iarapilot

Or, they dont fight it and just put it in a side letter letting the Company do what should have been grieved. Exactly what was done with HKG FDA LOA1.

Raptor

But, don't we already do that on Delta for example--Delta One (business) is all they have? I'm a bit slow today and need this spelled out--what does that phrase change from today's CBA? (seriously)

I thought I had it down, but now I can't see how/why that provision is in there and how it would be used--if what the NC says is true and your deviation bank is credited higher class?

iarapilot

Does it work that way now? I wasnt aware. I dont DH much, but I had 3 RT deadheads to Asia in 3 months and was in first every time. Maybe there isnt and angle and I am paranoid.

Current 8A4Cv.....I see it is the same same language.....never mind. I guess I am being a proponent. Sorry.

I will have to look at the new definitions of intercontinental, etc, and see if that makes a difference.

iarapilot

Now that I think about it, I guess they got us back when that was put in the contract.

CloudSailor

From Block 1 Rep:
Part II
Inability Ability to Pay?
No one wants to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, right? But assertions that there aren't additional funds available for retirement become all the more interesting when this TA is viewed from other perspectives.
Did you know that the APU Fuel Sense program alone was projected to save over $30 million per year when instituted some 8+ years ago, and that just one year of that program covers the approximate cost of a 3% pay raise today for everyone on the seniority list?
Did you know that the entire value of the gains in this TA amount to only 1/2 of one penny from each dollar of FedEx's total revenues from the amendable date through the end of this TA? (1)
Did you know that the entire value of the gains in this TA amount to less than 8/10ths of one penny from each dollar of revenue for FedEx Express from the amendable date through the end of this TA? (2)
Did you know that the entire value of the gains in this TA amount to less than 15 cents per each express package from the amendable date through the TA, and that the composite yield per package exceeds $20? (3)
Did you know that the entire value of the gains in this TA amount to less than 1% of FedEx Express's operating expenses from the amendable date through the end of this TA? (4)
Most importantly...
Did you know that FedEx Express has raised their shipping rates during 6 of the last 7 years, including a 4.9% increase just this week (See FedEx website links below)? This is important because the ability to raise top line revenues protects the bottom line from increased costs; be that aircraft, ground vehicles, maintenance, fuel, or...labor.
FedEx 2010 Rate Increase - 5.9%
FedEx 2012 Rate Increase - 5.9%
FedEx 2013 Rate Increase - 5.9%
FedEx 2014 Rate Increase - 3.9%
FedEx 2015 Rate Increase - 4.9%
FedEx 2016 Rate Increase - 4.9%
FedEx and UPS Raise Fuel Surcharges - "Because they can"
"While parcel rates are up to their highest levels ever in 2015 as evidenced by parcel giants UPS and FedEx recently rolling out GRIs (general rate increases) that took effect earlier this year along with the changes to its dimensional pricing rates, fuel surcharges are also on the rise for the companies (FedEx and UPS). These changes come at a time when oil and fuel prices continue steady declines."
Increased fuel surcharges take effect for UPS and FedEx - Logistics Management
"Under the revised rates, if fuel prices remain at their current levels, FedEx Ground’s fuel surcharge rates will increase by 1.5% and those of FedEx Express will increase by 1%. The difference in fuel surcharge becomes wider at lower prices. The higher rates and broader price ranges will allow FedEx to capture higher fuel surcharge revenue if fuel prices continue to decline."
Strong Increase in Pricing Expected for FedEx
Fraternally,
DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chairman
(1) I tried to be deliberately conservative all calculations, using lesser of FY 2013 through 2015 data from FedEx 2015 Annual Report http://investors.fedex.com/…/a…/FedE...ual_Report.pdf $1.7b TA/($44b x 8.6yrs)
(2) I tried to be deliberately conservative in all calculations, using lesser of FY 2013 through 2015 data from FedEx 2015 Annual Report http://investors.fedex.com/…/a…/FedE...ual_Report.pdf $1.7b TA/($27b x 8.6yrs)
(3) I tried to be deliberately conservative in all calculations, using lesser of FY 2013 through 2015 "Package Statistics" data from FedEx 2015 Annual Report http://investors.fedex.com/…/a…/FedE...ual_Report.pdf $1.7b TA/(3,900,000 average daily volume x 365 days x 8.6 years)
(4) I tried to be deliberately conservative in all calculations, using lesser of FY 2013 through 2015 data from FedEx 2015 Annual Report http://investors.fedex.com/…/a…/FedE...ual_Report.pdf $1.7b TA /(25b annual ops expenses x 8.6 years)

CloudSailor

From Block 6 Rep:
Pressing TOGA
Like any tired pilot wanting to get to the hotel, the last thing you want to do is a go-around. Selecting TOGA is an infrequent maneuver that is often the result of an unstable approach. The professional decision to initiate a go-around and start over is always safest. You don’t start over at your departure airport though, you simply regroup and re-vector for another approach. With proper planning, fuel loading, and decision–making, your next approach should lead you to success.
What happens if the membership presses TOGA? What happens if this TA is not ratified? We initiate a go-around. No, this isn’t an often-practiced maneuver; but this very pilot group has been here before, twice in fact. Both times we ended up more successful than before the “TOGA.”
An improved CBA is within our reach if we simply roll up our collective sleeves and work together. Here are my recommendations for a TOGA Flight Plan:
The disconnect between this TA and the pilot’s expectations must be defined. To do that, your MEC should immediately begin polling to determine exactly what you find as acceptable and unacceptable.
Your MEC should begin extensive meetings to re-orient itself with the crew force.
It may be determined that some MEC Representatives/Committees may need to be reinforced, strengthened, or re-manned. Those decisions will be made based upon the depth of the change requested by you, the membership.
Negotiating goals should be developed based upon the polling and then those goals will be communicated to you.
Preparations should be made to return to the negotiating table to reach those goals.
Our Chairman will solidly lead us through this process. He is a measured professional and he will not lead us to an unsafe destination or alternate.
No doubt, all of this may take some time, but I am confident that together we will arrive at our proper destination.
What we need from you if you reject this TA:
Participate in all surveys.
Learn and understand the stated goals.
Embrace these goals for the betterment of us all.
Continue to work and contribute just as you always have: safely, legally, and reliably.
No other actions are required on your part, especially anything that could be perceived as an illegal work action.
As pilots, we tend to immediately respond to caution lights and warning horns. This is the time for you to “sit on your hands,” “wind the clock,” and ponder a few questions:
Why is so much of this TA’s money tied up to ensure certainty in retirement dates of our older pilots?
Why is management willing to throw millions of dollars at the older pilots for retirement planning? If this TA fails, can they afford to let those nearing retirement walk away disgusted with no hope of a retirement-fix on the horizon?
With our current pilot shortage, how long will it take to resolve our inadequate staffing issues?
With 5, 10, or possibly 15% in givebacks in work rules, how many pilots might not be hired, down bid, or furloughed to acquire adequate staffing levels?
What is the downside to remaining under the current CBA until this bargaining can be resolved satisfactorily?
In this “TOGA” scenario, management will most likely posture that we will be unhappy with the outcome. I expect that they’ll be back to the table though, as they have to resolve this situation that they have created. In my years here, there has never been a more favorable atmosphere for negotiating. Our company is extremely profitable and our operation is the critical engine that makes it happen. They need us and we shouldn’t sell ourselves short. This TA does not reflect the value that we bring to the equation.
One last question to ponder should this TA ratify: What will it be like flying here in a couple of years under this agreement? It is my guess that large numbers of those voting for this TA will have departed since we are funding their exit plans. This could lead to some very low-spirited cockpits as we realize the depth of the givebacks and lack of substantial improvements considering the length of this agreement.
Continuing an approach with weather below minimums is an emergency procedure that should only be executed without having a safe alternate or adequate fuel. As we approach the ratification vote of this TA, we have plenty of alternates and fuel in the event of a go-around. Your MEC will prepare a Flight Plan for all possibilities. Don’t let the fear of this infrequent maneuver affect your decision to accept or reject this TA.
“When in doubt, go-around.”
AS
Block 6 Representative
LEC 26 Secretary Treasurer

Raptor

Her initial post had a lot of emotion in it--however correct she was on many points. This one was a good read. I wish she was my block rep!

KnightFlyer

Here's a response to Blk 6 / 11:

This response to the Block 6 Rep by Capt CL, one of her constituents, in the spirit of fairness to those that have worked many hours on our behalf, and who feel their work has been wrongfully portrayed by her and others. Regardless of how you decide to vote on this TA, Capt CL and the many others that have worked tirelessly for us during these negotiations deserve our thanks. For the record, in the interest of accuracy, I asked Rep AS to back up her numbers of productivity givebacks in this TA as well, and have yet to receive a response...

AS,
As a member of Block 11 (instructor block) and Council 26, I read with interest your letter posted last evening and mailed to each of our council members. I am responding with no other motivation than my objective commitment to the truth, and my insistence that those representing FedEx crewmembers also share that same commitment. Your public and official disregard for the truth with respect to the TA (what is in it, and how it got there) requires this response.
Let me be clear: I am writing this letter to inform you that I do not support—in any way or for any purpose—false facts and misrepresentation of the truth in formal Association communications like those outlined in your letter.
As I’m sure you know, I served the Association as a volunteer on the Training and Standards subcommittee throughout these negotiations, since January, 2012. To put that in perspective for you (since you have served as a block rep for just about 6 months) and for others who may come to read this letter, let me also say that I participated in direct talks with the Company throughout the entire process, from openers in 2012 to this summer, on Section 11. Though my effort compared to many other subcommittee members and surely the main Negotiating Committee members is but a small contribution, I count (from my personal calendar) no less than 10 days of direct bargaining with the full team, and many more days in prep, follow-up, research, and rigorous survey administration and analysis. Additionally, included in this time were formal and informal meetings, not to exclude meetings with other subcommittee members at ALPA headquarters, and our individual homes at all hours of the day or night, whenever required or requested, over years of the hardest bargaining in our association’s history. I am speaking only for myself, but will be happy to provide you with the names of many more who would describe their volunteer activities in the same way if you would like to contact them.
Your characterization, along with Captain A (Block 11 Rep and LEC 26 Chairman) in a similar letter over a week ago, that this negotiation was somehow careless and unprepared and therefore doomed to fail is utterly false. From my unique vantage point in the process, it’s safe to say, that from a front row seat, my opinion on how negotiations were prepared, how they proceeded, and what they were guided by is the truth about what happened and how. Let me share but just a few facts with you:
1. We employed extensive surveys not just prior to talks, but early in the talks, and then again after openers. It’s true. We really did (I’m looking at survey results right now, professionally prepared by the Negotiating committee and dated as far back as December, 2011, just to be sure that I was telling you the truth in this letter).
2. The surveys are clear (and I bet they contain the same elements that any survey that you suggest would be conducted again in some future negotiation to replace them). The results include sensitive areas of concern to all of us, just as important and relevant today as they were when we had them prepared for us:
a. Protect the best Vacation system in the business, and allow no attacks on that very important aspect of our contract;
b. No PBS. Not now, not ever;
c. Obtain Industry-leading pay rates;
d. Preserve the best healthcare options in the industry, specifically, the popular buy-up option;
e. Clean up Reserve by implementing as many controls and transparency instruments as you can;
f. Fix 4.a.2.b so it can’t be “interpreted” to the detriment of the crew force if ever it needs to be applied again;
g. Fix the Secondary Line process, and as with Reserve, put in controls and transparency instruments so crewmembers have more ability to predict and plan their schedules;
h. Improve on our already industry-leading retirement;
i. Etc., etc., etc.
It seems that everyone who has not “been in the room” has an opinion about what negotiations are like (I know I sure did prior to 2012). That image, in turn, colors an individual’s view of the outcome. Unfortunately, the view of a few shabby, tired and unprepared pilots with their hats in their hands facing off against the X-Men is often the one that prevails. Clearly, it seems that I have to tell you how it really happened that we were able to achieve many—if not most—of our goals as identified by the crew force in ourmultiple surveys (see above).
During the more than 3.5 years of my involvement, I personally had the privilege to participate in many long days of bargaining with no less than a total of 8 different individual principal counterparts on the other side of the table (which is only one reason why Section 11 was not closed earlier than it did – the Company’s lineup kept changing until late 2014). During all of that time, I never felt out-prepared, out-numbered, out-researched, out-bargained, out-maneuvered or out-lawyered, primarily because we were not. We have an exceptionally qualified, experienced, knowledgeable and professional team not just at the core of our Negotiating Committee but all through its subcommittees and support staff at our ALPA office here in Memphis and at ALPA National headquarters. Imagining some future negotiating team that is somehow better equipped than that which we have had (and then broadcasting that as fact) is disingenuous at best, and deliberately misleading at least. I worked on but one section, but I have to tell you that our subcommittee was repeatedly held to the same high standards of professionalism and truth as other subcommittees and subject matter experts.
The results? I can tell you with absolute certainty that this is the truth: Section 11 for the first time in history at FedEx did not serve as a productivity pool for other sections to draw on, and improved from the 2006 agreement. Your summary of what we need to do the next time we bargain suggests that we have not done those things before… A gross misrepresentation of the process. Surveys? Done. Exhaustive Preparation? Done. Data collection and comprehensive research on every position? Done. Etc., etc., etc., Done, Done and Done.
To suggest that your colleagues who have been manning the negotiations battle stations for the past 4 years were “disconnected” from the crew force (re: multiple surveys and polls), that the MEC during that time did not meet with the crew force routinely (re: multiple and repetitive engagements by the MEC throughout the entire 3.5 years), that somehow our ALPA team didn’t have the resources and fortitude that some future team might have more of, and that our MEC lacked leadership and resolve is utterly false and misleading. Suggesting as both you and Captain A have that this team “caved” because they were “tired” and need to be “reinforced, strengthened or re-manned” by more energetic volunteers is but another insult to this group of pilots who I can tell you have displayed nothing but resolve and endurance and are not even close to their personal reserves. You should retract your letter for having made those assertions alone.
Further, I am not certain that I understand how the “pilot shortage” and “staffing issues” you discuss in your letter, and the “5%, 10% or even 15%” givebacks in “work rules” (which is it, anyway?) are related to reality. Those points are so poorly supported and articulated that I can only interpret them as incendiary comments designed to evoke an equally incendiary and baseless response. That is an insult to your readership, to your constituents, and to your fellow professional pilots at FedEx. As many readers also would like to know, I’d be very receptive to the details of your analysis. Please also provide that research with the same level of rigor and fact-checking, modeling and peer review that your current Negotiating Committee has been doing tirelessly for the past 4 years on every paragraph and sentence in the TA.
I have had many conversations with Captain A over the past few years, and very few with you. So I will share with you what I so often am forced to share with him: my test for whether a position, plan, assertion or statement (made in private or public, on the record or off the record, in conversation or in writing) is simple: Is it the truth?
In my rebuttal to Captain A following a letter that reads very similar to your own, I pointed out the responsibility of leadership to remain objective, informed, and mindful of facts and reality. I ask you to consider the damaging consequences of making claims against the actual content of the TA with vague numbers that are easily seized upon by bystanders, gross mischaracterizations of how negotiations proceeded from beginning to end, and vague and empty promises of some magical process that might follow any rejection of the TA. You’ve bought into a fantasy based on nothing but the personal hopes and views of individuals whose past involvement in negotiations have led to outcomes far beneath those achieved by the current Negotiating Committee in this round of negotiations.
A, have your personal opinion on the TA and vote with your head or your heart, to satisfy your personal professional goals and the needs of your own family. But stop there—as a member of the MEC you are expected to act professionally, truthfully and objectively. You can begin by retracting your recent letter.
Best regards,
CL

Flybywyr

More good information for the Block 1 rep


Part III
Leading Pay Rates, or Mis-Leading Pay Rates?
Let me begin by saying that this isn't a sport. Claims surrounding any TA are a damned serious business involving the lives of 4,200 pilots and their families. I take no joy from what I've written below, and it in fact saddens me. I'd rather not be in a position to have written what follows.

For reference, please click here to view a short clip from the first webcast on September 3rd.

Approximately $105 million of your dollars are missing from the DOS (Date of Signing) pay rate and signing bonus claims made in those statements. That's an average of $25,000 per pilot. In comparison, that's enough to pay back the company for both of the first two years of increased earnings under the 'Bridge' TA!

Did you catch the costly mistakes in the clip above? That's ok, almost no one caught the mistake made in calculating your pay rates, and you'd need access to pay or dues data to catch the signing bonus error. I can't say that you were deliberately misled by the statements made in that clip and elsewhere. Perhaps it was just a serious mathematical error. What I can say is that this TA's pay rates were not derived in consultation with your MEC, and that I expressed my concerns regarding the 3% slope claims/calculations to the negotiating committee chairman well before the above video was made.

The evaluation is a bit tedious, but please read below - multiple times if need be - to understand what happened. It is $105 million dollars of your money, after all. That should make it worth your while.



Does the DOS (date of signing) pay rate increase of 10% account for for 3% year over year increases since March of 2012, as described to you and your MEC?

No. Even though a 3% year over year slope is considered to be the bare minimum, it wasn't met. To substantiate the claims made in the video clip above, the DOS increase should have been just over 11.4% - not the 10% DOS increase contained in this TA, and certainly not 8% as mentioned in the video. In the 2010 'Bridge' TA you got 3% year over year raises while the economy was falling apart. Not meeting that minimum slope this time as claimed will cost you approximately $92 million. Again, that mistake coupled with the miscalculation of the signing bonus (another $13.3 million deficit) are more than enough to offset additional income from the Bridge TA during 2011 and 2012. See references (1)(2)(3) below.



The DOS pay rate mistake only affects the first year though, right?

No. The mistake in the DOS rates will cost the average Fedex pilot thousands per year over the next six years. Down stream pay rate increases stand on the shoulders of prior year rates. The effects of the DOS pay rate mistake compound each year, and this is a 6 year TA. See reference (1) below.



Does the signing bonus (retro) in this TA recapture lost 3% pay rate increases since March 2012, as described to you and your MEC?

No. The signing bonus should have been approximately $147.3 million vs $134 million. Those missing millions mean that your retro payment should have been approximately 10% higher (as much as $2000 to $3500 higher, depending upon your seat position). Less conservative but possibly more accurate calculations indicate a $13.7 rather than $13.3 million shortfall. Either figure is a deficit of approximately 10% compared to the claim of recapturing lost 3% raises. See reference (3) below.



Are this TA's pay rates "industry leading" - as described in the unscrupulously leaked TA hi-lights - surpassing those at American?

Not really, no. First, AA leap frogs this TA for 10 months of each year - meaning that these pay rates aren't the "industry leader" unless one snap shots only the best 2 months of the year and ignores the other 10. Next, the AA's rates top out at 12 years, while this TA's top rates require 15 years of seniority. In any event, one might conclude that the term "Industry Leading" in the context of airlines rebuilding from bankruptcy contracts is a rather dubious claim. See reference (4) below.

It's your call

Fixing this TA or living with it is your call, of course. The information presented here might be important to you, or might not, and no arm twisting of your vote is intended. I'm trying to do the job you elected me for, pointing out some things you've not been told in the videos and road shows. While my calculations have been verified repeatedly by others and I believe them to be accurate, I encourage you to grab a pencil and do them at your own kitchen table. If you find a material error or have questions please let me know.

If you conclude that items as simple as the pay rates and retro were miscalculated, then perhaps you will also conclude that there's cause for enhanced scrutiny in other, more complex sections.




(1) 3% year over year pay rate increase calculations:

The last rate increase was March 2012, when the top rate became $260.61

Because each 12 month period accrues an additional 3% per year increase, we missed 3% increases in March of 2013, 2014, and 2015 and would have missed an additional 3% increase in March 2016.

This TA would take effect before the next 3% raise would take effect in March of 2016 though (four months from now and only 8 months rather than 12 months since the last rate increase), so we have only accrued 2/3 of a yearly pay rate increase during the period between March 2015 through November 2015. This equates to 2/3 of an annual 3% increase, or 2%.

The simple math, then, is as follows:
2012 rate x 1.03 x 1.03 x 1.03 x 1.02 (partial year 2015) = an 11.5% increase (vs 10% TA)

In 03/2011 there was a 3% raise and the pay rate became $253.02
In 03/2012 there was a 3% raise and the pay rate became $260.61
To continue that 3% trend, then
In 03/2013 the rate should have become 260.61 x 1.03 = $268.42
In 03/2014 the rate should have become 268.42 x 1.03 = $276.47
In 03/2015 the rate should have become 276.42 x 1.03 = $284.77
In 11/2015 the rate should have become 284.77 x 1.02 (partial year increase) = $290.47



(2) Calculation of Lost Pay Over Six Years
Dues derived pay data indicates that the average total pilot pay during the two full twelve-month periods of the amendable period (Mar '13 through Feb '15) averaged $971m per year. That base figure was used as a constant in comparing total earnings going for each of the 6 years going forward under two scenarios.

Scenario 'A':
The DOS pay rate increase is 11.46%, which is the amount actually required to cover 3% year over year increases since March 2012, followed by 3%, 3%, 3%, 4%, and 3% increases in subsequent years.

Scenario 'B':
The DOS pay rate increase is 10% as in the TA, which is erroneously represented as covering 3% year over year increases since March 2012, followed by the same 3%, 3%, 3%, 4%, and 3% increases in subsequent years.

(Scenario 'A') - (Scenario 'B') = Approximately $92 million
$92 million pay deficit + $13.3 million signing bonus deficit = $105 million
$105 million / 4200 pilots = $25,000 per pilot



(3) Calculation of Signing Bonus (Retro) Deficit
The equation itself is straight forward. Note that the rate increases compound slightly year over up year: 3% x (March 2013 through Feb 2014 dues derived pay data) + 6.09% x (March 2014through Feb 2015 dues derived pay data) + 9.27% x (March 2015 through Oct 2013 dues derived pay data) = $147.3 million.
$147.3 million - $134 million (TA) = $13.3 million deficit



(4) TA rate comparison to AA's rates during 10 months of the year
12-yr AA rates vs. 15-yr FDX TA rates

Jan 2016 = $293.11 vs. $286.67
Jan 2017 = $301.90 vs. $295.27
Jan 2018 = $310.96 vs. $304.13
Jan 2019 = $320.29 vs. $313.25
Jan 2020 = TBD vs. $325.78
Jan 2021 = TBD vs. $335.56

CloudSailor

I re-quoted the entire piece by Block 1 rep DR, so as not to bury it.

To those who will vote YES just because the videos and webcasts say this TA is industry leading, maybe, think it through a little more?