Dissenting LEC votes speak for me
10-08-2015, 11:13 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Block 1 Rep, captain DR, part VII
What You Put Up With, You End Up With
What You Tolerate, You Give Permission To Exist
Part VII
I wrote and first published the piece below a couple of years ago. The reference links provide a sobering read and are even more relevant now than they were then.
This job is damaging your body. That's why you shouldn't have to fly extra hours over more years, bid around vacations, and play the 'sick lottery' in the hopes of making up for an eroding retirement plan. That's why I think you're worth more than this TA provides, and that's why I am willing to continue the fight on your behalf.
Q: What do Coal Dust and Circadian Disruption have in Common?
A: There is not much "Quality of Life" when you are Sick,
and none at all when you're Dead
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Would you believe that there are still some in the coal mining industry who would dispute that coal dust kills miners, even as newer research demonstrates that it's effects reach well beyond respiratory issues to include cardiovascular disease, nervous system damage, and cancer? Of course you would, as such denials have been commonplace throughout industrial corporate history.
When Fred Smith invented Federal Express and an entirely new industry in the 70's, no one was thinking about the adverse effects of circadian disruption or fatigue upon your bodies. The boxes had to move, so the pilots and other employees dug in and moved them with pride. That's all there was to it.
Since then, Mr. Smith has (quite rightfully, in my opinion) become a multi-billionaire and FedEx has grown into a $45+ billion/year global icon. Science has caught up to the profits however, taking notice of circadian rhythm and fatigue studies which are comprehensive and damning.
It's now known that circadian disruption damages your body in a wide variety of ways, can make you chronically ill, and can even kill you. Forget quaint notions that circadian chaos simply makes you feel bad for a few days here and there.
Circadian chaos is our industry's coal dust. Behavioral disorders, autoimmune disorders, brain damage, diabetes, heart disease, damaged DNA, and cancer (women can add spontaneous abortions and premature births to the list)...these maladies are our blackened lungs, and we have each observed them in ourselves or our fellow crew members. It is a painful irony that this circadian chaos is built into your schedules even as you must maintain the highest physical standards in the company, and that if you can't maintain those standards, the FAA will strip you of your license to be abused by these schedules in the first place.
Don't settle for anything less than the best contract in the world, and don't let anyone imply that you should.
Fraternally,
DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chair
What You Tolerate, You Give Permission To Exist
Part VII
I wrote and first published the piece below a couple of years ago. The reference links provide a sobering read and are even more relevant now than they were then.
This job is damaging your body. That's why you shouldn't have to fly extra hours over more years, bid around vacations, and play the 'sick lottery' in the hopes of making up for an eroding retirement plan. That's why I think you're worth more than this TA provides, and that's why I am willing to continue the fight on your behalf.
Q: What do Coal Dust and Circadian Disruption have in Common?
A: There is not much "Quality of Life" when you are Sick,
and none at all when you're Dead
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Would you believe that there are still some in the coal mining industry who would dispute that coal dust kills miners, even as newer research demonstrates that it's effects reach well beyond respiratory issues to include cardiovascular disease, nervous system damage, and cancer? Of course you would, as such denials have been commonplace throughout industrial corporate history.
When Fred Smith invented Federal Express and an entirely new industry in the 70's, no one was thinking about the adverse effects of circadian disruption or fatigue upon your bodies. The boxes had to move, so the pilots and other employees dug in and moved them with pride. That's all there was to it.
Since then, Mr. Smith has (quite rightfully, in my opinion) become a multi-billionaire and FedEx has grown into a $45+ billion/year global icon. Science has caught up to the profits however, taking notice of circadian rhythm and fatigue studies which are comprehensive and damning.
It's now known that circadian disruption damages your body in a wide variety of ways, can make you chronically ill, and can even kill you. Forget quaint notions that circadian chaos simply makes you feel bad for a few days here and there.
Circadian chaos is our industry's coal dust. Behavioral disorders, autoimmune disorders, brain damage, diabetes, heart disease, damaged DNA, and cancer (women can add spontaneous abortions and premature births to the list)...these maladies are our blackened lungs, and we have each observed them in ourselves or our fellow crew members. It is a painful irony that this circadian chaos is built into your schedules even as you must maintain the highest physical standards in the company, and that if you can't maintain those standards, the FAA will strip you of your license to be abused by these schedules in the first place.
Don't settle for anything less than the best contract in the world, and don't let anyone imply that you should.
Fraternally,
DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chair
10-08-2015, 11:26 AM
#92
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Council 79, FO DC, on slot denial pay
Slot Denial Pay
It is imperative to understand the new System Bid procedures to understand Slot Denial Pay (SDP) (24.E). I believe Slot Denial Pay is a weakness of our TA and is less valuable than Passover Pay. Although exploring a bid for training system was an honorable effort by the Negotiating Committee, the TA would be stronger, in my opinion, if they hadn’t created this new mechanism. As I explained in my prior article, I believe that the process and timeline bargained for the training bid leaves most with less certainty of when they will start training and therefore less quality of life for most. The timeline for the training bid will provide the pilot holding a training slot with their individual training date prior to the opening of the monthly bid, which is greater than the 7 days required today. But most others will have no idea when their own training date could occur because they don’t know which slot they will successfully bid in the future. This is exacerbated by large bids and not limited in this agreement. Unfortunately, along with bidding for training comes the concept of Slot Denial Pay.
A pilot qualifies for Slot Denial Pay by being denied a training slot award (24.E.1). Unlike Passover Pay, Slot Denial Pay is not a change in the pay rate at which all current activity is paid. It is a set dollar amount for denial of a training slot as shown in a chart (24.E.7 and 8). The use of a charted value doesn't capture the dollars lost for all pilots. Passover Pay captures all pay activity. Slot Denial Pay only provides the dollar amount shown. Importantly, Slot Denial Pay is paid in the month denied the training slot and potentially future months (through the month the pilot starts training 24.E.3) while Passover Pay occurs only upon the junior pilot’s activation. Perhaps this caveat makes it more appealing to some. However, Slot Denial Pay is discontinued if the pilot does not bid on a future training slot that his seniority could hold.
Unlike Passover Pay, SDP has only one eligible pilot eligible for continuous SDP (24.E.6). A denied training slot may also pay one time for one other pilot denied a training slot but given a training slot in the same bid period (24.E.2 and 6). Having SDP payable on a one for one is certainly not as good as a deal as Passover Pay for the aggregate group. Currently, the activation of a junior pilot can trigger Passover Pay for all pilots trained out of seniority order into a given base and seat position if that junior pilot holds the same crew position from the same or subsequent posting and the junior pilot’s activation delays the training and activation of the senior pilot.
Please review the charts in 24.E.7 and 8. Importantly, any fair consideration will also consider the note (which I originally missed—and don't want others to as well) below the chart in 24.E.8. This states that the chart values increase with pay rate increases beginning with the first hourly rate increase beyond DOS other than "Lateral or Up," or “Singles." In other words, the rates rise 3 percent at DOS plus one year and so on. Therefore, the charted values will be 3 percent higher. For the values that do not increase with pay, those will decrease in real value over time and may or may not be bargained in future agreements.
These amounts do not adequately compensate a pilot for a slot denial in some circumstances. (There are also circumstances where an individual pilot will do better depending on their BLG and the length of the SDP, but as mentioned above is one for one and Passover Pay is one for all.) SDP captures 77.91 hours per bid month or 934 hours annually. It won’t capture earnings like vacation buy back or sick contribution account. For those receiving regulated age SDP, it won't allow for the higher pay rate in the computation of DSA buy back (24.F.4.B). If the 767 LOA could be constructed so that some 757 pilots are paid at the wide body rate for all activity in certain months (767LOA C.2.b), how can we agree that pilots having their seniority violated in bidding for training aren’t entitled to the same?
Finally, consider the pilot denied a training slot and receiving SDP. The only way to maintain SDP is to continue bidding for future training slots. This defeats the entire purpose of bid for training as I understand it. Supposedly, one would want to control the timing of when they were in a training cycle. While you are not going to be forced to bid for future slots, the financial make up for being denied the opportunity to go to training when you bid will be lost.
Please take the opportunity to review Section 24 of the TA on your own. I have shared my opinion. As you cast your ballot for the entire agreement, I hope this has been helpful for your consideration. Please review the webcasts and TA Q&A for more information.
DC
It is imperative to understand the new System Bid procedures to understand Slot Denial Pay (SDP) (24.E). I believe Slot Denial Pay is a weakness of our TA and is less valuable than Passover Pay. Although exploring a bid for training system was an honorable effort by the Negotiating Committee, the TA would be stronger, in my opinion, if they hadn’t created this new mechanism. As I explained in my prior article, I believe that the process and timeline bargained for the training bid leaves most with less certainty of when they will start training and therefore less quality of life for most. The timeline for the training bid will provide the pilot holding a training slot with their individual training date prior to the opening of the monthly bid, which is greater than the 7 days required today. But most others will have no idea when their own training date could occur because they don’t know which slot they will successfully bid in the future. This is exacerbated by large bids and not limited in this agreement. Unfortunately, along with bidding for training comes the concept of Slot Denial Pay.
A pilot qualifies for Slot Denial Pay by being denied a training slot award (24.E.1). Unlike Passover Pay, Slot Denial Pay is not a change in the pay rate at which all current activity is paid. It is a set dollar amount for denial of a training slot as shown in a chart (24.E.7 and 8). The use of a charted value doesn't capture the dollars lost for all pilots. Passover Pay captures all pay activity. Slot Denial Pay only provides the dollar amount shown. Importantly, Slot Denial Pay is paid in the month denied the training slot and potentially future months (through the month the pilot starts training 24.E.3) while Passover Pay occurs only upon the junior pilot’s activation. Perhaps this caveat makes it more appealing to some. However, Slot Denial Pay is discontinued if the pilot does not bid on a future training slot that his seniority could hold.
Unlike Passover Pay, SDP has only one eligible pilot eligible for continuous SDP (24.E.6). A denied training slot may also pay one time for one other pilot denied a training slot but given a training slot in the same bid period (24.E.2 and 6). Having SDP payable on a one for one is certainly not as good as a deal as Passover Pay for the aggregate group. Currently, the activation of a junior pilot can trigger Passover Pay for all pilots trained out of seniority order into a given base and seat position if that junior pilot holds the same crew position from the same or subsequent posting and the junior pilot’s activation delays the training and activation of the senior pilot.
Please review the charts in 24.E.7 and 8. Importantly, any fair consideration will also consider the note (which I originally missed—and don't want others to as well) below the chart in 24.E.8. This states that the chart values increase with pay rate increases beginning with the first hourly rate increase beyond DOS other than "Lateral or Up," or “Singles." In other words, the rates rise 3 percent at DOS plus one year and so on. Therefore, the charted values will be 3 percent higher. For the values that do not increase with pay, those will decrease in real value over time and may or may not be bargained in future agreements.
These amounts do not adequately compensate a pilot for a slot denial in some circumstances. (There are also circumstances where an individual pilot will do better depending on their BLG and the length of the SDP, but as mentioned above is one for one and Passover Pay is one for all.) SDP captures 77.91 hours per bid month or 934 hours annually. It won’t capture earnings like vacation buy back or sick contribution account. For those receiving regulated age SDP, it won't allow for the higher pay rate in the computation of DSA buy back (24.F.4.B). If the 767 LOA could be constructed so that some 757 pilots are paid at the wide body rate for all activity in certain months (767LOA C.2.b), how can we agree that pilots having their seniority violated in bidding for training aren’t entitled to the same?
Finally, consider the pilot denied a training slot and receiving SDP. The only way to maintain SDP is to continue bidding for future training slots. This defeats the entire purpose of bid for training as I understand it. Supposedly, one would want to control the timing of when they were in a training cycle. While you are not going to be forced to bid for future slots, the financial make up for being denied the opportunity to go to training when you bid will be lost.
Please take the opportunity to review Section 24 of the TA on your own. I have shared my opinion. As you cast your ballot for the entire agreement, I hope this has been helpful for your consideration. Please review the webcasts and TA Q&A for more information.
DC
10-16-2015, 10:15 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Block 1 Rep, DR, SPOT ON!!!
From DR
You may be saturated—tired of reading TA comms. I get it. Unfortunately, several comms from various sources have been published recently that, perhaps in an effort to bolster support for ratification, have led to further questions and the need for clarification. I will try to make this as short as possible while still fulfilling my commitment as your elected representative to ensure that the information you have is as accurate as possible.
I assure you that it simply does not matter to me on a personal level which way you vote. I've said it many times: your vote is yours alone, and my only goal is to provide information and viewpoints you're not getting elsewhere so that you can make a more informed decision. I have always been an advocate of our Union's democratic processes, and come next Tuesday morning my marching orders, as always, come from you. It's my duty to implement your collective decision.
SIGNING BONUS (Retro): Your negotiating committee recently published updated figures for the signing bonus. First, understand that this isn't "extra money" over the total amount previously announced. We have always known that the retro payments would be revised upwards once we got tighter demographic data from the company. The total remains at $134 million and is still 10% (or $13.3 million+) short of the amount it should have been ($147.3m+) to make you whole for 3% pay increases since the amendable date (and by the way, that missing retro affects your retirement benefit accruals as well by an additional $1 million or so).
Given the new data, let's expand upon the miscalculation/shortfall of the signing bonus and compare the real retro (what you should receive) to what the TA would actually provide, as follows:
Real Negotiated
Retro Amount - Retro Amount = Shortfall
W/B Captain $43,900 - $39,000 = $3,900
N/B Captain $36,300 - $33,000 = $3,300
W/B First Officer $28,600 - $26,000 = $2,600
N/B First Officer $24,200 - $22,000 = $2,200
COMPARISONS OF THIS TA TO THOSE AT DAL AND AA ARE INVALID: Watch this brief video clip to refresh your memories regarding claims made by your negotiating chairman as he compares this TA to those at DAL and AA. Supposedly, this TA is worth $60k/pilot/year while those at DAL were only worth $30k and $25k, respectively. Sadly, these comparisons are as absurd as they are invalid.
First, the goal of the AA Negotiating Committee was merely to break even, negotiating a cost neutral contract that merged two airlines; meaning that the $25k/pilot/year gains for AA's pilots was essentially gravy, over and above their stated goal of...zero dollars. Why compare our TA to one that wasn't even supposed to have gains? Might as well go beat up the neighbor's kid and brag in the bar tonight about some guy's butt you whipped. Makes as much sense.
Second, the DAL TA failed. Again, what's the point in comparing our TA to...a failure? A TA that didn't become an actual contract? Never mind beating up the little kid next door. Now you're just swinging away at his imaginary little friend.
Third, neither AA nor DAL had an amendable period, as we did, meaning that their TAs were achieved prior to their current CBAs becoming amendable. The DAL TA was achieved early, while ours TA's date of signing would be 2.7 years past the amendable date. That's absolutely critical because no amendable period means no large "catch up" pay raise to inflate the calculations. Here is a simple comparison:
Airline A gets an "on time" TA worth $30k/year/pilot over a 4-year contract. $120k/pilot total over that 4-year period.
Airline B's negotiations get dragged out over 4 years, then they get the exact same $30k/year/pilot 4-year TA that airline A got, plus an additional $30k per year for each of the 4 years it took to negotiate the contract. $240k/pilot total over an 8-year period. If the negotiators tell the membership that the TA is worth $240k/pilot over a 4-year contract there's a false perception that airline B's TA has twice the value of the one from airline A.
As you can see, the 2.7-year amendable period matters. So why, then, is your Negotiating Committee dividing the value of this contract by 6 years rather than 8.7? As stated in my previous comm on this topic, the true value of this TA is $45k/pilot/year, NOT $60k.
Claiming $60k/pilot/year and comparing that to one TA that failed and another that wasn't targeted to have ANY gains is . . . what. Credible?
DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE RETIREMENT THING. IF WE JUST PASS THE TA NOW WE CAN FIX THE RETIREMENT LATER! That's what some have begun to say, so let's get this straight. When the TA was first announced, everyone pointed out the most obvious flaw, which was the retirement issue. The immediate excuse given was that infamous "line in the sand." Then the real backlash started. Ratification started to look pretty shaky. What happened next? The coordinated talking point among some reps suddenly became, in essence, "Don't worry, if you just vote 'yes' now we will fix the retirement part later!"
Right . . . so . . . there's a line in the sand but if we pass a TA that contains miscalculated pay raises, miscalculated retro payments, an increase of thousands per year in your health care costs, a myriad of efficiencies buried in the language that we haven't even begun to uncover yet...and after the company locks this in we will somehow have the leverage to fix the retirement...later? Not without taking a whole lotta something from some and giving it to others, we won't. But, we don't need to do that anyway. There's plenty of $$ left on the table if we don't capitulate for having bought into a "line in the sand" narrative.
A REFRESHER ON THE VALUE OF THE GAINS IN THIS TA—FROM THE AMENDABLE PERIOD THROUGH THE NEXT SIX YEARS—AS COMPARED TO . . .
. . . FedEx's overall revenues; 1/2 of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's revenues; 8/10ths of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's total salaries and benefits; 2%
. . . FedEx Express's operating expenses; 1%
. . . FedEx Express's $20 yield per package; 15 cents per package
So, tell me again please about lines in the sand, and how the only way we can fix our retirement is to pass this TA?
Fraternally,
DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chair
You may be saturated—tired of reading TA comms. I get it. Unfortunately, several comms from various sources have been published recently that, perhaps in an effort to bolster support for ratification, have led to further questions and the need for clarification. I will try to make this as short as possible while still fulfilling my commitment as your elected representative to ensure that the information you have is as accurate as possible.
I assure you that it simply does not matter to me on a personal level which way you vote. I've said it many times: your vote is yours alone, and my only goal is to provide information and viewpoints you're not getting elsewhere so that you can make a more informed decision. I have always been an advocate of our Union's democratic processes, and come next Tuesday morning my marching orders, as always, come from you. It's my duty to implement your collective decision.
SIGNING BONUS (Retro): Your negotiating committee recently published updated figures for the signing bonus. First, understand that this isn't "extra money" over the total amount previously announced. We have always known that the retro payments would be revised upwards once we got tighter demographic data from the company. The total remains at $134 million and is still 10% (or $13.3 million+) short of the amount it should have been ($147.3m+) to make you whole for 3% pay increases since the amendable date (and by the way, that missing retro affects your retirement benefit accruals as well by an additional $1 million or so).
Given the new data, let's expand upon the miscalculation/shortfall of the signing bonus and compare the real retro (what you should receive) to what the TA would actually provide, as follows:
Real Negotiated
Retro Amount - Retro Amount = Shortfall
W/B Captain $43,900 - $39,000 = $3,900
N/B Captain $36,300 - $33,000 = $3,300
W/B First Officer $28,600 - $26,000 = $2,600
N/B First Officer $24,200 - $22,000 = $2,200
COMPARISONS OF THIS TA TO THOSE AT DAL AND AA ARE INVALID: Watch this brief video clip to refresh your memories regarding claims made by your negotiating chairman as he compares this TA to those at DAL and AA. Supposedly, this TA is worth $60k/pilot/year while those at DAL were only worth $30k and $25k, respectively. Sadly, these comparisons are as absurd as they are invalid.
First, the goal of the AA Negotiating Committee was merely to break even, negotiating a cost neutral contract that merged two airlines; meaning that the $25k/pilot/year gains for AA's pilots was essentially gravy, over and above their stated goal of...zero dollars. Why compare our TA to one that wasn't even supposed to have gains? Might as well go beat up the neighbor's kid and brag in the bar tonight about some guy's butt you whipped. Makes as much sense.
Second, the DAL TA failed. Again, what's the point in comparing our TA to...a failure? A TA that didn't become an actual contract? Never mind beating up the little kid next door. Now you're just swinging away at his imaginary little friend.
Third, neither AA nor DAL had an amendable period, as we did, meaning that their TAs were achieved prior to their current CBAs becoming amendable. The DAL TA was achieved early, while ours TA's date of signing would be 2.7 years past the amendable date. That's absolutely critical because no amendable period means no large "catch up" pay raise to inflate the calculations. Here is a simple comparison:
Airline A gets an "on time" TA worth $30k/year/pilot over a 4-year contract. $120k/pilot total over that 4-year period.
Airline B's negotiations get dragged out over 4 years, then they get the exact same $30k/year/pilot 4-year TA that airline A got, plus an additional $30k per year for each of the 4 years it took to negotiate the contract. $240k/pilot total over an 8-year period. If the negotiators tell the membership that the TA is worth $240k/pilot over a 4-year contract there's a false perception that airline B's TA has twice the value of the one from airline A.
As you can see, the 2.7-year amendable period matters. So why, then, is your Negotiating Committee dividing the value of this contract by 6 years rather than 8.7? As stated in my previous comm on this topic, the true value of this TA is $45k/pilot/year, NOT $60k.
Claiming $60k/pilot/year and comparing that to one TA that failed and another that wasn't targeted to have ANY gains is . . . what. Credible?
DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE RETIREMENT THING. IF WE JUST PASS THE TA NOW WE CAN FIX THE RETIREMENT LATER! That's what some have begun to say, so let's get this straight. When the TA was first announced, everyone pointed out the most obvious flaw, which was the retirement issue. The immediate excuse given was that infamous "line in the sand." Then the real backlash started. Ratification started to look pretty shaky. What happened next? The coordinated talking point among some reps suddenly became, in essence, "Don't worry, if you just vote 'yes' now we will fix the retirement part later!"
Right . . . so . . . there's a line in the sand but if we pass a TA that contains miscalculated pay raises, miscalculated retro payments, an increase of thousands per year in your health care costs, a myriad of efficiencies buried in the language that we haven't even begun to uncover yet...and after the company locks this in we will somehow have the leverage to fix the retirement...later? Not without taking a whole lotta something from some and giving it to others, we won't. But, we don't need to do that anyway. There's plenty of $$ left on the table if we don't capitulate for having bought into a "line in the sand" narrative.
A REFRESHER ON THE VALUE OF THE GAINS IN THIS TA—FROM THE AMENDABLE PERIOD THROUGH THE NEXT SIX YEARS—AS COMPARED TO . . .
. . . FedEx's overall revenues; 1/2 of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's revenues; 8/10ths of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's total salaries and benefits; 2%
. . . FedEx Express's operating expenses; 1%
. . . FedEx Express's $20 yield per package; 15 cents per package
So, tell me again please about lines in the sand, and how the only way we can fix our retirement is to pass this TA?
Fraternally,
DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chair
10-17-2015, 02:05 AM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
From DR
You may be saturated—tired of reading TA comms. I get it. Unfortunately, several comms from various sources have been published recently that, perhaps in an effort to bolster support for ratification, have led to further questions and the need for clarification. I will try to make this as short as possible while still fulfilling my commitment as your elected representative to ensure that the information you have is as accurate as possible.
I assure you that it simply does not matter to me on a personal level which way you vote. I've said it many times: your vote is yours alone, and my only goal is to provide information and viewpoints you're not getting elsewhere so that you can make a more informed decision. I have always been an advocate of our Union's democratic processes, and come next Tuesday morning my marching orders, as always, come from you. It's my duty to implement your collective decision.
SIGNING BONUS (Retro): Your negotiating committee recently published updated figures for the signing bonus. First, understand that this isn't "extra money" over the total amount previously announced. We have always known that the retro payments would be revised upwards once we got tighter demographic data from the company. The total remains at $134 million and is still 10% (or $13.3 million+) short of the amount it should have been ($147.3m+) to make you whole for 3% pay increases since the amendable date (and by the way, that missing retro affects your retirement benefit accruals as well by an additional $1 million or so).
Given the new data, let's expand upon the miscalculation/shortfall of the signing bonus and compare the real retro (what you should receive) to what the TA would actually provide, as follows:
Real Negotiated
Retro Amount - Retro Amount = Shortfall
W/B Captain $43,900 - $39,000 = $3,900
N/B Captain $36,300 - $33,000 = $3,300
W/B First Officer $28,600 - $26,000 = $2,600
N/B First Officer $24,200 - $22,000 = $2,200
COMPARISONS OF THIS TA TO THOSE AT DAL AND AA ARE INVALID: Watch this brief video clip to refresh your memories regarding claims made by your negotiating chairman as he compares this TA to those at DAL and AA. Supposedly, this TA is worth $60k/pilot/year while those at DAL were only worth $30k and $25k, respectively. Sadly, these comparisons are as absurd as they are invalid.
First, the goal of the AA Negotiating Committee was merely to break even, negotiating a cost neutral contract that merged two airlines; meaning that the $25k/pilot/year gains for AA's pilots was essentially gravy, over and above their stated goal of...zero dollars. Why compare our TA to one that wasn't even supposed to have gains? Might as well go beat up the neighbor's kid and brag in the bar tonight about some guy's butt you whipped. Makes as much sense.
Second, the DAL TA failed. Again, what's the point in comparing our TA to...a failure? A TA that didn't become an actual contract? Never mind beating up the little kid next door. Now you're just swinging away at his imaginary little friend.
Third, neither AA nor DAL had an amendable period, as we did, meaning that their TAs were achieved prior to their current CBAs becoming amendable. The DAL TA was achieved early, while ours TA's date of signing would be 2.7 years past the amendable date. That's absolutely critical because no amendable period means no large "catch up" pay raise to inflate the calculations. Here is a simple comparison:
Airline A gets an "on time" TA worth $30k/year/pilot over a 4-year contract. $120k/pilot total over that 4-year period.
Airline B's negotiations get dragged out over 4 years, then they get the exact same $30k/year/pilot 4-year TA that airline A got, plus an additional $30k per year for each of the 4 years it took to negotiate the contract. $240k/pilot total over an 8-year period. If the negotiators tell the membership that the TA is worth $240k/pilot over a 4-year contract there's a false perception that airline B's TA has twice the value of the one from airline A.
As you can see, the 2.7-year amendable period matters. So why, then, is your Negotiating Committee dividing the value of this contract by 6 years rather than 8.7? As stated in my previous comm on this topic, the true value of this TA is $45k/pilot/year, NOT $60k.
Claiming $60k/pilot/year and comparing that to one TA that failed and another that wasn't targeted to have ANY gains is . . . what. Credible?
DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE RETIREMENT THING. IF WE JUST PASS THE TA NOW WE CAN FIX THE RETIREMENT LATER! That's what some have begun to say, so let's get this straight. When the TA was first announced, everyone pointed out the most obvious flaw, which was the retirement issue. The immediate excuse given was that infamous "line in the sand." Then the real backlash started. Ratification started to look pretty shaky. What happened next? The coordinated talking point among some reps suddenly became, in essence, "Don't worry, if you just vote 'yes' now we will fix the retirement part later!"
Right . . . so . . . there's a line in the sand but if we pass a TA that contains miscalculated pay raises, miscalculated retro payments, an increase of thousands per year in your health care costs, a myriad of efficiencies buried in the language that we haven't even begun to uncover yet...and after the company locks this in we will somehow have the leverage to fix the retirement...later? Not without taking a whole lotta something from some and giving it to others, we won't. But, we don't need to do that anyway. There's plenty of $$ left on the table if we don't capitulate for having bought into a "line in the sand" narrative.
A REFRESHER ON THE VALUE OF THE GAINS IN THIS TA—FROM THE AMENDABLE PERIOD THROUGH THE NEXT SIX YEARS—AS COMPARED TO . . .
. . . FedEx's overall revenues; 1/2 of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's revenues; 8/10ths of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's total salaries and benefits; 2%
. . . FedEx Express's operating expenses; 1%
. . . FedEx Express's $20 yield per package; 15 cents per package
So, tell me again please about lines in the sand, and how the only way we can fix our retirement is to pass this TA?
Fraternally,
DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chair
You may be saturated—tired of reading TA comms. I get it. Unfortunately, several comms from various sources have been published recently that, perhaps in an effort to bolster support for ratification, have led to further questions and the need for clarification. I will try to make this as short as possible while still fulfilling my commitment as your elected representative to ensure that the information you have is as accurate as possible.
I assure you that it simply does not matter to me on a personal level which way you vote. I've said it many times: your vote is yours alone, and my only goal is to provide information and viewpoints you're not getting elsewhere so that you can make a more informed decision. I have always been an advocate of our Union's democratic processes, and come next Tuesday morning my marching orders, as always, come from you. It's my duty to implement your collective decision.
SIGNING BONUS (Retro): Your negotiating committee recently published updated figures for the signing bonus. First, understand that this isn't "extra money" over the total amount previously announced. We have always known that the retro payments would be revised upwards once we got tighter demographic data from the company. The total remains at $134 million and is still 10% (or $13.3 million+) short of the amount it should have been ($147.3m+) to make you whole for 3% pay increases since the amendable date (and by the way, that missing retro affects your retirement benefit accruals as well by an additional $1 million or so).
Given the new data, let's expand upon the miscalculation/shortfall of the signing bonus and compare the real retro (what you should receive) to what the TA would actually provide, as follows:
Real Negotiated
Retro Amount - Retro Amount = Shortfall
W/B Captain $43,900 - $39,000 = $3,900
N/B Captain $36,300 - $33,000 = $3,300
W/B First Officer $28,600 - $26,000 = $2,600
N/B First Officer $24,200 - $22,000 = $2,200
COMPARISONS OF THIS TA TO THOSE AT DAL AND AA ARE INVALID: Watch this brief video clip to refresh your memories regarding claims made by your negotiating chairman as he compares this TA to those at DAL and AA. Supposedly, this TA is worth $60k/pilot/year while those at DAL were only worth $30k and $25k, respectively. Sadly, these comparisons are as absurd as they are invalid.
First, the goal of the AA Negotiating Committee was merely to break even, negotiating a cost neutral contract that merged two airlines; meaning that the $25k/pilot/year gains for AA's pilots was essentially gravy, over and above their stated goal of...zero dollars. Why compare our TA to one that wasn't even supposed to have gains? Might as well go beat up the neighbor's kid and brag in the bar tonight about some guy's butt you whipped. Makes as much sense.
Second, the DAL TA failed. Again, what's the point in comparing our TA to...a failure? A TA that didn't become an actual contract? Never mind beating up the little kid next door. Now you're just swinging away at his imaginary little friend.
Third, neither AA nor DAL had an amendable period, as we did, meaning that their TAs were achieved prior to their current CBAs becoming amendable. The DAL TA was achieved early, while ours TA's date of signing would be 2.7 years past the amendable date. That's absolutely critical because no amendable period means no large "catch up" pay raise to inflate the calculations. Here is a simple comparison:
Airline A gets an "on time" TA worth $30k/year/pilot over a 4-year contract. $120k/pilot total over that 4-year period.
Airline B's negotiations get dragged out over 4 years, then they get the exact same $30k/year/pilot 4-year TA that airline A got, plus an additional $30k per year for each of the 4 years it took to negotiate the contract. $240k/pilot total over an 8-year period. If the negotiators tell the membership that the TA is worth $240k/pilot over a 4-year contract there's a false perception that airline B's TA has twice the value of the one from airline A.
As you can see, the 2.7-year amendable period matters. So why, then, is your Negotiating Committee dividing the value of this contract by 6 years rather than 8.7? As stated in my previous comm on this topic, the true value of this TA is $45k/pilot/year, NOT $60k.
Claiming $60k/pilot/year and comparing that to one TA that failed and another that wasn't targeted to have ANY gains is . . . what. Credible?
DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE RETIREMENT THING. IF WE JUST PASS THE TA NOW WE CAN FIX THE RETIREMENT LATER! That's what some have begun to say, so let's get this straight. When the TA was first announced, everyone pointed out the most obvious flaw, which was the retirement issue. The immediate excuse given was that infamous "line in the sand." Then the real backlash started. Ratification started to look pretty shaky. What happened next? The coordinated talking point among some reps suddenly became, in essence, "Don't worry, if you just vote 'yes' now we will fix the retirement part later!"
Right . . . so . . . there's a line in the sand but if we pass a TA that contains miscalculated pay raises, miscalculated retro payments, an increase of thousands per year in your health care costs, a myriad of efficiencies buried in the language that we haven't even begun to uncover yet...and after the company locks this in we will somehow have the leverage to fix the retirement...later? Not without taking a whole lotta something from some and giving it to others, we won't. But, we don't need to do that anyway. There's plenty of $$ left on the table if we don't capitulate for having bought into a "line in the sand" narrative.
A REFRESHER ON THE VALUE OF THE GAINS IN THIS TA—FROM THE AMENDABLE PERIOD THROUGH THE NEXT SIX YEARS—AS COMPARED TO . . .
. . . FedEx's overall revenues; 1/2 of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's revenues; 8/10ths of one penny per dollar
. . . FedEx Express's total salaries and benefits; 2%
. . . FedEx Express's operating expenses; 1%
. . . FedEx Express's $20 yield per package; 15 cents per package
So, tell me again please about lines in the sand, and how the only way we can fix our retirement is to pass this TA?
Fraternally,
DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chair
It looks like his stance is that we can force the Company to raise the cap (for all) since he does not want to freeze the plan in any way, not for any demographic per his own past communications. FedEx has lots of money so just pay up? It would be very helpful for those voters relying on his perspective to understand what he (and the other "No's") view as a path forward in the most talked about topic, retirement.
It is funny to me that many are realizing (coming to grips with etc) that universal improvements to the A plan are not likely (and many younger pilots want other options) yet the MEC reps like this one appear to be the very reason we did not get that chance in this TA, if that is not the definition of irony then I do not know what is. All i know if this TA goes down I look forward to seeing this group lead us to the improving best retirement package in the industry beyond what we have in this TA.
10-17-2015, 05:42 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver
Cloud, is it your impression that this Rep and the other no voters on the MEC are of the position that, should this TA fail, they will still be seeking an increase to the A plan cap for everyone ? Including new hires? Or has this rep changed his mind on offering the chance to "freeze" the A plan and get more B money? Because the way I read his Communications, especially the post TA ones, is he long on rhetoric but short details on how to fix retirement.
It looks like his stance is that we can force the Company to raise the cap (for all) since he does not want to freeze the plan in any way, not for any demographic per his own past communications. FedEx has lots of money so just pay up? It would be very helpful for those voters relying on his perspective to understand what he (and the other "No's") view as a path forward in the most talked about topic, retirement.
It is funny to me that many are realizing (coming to grips with etc) that universal improvements to the A plan are not likely (and many younger pilots want other options) yet the MEC reps like this one appear to be the very reason we did not get that chance in this TA, if that is not the definition of irony then I do not know what is. All i know if this TA goes down I look forward to seeing this group lead us to the improving best retirement package in the industry beyond what we have in this TA.
It looks like his stance is that we can force the Company to raise the cap (for all) since he does not want to freeze the plan in any way, not for any demographic per his own past communications. FedEx has lots of money so just pay up? It would be very helpful for those voters relying on his perspective to understand what he (and the other "No's") view as a path forward in the most talked about topic, retirement.
It is funny to me that many are realizing (coming to grips with etc) that universal improvements to the A plan are not likely (and many younger pilots want other options) yet the MEC reps like this one appear to be the very reason we did not get that chance in this TA, if that is not the definition of irony then I do not know what is. All i know if this TA goes down I look forward to seeing this group lead us to the improving best retirement package in the industry beyond what we have in this TA.
10-17-2015, 05:55 AM
#96
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
I have asked him directly. His position is to not split newhires off in any way. We need a solid and improved A-plan, and an improved B-plan for all on property. The company can afford it. We have earned it. That has been his stance from his first communication, but I did email him to confirm.
10-17-2015, 07:20 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Originally Posted by 2cylinderdriver
I would really like to hear him talk about that "improve" the A plan, because that screams of more "age based carve outs" to me...more than we already have in this TA. The age 54 stuff is complete BS and we should NEVER do anything again based on age. I can personally live with this one because they actually have to do something to get it as opposed to just being born on a certain date. Thinking that you can have a cutoff were people are literally one day apart in age and that is the dividing line between "you have time to make money in the B and the guy one day older does not" is the problem with those plans based on age. I would ask him what his minimum cap would be and does that apply to all FedEx pilots, I am voting yes so I only care about his answer post TA failure so that it why I am not asking.
What needs to happen if this TA is rejected, is better polling, and more transparency about where we are in the negotiations process. During the last 4 years, it would've been great for us to hear from the sections that had been tentatively completed. I don't know about you, but I thought all along we were actually working on our openers, stuff like real time trip trading, you know? Then the TA is released, and it's a complete surprise to most. The NC felt the heat of how disappointed our majority was immediately when we saw the leaked "highlights", and started the sales campaign. "Line in the sand", etc... Finally, actually SELLING the concept, via emails and call-ins, of how growing an unknown version of PBS on property is a good thing!!! YGTBFKM!!!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
