From Block 11 Rep, (whom I happen to have a ton of respect for):

MA - Block 11 Representative, LEC 26 Chairman:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This document is about what happens next if we vote no. It is not about the plusses and minuses of the TA. Communication on that front continues on both sides. Since our amendable date in 2010, we have not fully utilized the type of leverage we need to achieve our goals in negotiations. We have hoped and hinted that a quieter, gentler approach to negotiations would be sufficient to gain us the contract we deserve. It should be clear to all of us now that approach simply does not work here at FedEx. The TA before you today is proof.
Now, for the tough part. Why should we think that if we vote "No" our leadership can bring us a better deal? The first thing to consider is the fact that many of the leaders who brought us to this point have already left. We have new Block Reps in place now and have upcoming elections when you have the ability to review the voting record of your Block Rep and either reelect them or elect new representation. I would advocate we elect level-headed thinkers who can be decisive and unemotionally analyze strategies and tactics. We need pilots who are not easily intimidated. Additionally, our officer core changed in July and we have a new Chairman and Secretary/Treasurer.
Make no mistake, this will be a challenge. To vote “No” is to say you are willing to do whatever it takes including, if it comes to it and after the end of the RLA process, standing alongside your fellow union members in a picket line without a paycheck to achieve our goals. It means you are willing to fight for what you believe in just like others who have gone before us have fought to build this profession. This will not be easy, but I believe in you and I believe we can fix the TA. This will not be quick nor painless and the outcome may not be better than what we now have before us. However, if we vote yes, we know it won’t get any better.
The only thing more important in improving this TA than your leadership is you, the membership. The outcome from negotiations is entirely in your hands. You have come through every time you have been asked. Remember 4.A.2.b? Management took advantage of the language by restricting some lines to 54 credit hours while other lines were built to far higher values. When you were polled as to whether we should get rid of 4.A.2.b, you overwhelmingly voted to keep it or modify it because you still cared enough about our junior pilots to protect them from furlough.
In 1998, when we were "At Will" employees, we voted to double our dues to build a strike center. We voted to go on strike. We did all those things with a very weak Board of Directors (MEC equivalent body) and with Officers who had literally just come from management to run our Union. We did this in the environment where we started the year with 50% membership, had no contract, were threatened with a lock-out, were abused in the media, threatened by red letters to our houses and we still stood strong together. We built our membership to 98% by the end of the year and we achieved our first contract.
After we earned that first contract, we found that management refused to honor it in several areas. We stood up to them again. We won because we stood firm. Lastly, we challenged management's erroneous interpretation of FAR 121.547 “Admission to the Flight Deck.” Again, we were not only threatened with termination but 3 pilots actually were terminated in an attempt to intimidate us. We stood firm, achieved our goals and those pilots regained their jobs.
One may ask what we could do to influence the outcome at the table if we turn down the TA. In the past, we engaged in the following leverage enhancing activities:
Nationwide simultaneous informational picketing in major cities
Large uniformed pilot presence at the stockholder’s meeting
Media campaign to include newspaper ads and talk radio
Conducted a strike vote
These type of activities worked and will work again. In some of these cases, we had the leadership to lead us. In some cases, we had the membership drive the leadership; but in all of these cases, we had a membership that was rock solid and ready to stand strong. We are still the brave, smart, loyal and fair group of honorable men and women that we were when we had our past successes. It is time to believe in ourselves and to stand strong again like we have done so successfully before. Our leadership is changing. You can change it more or faster if you see the need. We might just find that with the power of our fellow members, we already have what we need to get the job done.
You should be proud of our heritage as FedEx union members. Vote "No" on this contract, get ready for some hard work and difficult choices, and let’s start fixing this mess together.
Sincerely,
MA
Block 11 Representative
LEC 26 Chairman

 

From DC-Vice Chairman, Council 79:
As LEC 79 Vice Chairman, I feel it is important to share with you my thoughts on the Tentative Agreement. I have worked with and respect the individuals who bargained this TA. They deserve our gratitude for their efforts. Please begin your due diligence as soon as possible.
While the complicated language of the TA can be frustrating, it is unfortunately part of the process of protecting what we have bargained. The MEC Officers, MEC, Negotiating Committee, MEC staff, and other subject matter experts are expending enormous energy to provide the information and explanation you require to make an informed decision. Examples include Q&A call-in, Q&A on fdx.alpa.org, videos, webcasts, and roadshows. I hope the roadshow in Anchorage was helpful. If any of these is insufficient in providing you with factual information, please do not hesitate to contact me at... I will either find you the correct subject matter expert or cc you on the email. That doesn't mean you will or won't like the answer!
As I mentioned above, the decision you make on your vote is yours and it is important. Some have already indicated that if either the Negotiating Committee or the MEC has approved it then so should they. I disagree! In fact, some were saying earlier in the process that the pilots should have a chance to see this TA and decide for themselves. I believe we cannot pass an agreement down to you the line pilot, the ultimate decision makers, and allow anyone to indicate the process is complete before you have your collective say. We are all responsible to understand what we are voting on. Your Union. Your Contract. Your Vote.
Although my position as LEC 79 Vice Chairman does not make me a voting member of the MEC, I am casting my personal vote as no on this agreement. I will say that there is no single issue causing me to vote no. There are improvements in the TA over certain portions of the current CBA. Other provisions will depend on your personal circumstances in how you view them and some are regressions. Nonetheless, there are only two choices and the totality of the agreement leaves me voting no.
I believe the process used to arrive at this document was flawed. Process is different than person, and I don't question the motive or good intention of anyone involved. This agreement was supposed to be pilot driven when in fact it has been years since polling of any depth has been done. This was not the plan. We indicated to the pilot group that we would continue to seek pilot input throughout bargaining.
Our leadership on the MEC has changed constantly throughout the process. We are on the third Negotiating Committee since we began what turned into the CBA 2011. Six of the fourteen MEC members who voted on this TA for ratification joined the MEC in calendar year 2015. In my opinion, our leadership turnover is an institutional weakness. Promises are made by those departing and unknown by those who replace them.
Our bargaining process could only have remained pilot driven with concerted effort to discern pilot objectives through consistent polling. The process we have used leaves many wondering if this TA is what WE want. Over the next several writings, I will outline sections of the agreement I feel worthy of mention or explanation. They will include positives and negatives. The list should not be seen as comprehensive or an attempt to be completely unbiased. Hopefully, it will help you make your own decision. No matter how this vote turns out, we still have work to do—together.

 

I'm curious, did anyone ever fill out a survey that suggested they wanted or would be willing to take a reduction in their retirement? Has anyone, union or otherwise, suggested or implied that this agreement improves or at least keeps us even (taking account the diminishing value of money) with our past contract(s)?
Has anyone asked about the reduced value of our A plan and how the nominal increases in the B portion will "make up" for this short fall?

 

Just curious on the informational picketing strategy if the TA is voted down. Informationsl picketing is about gaining public sentiment. The message is easy when a company is very profitable and refusing to negotiate. It becomes difficult when the company has offered a 30% pay raise and made you the highest paid pilot in the industry (media will surely spin it as such). Just curious to the response to the media representatives to "Why did you turn down a industry leading contract?". "Well the company is no longer required to buy me a first-class ticket when deadheading, they can but me a business class ticket with a lie-flat seat" (little sarcasm).

 

Why do I care about public sentiment?

 

Exactly! I could give a rat's arse what the public, my neighbor, or for that matter, our fellow employees think of our contract or negotiating tactics.

However, I do know that Wall Street and most importantly, our management cares what our shippers think. Shippers get a little skittish over contracting with a company that is having labor problems.

The general public is not who we would be targeting with informational picketing.

 

I agree too. Three things our Union has done that are pointless, Lanyards, billboards, and informational picketing. Its disappointing to think that the public would ever side with us. I've gotten enough, "Oh, you are a pilot, you must be rich" comment. To try to get public sympathy just ****es the public off. They don't care, they aren't informed and they think we are millionaires. I'm not Mem based but when I was going to the hotel and saw the billboard, I was wondering how stupid our Union can be.

 

What You Put Up With, You End Up With
What You Tolerate, You Give Permission To Exist



Part V
Your Decision: A Line in the Sand, or a CBA in Stone
I get it. Most of you are unhappy with this TA, which in my opinion ambushed your MEC just the same as it did you. When we saw it, my assessment was that while some on your MEC were satisfied, the rest of us—the majority perhaps—were either more ambivalent or said "Uh-oh, now what?," and saw two alternatives. One was to reject it immediately; the other was to pass it to you for your vote. Note that the MEC's resolution, which placed the TA into your hands, was not an "endorsement." There's subtle but important distinction in the wording.

You've been told that Armageddon looms if you vote "No," that Fred Smith will loose lightning bolts from a mountaintop in retaliation for your supposedly emotional and hoggish ways. Others have told you that voting "No" is an automatic win because Fred Smith will crawl on his knees and beg forgiveness just so that he can survive peak. Personally, I believe that thoughts of an automatic win on one extreme are as inappropriate as the fear mongering on the other. I believe that the truth, as usual, resides somewhere in the middle.

If you vote "No" then your MEC will have its marching orders. The negotiating chairman will possibly resign because, as he's said to me personally in the past, a failed TA means that his credibility with the company's negotiators and pilots alike will have taken a hit. The MEC will begin polling you immediately to find out what you liked or didn't like about the rejected TA, even as we are possibly engaged in selecting a new negotiating chairman. It's possible that we'd be re-engaged with the company before peak, but I think it's more likely to be January. We've paid into ALPA National's war chest for many years, and will likely draw from that war chest to continue the fight.

The rest is up to you, frankly. If you tell the MEC you'd rather wait one year than eight to fix this TA, if you give your MEC the orders to re-engage, then it will be your continued support that fuels the outcome. There may indeed be money available for an increased A-plan cap or for other retirement solutions as yet unexplored; Solutions that do not satisfy some pilots at others' expense. I believe there's money left on the negotiating table, but no MEC or negotiator can re-engage there on their own. It will require your solid backing on your part.

If you want to re-engage and are willing to support the effort, then your MEC and negotiators will lead from the front.
Fraternally,

DR
Block 1 Rep
Council 7 Chair
DR

 

Please read this while thinking about our overall QOL here, even if you believe 2.7%/year is sufficient. Another great letter from Block 6 Rep, AS:

Forward form LEC 26:
Members of Council 26,
I received several e-mails requesting that I expand on the efficiencies that I had alluded to in my previous message, “Pressing TOGA.” By leaving you with thoughts to ponder, I was hoping that each of you would review the TA with an open perspective that when the ballot closes, it isn’t just the obvious that affects us, but the consequences of all of the hidden details that affect us. Are the financial gains in the TA enough to offset the efficiencies given to the company in respect to future manning?
In light of the company’s Q1 2016 Earnings Report, it appears that management is expecting fairly substantial gains in efficiency. The following quote is taken from September 25, 2015, Motley Fool investment letter:
“New pilot contract won't hurt earnings
While this was a fairly generous contract offer—and FedEx's pilots were already near the top of the industry in pay—FedEx's management stated that it won't impact the company's projected profit growth trajectory. Other productivity-enhancing initiatives will more than offset the pilots' higher pay.”
[Emphasis added]
In my own rough analysis of the TA, the new scheduling efficiencies seem to outweigh our financial gains with respect to the staffing of our crew force. However, without having access to all of the data from the company, I can only make an estimate. In my opinion, adequate costing data was not given to the MEC. Resultantly, there is no factual answer. The following are some, but not all, of the efficiencies that I am concerned with that will affect us all.
· Section 25.S.2.e.
You walk into AOC expecting to fly an easy GSO pm out and back. You’re senior, and you’re looking forward to a white box of catering, a quick nap in a hotel, and an early arrival back into MEM. Scheduling calls, and they need you to fly to CPR-BOI instead. You say, “But I didn’t bid CPR-BOI? I’m senior!” They say, “Enjoy your flight, you’ve been revised.” Management has been practicing this type of revision in the recent past. Now this Out and Back Disruption is institutionalized in the TA for 1.5 CH.

Section 25.S.2.d.
You are scheduled to be bumped for training on an augmented flight. You are looking forward to some time off at home with pay. Unfortunately, your RFO is unable to operate the trip. Now your phone is ringing, and it’s CRS calling you instead of a reserve pilot. Welcome to Crew Designation Disruption. Without any options, you now get to work the trip as an RF2 or RFO for 1.5 CH per flight.

Section 25.S.2.f.
You have packed your swimsuit and plan to spend your layover in the sun in FLL. Next thing you know, you are wishing you had packed your parka for YEG. What happened? Single Layover Disruption happened. The company needs a pilot up north, and for 3 CH you get to pay the price for not getting to fly south where your seniority is.

Section 25 scheduling abuses have become an unpleasant standard in recent history. The pilot’s expectations of the TA were to fix the current abuses with concrete language in order to protect seniority. The addition of these Section 25 provisions codifies these “Trip Revisions” and removes the possibility of SUB with OTP options in these instances. CRS can now revise your trip using concrete language in the TA. The added CH penalty is nice, however, these revisions abrogate seniority; at their best they pay equal to or less than draft, and they give the pilots no options. When pilots have no options, CRS could require fewer reserve pilots, and Crew Planning could operate with a smaller, more optimized crew force. Expectations of the TA were to fix this abuse, not to simply add a penalty payment. It is up to you to decide if the penalty payment is adequate.

· Section 8.C.1.d.
Deadheading to Europe is at the top of your monthly bid. You live in Dallas, enjoying an extra day at home because you can fly nonstop to Paris. Arriving at 0730–0930 local for a show time of 0230–0330 local (depending on seasonal changes), ensures your 12-hour final check-in with back-ups. With the TA, you’ll be departing a day early to guarantee a no-stress 18-hour check-in. This equates to one less day at home for you and fewer pilots enjoying stand-by periods in Paris (and elsewhere). (Your only relief is if CRS schedules the DH through DFW, and you can un-deviate mid trip.)

· Section 12.C.2.d.
Do you like flying those senior DH pairings from SJC to IND and back with 24-hour layovers? If the company adjusts the schedule by 12 minutes, you can say goodbye to those long layovers with the new 8-in-24 company efficiency. Now, noncritical, domestic, consecutive duty periods can exceed 8 ABH if the intervening rest period was at least 10:15 (reducible to 9:15) and the next scheduled rest period is at least 13:00 (reducible to 12:00). What do you get for this efficiency? Shorter layovers built into pairings, more seat time, and no options for SUB/OTP if you exceed 8 in 24 in these circumstances.

· Section 24
Having read this section numerous times (and having the benefit of one-on-one Q&As with the Negotiating Committee), I understand the benefits to bidding for training and the ease of bidding during a time of expansion. The hidden company efficiencies that could occur during a down size are what concern me the most. I interpret a “bump & flush” of junior pilots within the contractual language of this section that leads to their instability (with Section 23: Furlough and Recall). Also, the senior pilots are limited on a “bid to relieve” to the “seniority” of the junior pilot being assigned. This section allows management to continually shift the manning of this airline to their needs, on a whim, at our expense. It is now up to you, or possibly a grievance or arbitration in the future, to determine how this section will be interpreted. Based on our history with grievances with management, how confident are you in your interpretation of this section with respect to protecting our junior pilots?

· Section 28.F.
It is common knowledge that we are undermanned at 4,200. With a large number of those pilots being retirement-ready, why aren’t we hiring nonstop to fill the retiring-pilot vacuum (with the customary slow-down during peak)?

Each pilot nearing retirement is being encouraged to fly to age 64 + 11 months. These pilots are also being financially incentivized to not use any sick time or vacation in 2015 and 2016 so that they can fund their own retirements (SLB and 100 percent vacation buy-back). Two years of seniority stagnation is approaching all of those remaining (reminiscent of Age 65).
Could this TA create enough efficiency that the company could correct their manning problems with one swipe of the pen? I anticipate fewer reserve pilots, fewer standby periods, and far less substitution options with open time priority. I foresee the degradation of seniority, and a smaller, more optimized pilot group. At the expense of your quality of life, we will hire fewer pilots, we will retire fewer pilots, and we will require fewer pilots.
The company seems fairly confident that productivity will offset our higher wages. Unfortunately for us, passing the TA is the only way for us to know how many efficiencies we have given them for only a marginal cost of living adjustment and a couple of pay penalties. We already know that retirement is deficient in the TA. What we don’t know is how the details in the TA will affect our every day quality of life.
You are the PIC on this 6–8 year journey. If it doesn’t look right or feel right to you, then call the go-around. As your PM, I’ll get your flaps and gear, and I have your back.
In Unity,
AS
FDX Council 26
Block 6 Rep.
FDX 26 Secretary-Treasurer

 

Thanks for taking the time to post the latest from the block 6 rep. Wish we still had lockers to share this information with those who surely are not on this forum or taking the time to consider all issues. All very important issues.