel time provided they simply grab a recliner. Grabbing a sleep room can screw the bro's who foolishly went to the Buffeteria, or wanted to chat\work on a computer for a bit before signing up for a sleep room. Or who simply arrive late due to a mx issue |
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
(Post 1968782)
I didn't realize we had people using front end hotels instead of the deadheads in Asia and Europe. If they are, then yes, that is a give back. Probably not so much to the 4000 that never use it though. So is that the straw that breaks the camels back?
|
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 1968809)
And the loss of the Hotel can not be counted until they have enough sleep rooms for anyone with a 2.5 hour turn. They do not have to provide an adequate number of sleep rooms before now they do.
|
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
(Post 1968782)
I didn't realize we had people using front end hotels instead of the deadheads in Asia and Europe. If they are, then yes, that is a give back. Probably not so much to the 4000 that never use it though. So is that the straw that breaks the camels back?
It doesn't affect me. It will go senior. |
Originally Posted by USMCFDX
(Post 1968815)
It just goes to show it is another part of the contract that you don't use or understand completely so you don't care that it changed. Too many people look at the TA in this way and do not see the big picture.
It doesn't affect me. It will go senior. |
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
(Post 1968754)
Maybe you should reread our current CBA section 8. There are very few DH's that require a 1st class seat. The company has always had (and used) their option (fare code FCF). They only have to buy a 1st class seat on single leg flight with a duty day over 16 hours. Can you name even 1 that appears in the bidpack? I've done one...EWR-SIN...in 9 1/2 years on the MD.
|
Originally Posted by kronan
(Post 1968755)
B plan, Tony C is absolutely correct as it is simply a matter of perception.
FAE-we think FedEx can afford it. FedEx is adamant that they cannot. They refused to budge, or even consider a minor adjustment such as making it the IRS cap (want to say that's 265 now, but I could be completely mistaken). The ugly reality is that FedEx doesn't want the additional uncertainty even a minor adjustment results in. It's an open ended commitment dependent upon long term investment returns, and has mandated ERISA funding commitments. If I was a new hire, the only reason I would even be considering a big B plan vice our current mix is if I was thinking the A plan would be handed over to the PBGCC prior\during my retirement. Barring some outstanding stock picking\investment returns, an 18 or 19% B plan doesn't come close to matching the value of a maxed out A plan. Even considering that fact that in 20 yrs, the max just won't have the same cash value it does today. Something that will hold just as true for the value of your B plan. Personally, I think it is foolish to even consider voluntarily eliminating one of an individual's retirement components. And for me, they can have my future FOs A plan when FedEx is verging on bankruptcy. Sucks for me, but I'm not willing to trade a future drinking bud's A plan for a bigger B plan for me. We're all in this together As far as A Plan vs B Plan, different strokes for different folks. Were I a new hire looking at 30 years here I would take a 18% cash over Cap B Fund in a heart beat over a capped A Plan at 130K and 25 YOS. Regardless, the point is when we tried to have a conversation it was shut down. We should have listened and seen what we could get. Maybe the answer was 25%. |
Originally Posted by TonyC
(Post 1968620)
...Our openers did NOT contain restrictions on what could or could not be done with the Defined Benefit Plan, and the first priority was not to keep everyone on the same plan. Certainly that was a priority, but the only priority published in our openers was "Improve DB Plan."...
...Now, I don't know what kind of lenses you are using to view it, but NO CHANGE is NOT an improvement to the DB plan....and I think we'd look foolish voluntarily surrendering our A Plan to a Company that is wildly successful, hugely profitable, and growing at a tremendous pace. While others had theirs ripped away in times of bankruptcy or duress, you want to vote yours away in an environment of growth and profit?...If we vote this thing in, that's what we'll be doing, and that's how we'll be known. The pilots who voted away their A plan for absolutely nothing in return... ...You remember the MEC Chairman and the Negotiating Committee Chairman telling us all along that our demands (including "Improve DB Plan") were reasonable, and The Company could afford them. Of course, and you trusted them to be telling the truth. Why has the story changed now? Before The Company could afford what we wanted, and you trusted them... . Meanwhile here we are here arguing about the possibilities of giving up the A-plan for new hires, to improve our B-plan, if the TA is rejected. Our openers were to IMPROVE BOTH THE A AND B PLANS. We have caved there, how can we not see that as a group? Plus, we gave away sprinkled concessions throughout on top of it?!?!? Our outstanding company can afford this, that is why we charge customers what we do, and why we fly the schedules we do, for outstanding profits. We deserve an outstanding TA to vote on, not a marginal, concession-riddled, caved-on-openers TA. Make no mistake, the company WILL come after our ENTIRE A-plan in the future. If we have this concession-riddled TA now, during record-profits, just get ready for a true grab for all sections of the CBA next time around, when they will actually have an argument about coming after benefits, QOL issues, etc... |
So I'm dutifully watching the video of the Memphis roadshow and discovered the audio cuts out at about 46:30. Might just be me but I've tried several devices and get the same result. But I have made a determination based on what I could listen to. SL is truly a valuable negotiating tool. His monotone drawl could lull a fully caffeinated meth addict into a zombie like trance.
Or maybe I just needed more meth. |
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
(Post 1968812)
As you have seen LAG, there is nothing that stops the company from building pairings with turns 2:28, and 4:58, respectively. NOTHING to stop them, or limit them, or audit the inaccuracy of the pairing construction. If you do not think this will be exploited, well, you must have not been here during 4a2b, like myself. But, I think you were here. So, you know how that can and IMO, WILL, be exploited.
|
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:29 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands