Dissenting LEC votes speak for me
09-16-2015, 04:25 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: 11 Left Side
Posts: 100
My block rep...who doesn't speak for me....
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources and time, truths are akin to the long arm of the law in the Old West. I’ve also heard it said that some people never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
I vowed to communicate with you as honestly and openly as I could. I still respect your right to make the best decision for you and your family. Your MEC vowed not to “sell” this tentative agreement (TA), but to present all of it to you to decide upon. Lately, I have been stunned by what I have read. It seems that the vow not to “sell” has only applied to one side. Rather unfortunately, one side is clearly trying to sell you on perceived negatives. In some cases, they are grasping at some misguided rumors and misleading arguments and painting them as their own. They are espousing opinions that were mostly unspoken when negotiating positions were being discussed, formulated, or agreed upon. While I may respect their passion, the misinformation campaign is too much. It would take a novel to address it all so I will start with just a few of the topics.
Concerning Section 8—Deadheading: Specifically, I will address the higher class of service and the “lay-flat seat issue” contained in 8.A.5.c. While I will freely admit this would be in the “give” column, it most certainly does not lower accepted fares. In fact, if you actually read further in that same section in 8.A.5.c.vi: “Regardless of class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the baseline fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.” The Negotiating Committee and the attorneys agree with this point. As to the concern that carriers will go to all lay-flat seating in coach on flights, any of us who have flown at the pax carriers know they are loathe to remove seats. Do we really think they are going to remove three rows of seats to put in one row of lay-flat seats in coach for a net loss of two rows for every row of lay-flats? How did “more room throughout coach” work out for American? I used to work there and it didn’t. The Negotiating Committee has said this provision was only discussed in business class. The gains in Section 8 in return for this “give” are numerous. To name a few: higher class of service on international deadheads reduced from 5+00 to 2+30. Second look at accepted fares when trips are assigned will result in higher, more realistic accepted fares, rolling deviation bank, the hotel cancellation bank, which accrues and can be used for any deviation expense. This is not an exhaustive list.
Some arguments have also been made concerning Section 27—Insurance. One such argument is that the lack of a health-care reimbursement account (HRA) for the buy-up plan is a disincentive to retirement. Not sure if the HRA being brought up here is regarding active or retired pilots? If it’s meant that a new round of $25K HRAs for pilots over age 53 should be included in this TA, like was done in the 2006 contract, then it’s important to remember that the regulated age under that contract was 60. We were forced on retiree health care back then. How many of those with the VEBA HRA went ahead and retired at 60? How many are still active that received that HRA? Now we have the option to retire or work and the justification for that HRA is gone. Whether you choose to retire or work, this TA has value in other areas. If it’s meant that the active pilot buy-up plan should have an HRA, let’s remember that other than copays, this plan pays 100 percent of in-network care. Without a deductible like the new CDHPs starting in 2017, there is no need for the active pilot buy-up plan to have a HRA. We still have the same quality of health care available and our worst-case rates at the end of this contract are still cheap compared to what is available in America today for lesser coverage. I make no apologies for that.
On to Section 28—Retirement: I too wanted to see more improvements. In fact I wanted to see them across the board for all of us. I grant that this was the most upsetting topic of discussion in the room. It was almost the only topic in the end. The B plan (DC) was increased by 28 percent over what we currently have. This is not insignificant and in the context of the federal government wanting to reduce DC limits to increase revenue, we got our plan high watermarked. This means that no matter what the government does with those limits, we get the cash the Company committed to contribute for us. This is also not insignificant. We definitely tried to get an improvement to the A plan (DB). Corporations are desperately seeking ways out of these DB plans due to the actual costs, volatility, and book liability involved. FedEx is no exception. Due to the Billions of dollars involved, we were not able to achieve this goal short of what I would consider massive concessions. I had to chuckle when I read that American’s plan is just frozen and not terminated and may be coming back. The existing balance was paid out by check or rolled into a mutual fund at each pilot’s option. Remember, I worked there. It isn’t coming back.
“We have leverage!” I keep hearing that. Leverage is only as strong as the ability to exercise it. The truth is that given the landscape and FedEx’s inextricable link to commerce, we have far less than most tend to think. In my view, the Negotiating Committee took the fullest advantage of our leverage at the point when we had the most leverage we could expect to have. Rejection of this TA will not create additional leverage nor do I think that we would even eventually resume bargaining with the same leverage.
Let me be clear. I endorse this TA. I will be voting “yes.” When I looked at it at first with my emotions running in overdrive, I didn’t like it at all. When I disengaged my emotions and reengaged my brain, I liked it. The reality is that this is an industry-leading agreement before us. It is a dynamic improvement that adds as much value and puts as much money in our accounts as the American contract and the failed Delta TA combined on a per-pilot per-year basis. I have heard it said a few times in my life that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources and time, truths are akin to the long arm of the law in the Old West. I’ve also heard it said that some people never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
I vowed to communicate with you as honestly and openly as I could. I still respect your right to make the best decision for you and your family. Your MEC vowed not to “sell” this tentative agreement (TA), but to present all of it to you to decide upon. Lately, I have been stunned by what I have read. It seems that the vow not to “sell” has only applied to one side. Rather unfortunately, one side is clearly trying to sell you on perceived negatives. In some cases, they are grasping at some misguided rumors and misleading arguments and painting them as their own. They are espousing opinions that were mostly unspoken when negotiating positions were being discussed, formulated, or agreed upon. While I may respect their passion, the misinformation campaign is too much. It would take a novel to address it all so I will start with just a few of the topics.
Concerning Section 8—Deadheading: Specifically, I will address the higher class of service and the “lay-flat seat issue” contained in 8.A.5.c. While I will freely admit this would be in the “give” column, it most certainly does not lower accepted fares. In fact, if you actually read further in that same section in 8.A.5.c.vi: “Regardless of class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the baseline fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.” The Negotiating Committee and the attorneys agree with this point. As to the concern that carriers will go to all lay-flat seating in coach on flights, any of us who have flown at the pax carriers know they are loathe to remove seats. Do we really think they are going to remove three rows of seats to put in one row of lay-flat seats in coach for a net loss of two rows for every row of lay-flats? How did “more room throughout coach” work out for American? I used to work there and it didn’t. The Negotiating Committee has said this provision was only discussed in business class. The gains in Section 8 in return for this “give” are numerous. To name a few: higher class of service on international deadheads reduced from 5+00 to 2+30. Second look at accepted fares when trips are assigned will result in higher, more realistic accepted fares, rolling deviation bank, the hotel cancellation bank, which accrues and can be used for any deviation expense. This is not an exhaustive list.
Some arguments have also been made concerning Section 27—Insurance. One such argument is that the lack of a health-care reimbursement account (HRA) for the buy-up plan is a disincentive to retirement. Not sure if the HRA being brought up here is regarding active or retired pilots? If it’s meant that a new round of $25K HRAs for pilots over age 53 should be included in this TA, like was done in the 2006 contract, then it’s important to remember that the regulated age under that contract was 60. We were forced on retiree health care back then. How many of those with the VEBA HRA went ahead and retired at 60? How many are still active that received that HRA? Now we have the option to retire or work and the justification for that HRA is gone. Whether you choose to retire or work, this TA has value in other areas. If it’s meant that the active pilot buy-up plan should have an HRA, let’s remember that other than copays, this plan pays 100 percent of in-network care. Without a deductible like the new CDHPs starting in 2017, there is no need for the active pilot buy-up plan to have a HRA. We still have the same quality of health care available and our worst-case rates at the end of this contract are still cheap compared to what is available in America today for lesser coverage. I make no apologies for that.
On to Section 28—Retirement: I too wanted to see more improvements. In fact I wanted to see them across the board for all of us. I grant that this was the most upsetting topic of discussion in the room. It was almost the only topic in the end. The B plan (DC) was increased by 28 percent over what we currently have. This is not insignificant and in the context of the federal government wanting to reduce DC limits to increase revenue, we got our plan high watermarked. This means that no matter what the government does with those limits, we get the cash the Company committed to contribute for us. This is also not insignificant. We definitely tried to get an improvement to the A plan (DB). Corporations are desperately seeking ways out of these DB plans due to the actual costs, volatility, and book liability involved. FedEx is no exception. Due to the Billions of dollars involved, we were not able to achieve this goal short of what I would consider massive concessions. I had to chuckle when I read that American’s plan is just frozen and not terminated and may be coming back. The existing balance was paid out by check or rolled into a mutual fund at each pilot’s option. Remember, I worked there. It isn’t coming back.
“We have leverage!” I keep hearing that. Leverage is only as strong as the ability to exercise it. The truth is that given the landscape and FedEx’s inextricable link to commerce, we have far less than most tend to think. In my view, the Negotiating Committee took the fullest advantage of our leverage at the point when we had the most leverage we could expect to have. Rejection of this TA will not create additional leverage nor do I think that we would even eventually resume bargaining with the same leverage.
Let me be clear. I endorse this TA. I will be voting “yes.” When I looked at it at first with my emotions running in overdrive, I didn’t like it at all. When I disengaged my emotions and reengaged my brain, I liked it. The reality is that this is an industry-leading agreement before us. It is a dynamic improvement that adds as much value and puts as much money in our accounts as the American contract and the failed Delta TA combined on a per-pilot per-year basis. I have heard it said a few times in my life that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.
09-16-2015, 08:01 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 107
He sounds like another daytime cubicle flyer. If we can defeat this he needs to step down so he can be replaced with someone a little more in touch with the line pilots views. I remind all of us it will take a grass roots movement to get the word out as the union keeps working hard to convince us to accept this inadequate deal.
09-16-2015, 10:12 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 296
[QUOTE=skypig;1972914]My block rep...who doesn't speak for me....
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources
We have leverage. Its guys not flying and PA announcements calling for draft in all seats and all airplanes.
Whats with our Union's continual acceptance of the company saying we can't fix the A plan and our Union buying it. If it would take massive concessions to get an A plan fix, then why aren't there massive gains in this contract since we didn't get an A plan fix?
The attitude if we vote this TA down, we won't get anything better from our Union is wrong. Maybe we won't get anything better, but we wont' get anything worse. Whats the company going to do if we reject this TA, offer a worse one? They have already shown what they are willing to give. We can certainly get the terms of whats offered now at a later date since the company has shown what it can give.
My guess is the company has probably 10 versions of this TA with minor enhancements throughout. I doubt a No vote will even make them blink. They'll play us. They know that a No vote would be rare but would successive no votes happen on TA following offers, I doubt it. The company can offer a little better, the Union will cry, "success" and the pilots will feel like they have stood up to the company for the first time when in reality, we got less than we could have. We need to continue to press for the best contract we can get. We did not suddenly get a contract because the company decided to give in, they have a reason. My guess is flights aren't going and they need our help. Lets see how badly they need us. I don't care about more money. I want my retirement and that of others set right. We should have the same buying power with our pension when we retire for as long as we live to enjoy retirement. I want the contract language tighter so the company can't interpret the TA to their advantage.
I can't understand the Union trying to sell this to us. I think the MEC should have sent this TA to us without an endorsement either way and let us vote. Show us the pros and cons and then leave it to the masses to decide. I'll live with what we get but I hope its better than this TA.
We are in the best bargaining position we have ever been in in my 20+yrs here. We are a different pilot group than we were in the past.
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources
We have leverage. Its guys not flying and PA announcements calling for draft in all seats and all airplanes.
Whats with our Union's continual acceptance of the company saying we can't fix the A plan and our Union buying it. If it would take massive concessions to get an A plan fix, then why aren't there massive gains in this contract since we didn't get an A plan fix?
The attitude if we vote this TA down, we won't get anything better from our Union is wrong. Maybe we won't get anything better, but we wont' get anything worse. Whats the company going to do if we reject this TA, offer a worse one? They have already shown what they are willing to give. We can certainly get the terms of whats offered now at a later date since the company has shown what it can give.
My guess is the company has probably 10 versions of this TA with minor enhancements throughout. I doubt a No vote will even make them blink. They'll play us. They know that a No vote would be rare but would successive no votes happen on TA following offers, I doubt it. The company can offer a little better, the Union will cry, "success" and the pilots will feel like they have stood up to the company for the first time when in reality, we got less than we could have. We need to continue to press for the best contract we can get. We did not suddenly get a contract because the company decided to give in, they have a reason. My guess is flights aren't going and they need our help. Lets see how badly they need us. I don't care about more money. I want my retirement and that of others set right. We should have the same buying power with our pension when we retire for as long as we live to enjoy retirement. I want the contract language tighter so the company can't interpret the TA to their advantage.
I can't understand the Union trying to sell this to us. I think the MEC should have sent this TA to us without an endorsement either way and let us vote. Show us the pros and cons and then leave it to the masses to decide. I'll live with what we get but I hope its better than this TA.
We are in the best bargaining position we have ever been in in my 20+yrs here. We are a different pilot group than we were in the past.
09-16-2015, 10:30 PM
#16
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
[QUOTE=Viper446;1973123]
Thats the best comment on APC about the TA that I have heard so far.
Originally Posted by skypig
My block rep...who doesn't speak for me....
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources
We have leverage. Its guys not flying and PA announcements calling for draft in all seats and all airplanes.
Whats with our Union's continual acceptance of the company saying we can't fix the A plan and our Union buying it. If it would take massive concessions to get an A plan fix, then why aren't there massive gains in this contract since we didn't get an A plan fix?
The attitude if we vote this TA down, we won't get anything better from our Union is wrong. Maybe we won't get anything better, but we wont' get anything worse. Whats the company going to do if we reject this TA, offer a worse one? They have already shown what they are willing to give. We can certainly get the terms of whats offered now at a later date since the company has shown what it can give.
My guess is the company has probably 10 versions of this TA with minor enhancements throughout. I doubt a No vote will even make them blink. They'll play us. They know that a No vote would be rare but would successive no votes happen on TA following offers, I doubt it. The company can offer a little better, the Union will cry, "success" and the pilots will feel like they have stood up to the company for the first time when in reality, we got less than we could have. We need to continue to press for the best contract we can get. We did not suddenly get a contract because the company decided to give in, they have a reason. My guess is flights aren't going and they need our help. Lets see how badly they need us. I don't care about more money. I want my retirement and that of others set right. We should have the same buying power with our pension when we retire for as long as we live to enjoy retirement. I want the contract language tighter so the company can't interpret the TA to their advantage.
I can't understand the Union trying to sell this to us. I think the MEC should have sent this TA to us without an endorsement either way and let us vote. Show us the pros and cons and then leave it to the masses to decide. I'll live with what we get but I hope its better than this TA.
We are in the best bargaining position we have ever been in in my 20+yrs here. We are a different pilot group than we were in the past.
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources
We have leverage. Its guys not flying and PA announcements calling for draft in all seats and all airplanes.
Whats with our Union's continual acceptance of the company saying we can't fix the A plan and our Union buying it. If it would take massive concessions to get an A plan fix, then why aren't there massive gains in this contract since we didn't get an A plan fix?
The attitude if we vote this TA down, we won't get anything better from our Union is wrong. Maybe we won't get anything better, but we wont' get anything worse. Whats the company going to do if we reject this TA, offer a worse one? They have already shown what they are willing to give. We can certainly get the terms of whats offered now at a later date since the company has shown what it can give.
My guess is the company has probably 10 versions of this TA with minor enhancements throughout. I doubt a No vote will even make them blink. They'll play us. They know that a No vote would be rare but would successive no votes happen on TA following offers, I doubt it. The company can offer a little better, the Union will cry, "success" and the pilots will feel like they have stood up to the company for the first time when in reality, we got less than we could have. We need to continue to press for the best contract we can get. We did not suddenly get a contract because the company decided to give in, they have a reason. My guess is flights aren't going and they need our help. Lets see how badly they need us. I don't care about more money. I want my retirement and that of others set right. We should have the same buying power with our pension when we retire for as long as we live to enjoy retirement. I want the contract language tighter so the company can't interpret the TA to their advantage.
I can't understand the Union trying to sell this to us. I think the MEC should have sent this TA to us without an endorsement either way and let us vote. Show us the pros and cons and then leave it to the masses to decide. I'll live with what we get but I hope its better than this TA.
We are in the best bargaining position we have ever been in in my 20+yrs here. We are a different pilot group than we were in the past.
09-17-2015, 06:07 AM
#17
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Position: MD11 F/O
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by skypig
My block rep...who doesn't speak for me....
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources and time, truths are akin to the long arm of the law in the Old West. I’ve also heard it said that some people never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
I vowed to communicate with you as honestly and openly as I could. I still respect your right to make the best decision for you and your family. Your MEC vowed not to “sell” this tentative agreement (TA), but to present all of it to you to decide upon. Lately, I have been stunned by what I have read. It seems that the vow not to “sell” has only applied to one side. Rather unfortunately, one side is clearly trying to sell you on perceived negatives. In some cases, they are grasping at some misguided rumors and misleading arguments and painting them as their own. They are espousing opinions that were mostly unspoken when negotiating positions were being discussed, formulated, or agreed upon. While I may respect their passion, the misinformation campaign is too much. It would take a novel to address it all so I will start with just a few of the topics.
Concerning Section 8—Deadheading: Specifically, I will address the higher class of service and the “lay-flat seat issue” contained in 8.A.5.c. While I will freely admit this would be in the “give” column, it most certainly does not lower accepted fares. In fact, if you actually read further in that same section in 8.A.5.c.vi: “Regardless of class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the baseline fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.” The Negotiating Committee and the attorneys agree with this point. As to the concern that carriers will go to all lay-flat seating in coach on flights, any of us who have flown at the pax carriers know they are loathe to remove seats. Do we really think they are going to remove three rows of seats to put in one row of lay-flat seats in coach for a net loss of two rows for every row of lay-flats? How did “more room throughout coach” work out for American? I used to work there and it didn’t. The Negotiating Committee has said this provision was only discussed in business class. The gains in Section 8 in return for this “give” are numerous. To name a few: higher class of service on international deadheads reduced from 5+00 to 2+30. Second look at accepted fares when trips are assigned will result in higher, more realistic accepted fares, rolling deviation bank, the hotel cancellation bank, which accrues and can be used for any deviation expense. This is not an exhaustive list.
Some arguments have also been made concerning Section 27—Insurance. One such argument is that the lack of a health-care reimbursement account (HRA) for the buy-up plan is a disincentive to retirement. Not sure if the HRA being brought up here is regarding active or retired pilots? If it’s meant that a new round of $25K HRAs for pilots over age 53 should be included in this TA, like was done in the 2006 contract, then it’s important to remember that the regulated age under that contract was 60. We were forced on retiree health care back then. How many of those with the VEBA HRA went ahead and retired at 60? How many are still active that received that HRA? Now we have the option to retire or work and the justification for that HRA is gone. Whether you choose to retire or work, this TA has value in other areas. If it’s meant that the active pilot buy-up plan should have an HRA, let’s remember that other than copays, this plan pays 100 percent of in-network care. Without a deductible like the new CDHPs starting in 2017, there is no need for the active pilot buy-up plan to have a HRA. We still have the same quality of health care available and our worst-case rates at the end of this contract are still cheap compared to what is available in America today for lesser coverage. I make no apologies for that.
On to Section 28—Retirement: I too wanted to see more improvements. In fact I wanted to see them across the board for all of us. I grant that this was the most upsetting topic of discussion in the room. It was almost the only topic in the end. The B plan (DC) was increased by 28 percent over what we currently have. This is not insignificant and in the context of the federal government wanting to reduce DC limits to increase revenue, we got our plan high watermarked. This means that no matter what the government does with those limits, we get the cash the Company committed to contribute for us. This is also not insignificant. We definitely tried to get an improvement to the A plan (DB). Corporations are desperately seeking ways out of these DB plans due to the actual costs, volatility, and book liability involved. FedEx is no exception. Due to the Billions of dollars involved, we were not able to achieve this goal short of what I would consider massive concessions. I had to chuckle when I read that American’s plan is just frozen and not terminated and may be coming back. The existing balance was paid out by check or rolled into a mutual fund at each pilot’s option. Remember, I worked there. It isn’t coming back.
“We have leverage!” I keep hearing that. Leverage is only as strong as the ability to exercise it. The truth is that given the landscape and FedEx’s inextricable link to commerce, we have far less than most tend to think. In my view, the Negotiating Committee took the fullest advantage of our leverage at the point when we had the most leverage we could expect to have. Rejection of this TA will not create additional leverage nor do I think that we would even eventually resume bargaining with the same leverage.
Let me be clear. I endorse this TA. I will be voting “yes.” When I looked at it at first with my emotions running in overdrive, I didn’t like it at all. When I disengaged my emotions and reengaged my brain, I liked it. The reality is that this is an industry-leading agreement before us. It is a dynamic improvement that adds as much value and puts as much money in our accounts as the American contract and the failed Delta TA combined on a per-pilot per-year basis. I have heard it said a few times in my life that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.
September 16, 2015
I read somewhere once that the most vexing thing about truth is the inescapable logic behind words and actions. Truth isn’t hard to accept when we’re on the side of right. But when we’re struggling or short on resources and time, truths are akin to the long arm of the law in the Old West. I’ve also heard it said that some people never let facts get in the way of a good argument.
I vowed to communicate with you as honestly and openly as I could. I still respect your right to make the best decision for you and your family. Your MEC vowed not to “sell” this tentative agreement (TA), but to present all of it to you to decide upon. Lately, I have been stunned by what I have read. It seems that the vow not to “sell” has only applied to one side. Rather unfortunately, one side is clearly trying to sell you on perceived negatives. In some cases, they are grasping at some misguided rumors and misleading arguments and painting them as their own. They are espousing opinions that were mostly unspoken when negotiating positions were being discussed, formulated, or agreed upon. While I may respect their passion, the misinformation campaign is too much. It would take a novel to address it all so I will start with just a few of the topics.
Concerning Section 8—Deadheading: Specifically, I will address the higher class of service and the “lay-flat seat issue” contained in 8.A.5.c. While I will freely admit this would be in the “give” column, it most certainly does not lower accepted fares. In fact, if you actually read further in that same section in 8.A.5.c.vi: “Regardless of class of service actually ticketed, a pilot’s deviation bank shall be credited with the baseline fare for the highest class of service which is authorized on the scheduled deadhead flight, and which exists on that flight.” The Negotiating Committee and the attorneys agree with this point. As to the concern that carriers will go to all lay-flat seating in coach on flights, any of us who have flown at the pax carriers know they are loathe to remove seats. Do we really think they are going to remove three rows of seats to put in one row of lay-flat seats in coach for a net loss of two rows for every row of lay-flats? How did “more room throughout coach” work out for American? I used to work there and it didn’t. The Negotiating Committee has said this provision was only discussed in business class. The gains in Section 8 in return for this “give” are numerous. To name a few: higher class of service on international deadheads reduced from 5+00 to 2+30. Second look at accepted fares when trips are assigned will result in higher, more realistic accepted fares, rolling deviation bank, the hotel cancellation bank, which accrues and can be used for any deviation expense. This is not an exhaustive list.
Some arguments have also been made concerning Section 27—Insurance. One such argument is that the lack of a health-care reimbursement account (HRA) for the buy-up plan is a disincentive to retirement. Not sure if the HRA being brought up here is regarding active or retired pilots? If it’s meant that a new round of $25K HRAs for pilots over age 53 should be included in this TA, like was done in the 2006 contract, then it’s important to remember that the regulated age under that contract was 60. We were forced on retiree health care back then. How many of those with the VEBA HRA went ahead and retired at 60? How many are still active that received that HRA? Now we have the option to retire or work and the justification for that HRA is gone. Whether you choose to retire or work, this TA has value in other areas. If it’s meant that the active pilot buy-up plan should have an HRA, let’s remember that other than copays, this plan pays 100 percent of in-network care. Without a deductible like the new CDHPs starting in 2017, there is no need for the active pilot buy-up plan to have a HRA. We still have the same quality of health care available and our worst-case rates at the end of this contract are still cheap compared to what is available in America today for lesser coverage. I make no apologies for that.
On to Section 28—Retirement: I too wanted to see more improvements. In fact I wanted to see them across the board for all of us. I grant that this was the most upsetting topic of discussion in the room. It was almost the only topic in the end. The B plan (DC) was increased by 28 percent over what we currently have. This is not insignificant and in the context of the federal government wanting to reduce DC limits to increase revenue, we got our plan high watermarked. This means that no matter what the government does with those limits, we get the cash the Company committed to contribute for us. This is also not insignificant. We definitely tried to get an improvement to the A plan (DB). Corporations are desperately seeking ways out of these DB plans due to the actual costs, volatility, and book liability involved. FedEx is no exception. Due to the Billions of dollars involved, we were not able to achieve this goal short of what I would consider massive concessions. I had to chuckle when I read that American’s plan is just frozen and not terminated and may be coming back. The existing balance was paid out by check or rolled into a mutual fund at each pilot’s option. Remember, I worked there. It isn’t coming back.
“We have leverage!” I keep hearing that. Leverage is only as strong as the ability to exercise it. The truth is that given the landscape and FedEx’s inextricable link to commerce, we have far less than most tend to think. In my view, the Negotiating Committee took the fullest advantage of our leverage at the point when we had the most leverage we could expect to have. Rejection of this TA will not create additional leverage nor do I think that we would even eventually resume bargaining with the same leverage.
Let me be clear. I endorse this TA. I will be voting “yes.” When I looked at it at first with my emotions running in overdrive, I didn’t like it at all. When I disengaged my emotions and reengaged my brain, I liked it. The reality is that this is an industry-leading agreement before us. It is a dynamic improvement that adds as much value and puts as much money in our accounts as the American contract and the failed Delta TA combined on a per-pilot per-year basis. I have heard it said a few times in my life that pigs get fed and hogs get slaughtered.
IMHO, it seems many pilots have become single issue voters based solely on the DB plan. As a mid level mid 40s something pilot, I personally would much rather have a frozen A plan and a 18-20% B plan. I now control my destiny, not a bankruptcy judge 20 years from now (Just ask UAL how that worked out). I recall in my former life in the late 90s having dinner with several UAL crews in a TPA hotel listening to them go on about their pay rates, retirement, and ESOP. It only took one recession and their future financial windfall disappeared overnight. A pilot I spoke with yesterday put it well--give me the B plan, if I screw it up it is my fault, but at least it is my money.
BTW, of the 8-10 pilots I have spoken with in the last 10 days or so, only one is voting no. YMMV.
09-17-2015, 06:27 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Originally Posted by md11freightdog
...I am a yes vote...I personally would much rather have a frozen A plan and a 18-20% B plan...
Well, you are then actually settling for WAY less than what you would rather have.
Why don't you stand up for what you would rather have, NOW?
Do you think the company will concede to your desires in 10 years? If we concede defeat on our openers in this tremendous negotiating environment, openers as stated by our MEC, after polling our ENTIRE crew force, what makes you think we will not concede defeat in the future?
If we concede defeat now, in this environment, be ready for the company to come after the ENTIRE A-plan, while throwing in just another 2% bump to your B-plan. You'll be in your mid-50's by then, with a B-plan well below what you would rather have today.
This is the time you need to make a stand. This will be your and my CBA for the next 10 years, many will retire under it. Don't settle for a 9% B-plan for the next 10 years, if you yourself know that an 18-20% B-plan is what is acceptable to you.
IMO, you're selling yourself short TODAY, on both the A and B plans, by thinking we have more value than the American and Delta contracts. Remember, they are going to the table now, and their pay rates will surpass ours. American still has an A-plan, reduced and frozen during bankruptcy, but can be negotiated back to where it was. Remember, we have no "me too" clause like the legacies. That clause would allow us to catch up to their rates during the decade long CBA we would be signing.
Don't sell yourself short brother. Just because guys/gals you fly with are saying they are voting yes, shouldn't affect your decision to stand up for what you believe you deserve.
Last edited by CloudSailor; 09-17-2015 at 06:38 AM.
09-17-2015, 06:33 AM
#19
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by CloudSailor
Well, you are then actually settling for WAY less than what you would rather have.
Why don't you stand up for what you would rather have, NOW?
Do you think the company will concede to your desires in 10 years? If we concede defeat on our openers in this tremendous negotiating environment, openers as stated by our MEC, after polling our ENTIRE crew force, what makes you think we will not concede defeat in the future?
If we concede defeat now, in this environment, be ready for the company to come after the ENTIRE A plan, with another 2% bump to your B-plan. You'll be in your mid-50's by then.
I just don't get it when I hear stuff like this.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
