Dissenting LEC votes speak for me
 

I do not mean any disrespect to the fatigued-by-the-RLA-process NC committee, but after finally reading through the entire TA, I feel pretty raw about repeating the "my NC speaks for me" slogan like a blind sheep. Had I known what was going on in negotiations, I would not have been repeating that catchy, false phrase. I take solace however, in the fact that across the seniority spectrum, LEC reps were able to see this TA for what it is. Just pasting their thoughts here:

From Block 1 Rep: With apologies, the communication I had hoped to send to you no later than yesterday is delayed until next week. In part, this is so that new information can be incorporated, and also because access to costing data and personnel at ALPA National's offices—vital to the dissenting elected representatives on your MEC for the purpose of verifying information presented by the Negotiating Committee—has been denied. I have faith, however, that our MEC officers will resolve the issue soon.

Accurate, unfiltered information is the oxygen of your democracy, and unfettered access to that information is its lifeblood. Your patience in the matter is appreciated.

Meanwhile, here's some food for thought: While $1.7 Billion worth of claimed improvements in this TA sounds like a large number, some perspective is in order. That's less than 1/2 of one percent of the company's projected revenues from the amendable date through the end of the TA. One half of one penny per dollar of revenue.

For additional perspective: To cover increased costs, the company raised prices 4.9% earlier this year across the board—ten fold the entire amount gained in this TA. This follows a similar pricing move in 2012 and fuel surcharges which have been increased even as fuel prices decline.

Do you still think there's "no money available" to improve your retirement A plan?

From Block 11 Rep: While I agree there are improvements in many areas of the TA, I believe this agreement is short of what we could have obtained had we continued to pursue leverage-enhancing strategies. Unfortunately, we repeated the same mistake we made in 1998. We blinked. We were told of dramatic wet leasing and trucking in the 4th quarter. The NMB would not assure us that additional mediation time would be allocated to our case in the near future, and reported that we could not count on the Board's serious consideration of self-help options any time soon. We allowed these factors to get us off of our game and we settled for too little. For these reasons, I voted to not end negotiations. My specific reasons for voting against acceptance of the TA are:

Section 8 Deadheading: Section 8 A. 5. c. “Higher Class of Service:” Allowing a lay flat seat to determine a higher class of service could lead to deadheading in coach and reduced deviation banks as airlines expand their use in economy plus. There is no language in the TA providing a “no less than business class” provision.

Section 24 Filling of Vacancies: Our current agreement provides you with a “bid to relieve an excess” option whereby you can bid to any aircraft and any seat anywhere in the system with an excess posting. This option is now eliminated under the TA. If we vote for this agreement, you will only be able to “stand in” for a junior pilot who is being excessed. In other words, you cannot exercise your seniority like you can today, rather you can only go where the junior pilot can go. In addition, this provision provides a reduction in training cycles for every posting. In fairness, this will also lead to less unwanted seat movement for a junior pilot during an excess.

Section 25 S. Trip Revision: Just like in our current agreement, a reserve pilot in this TA still does not receive the same disruption pay protections as a non-reserve pilot in the same cockpit. We should have changed this to provide the same pay for the same work regardless of a pilot being on reserve.

Section 27: The lack of a Health Reimbursement Account (HRA) for the Buy up option leaves pilots who are post-retirement but pre-Medicare vulnerable to large out of pocket costs for insurance and thus acts as a disincentive to retirement before 65.

Section 28: As we have written before, having both a Defined Benefit (DB) “A plan” and a Defined Contribution (DC) “B plan” is the optimum way to provide for retirement security. Our passenger brothers and sisters had their A plan taken in or facing the threat of bankruptcy/distressed termination otherwise they too would enjoy an A plan today. American’s A plan is frozen not terminated and I believe will re-emerge as an option for their pilots in future bargaining as interest rates rise. Our A plan is off-property, in trust for you, and is well funded. In addition, there are approximately 219,000 participants in our company’s DB plan. It is a safe and secure plan and should be retained.

Under current IRS rules, you are limited in the total amount one can put in a B plan. Congress and the White House have flirted with reducing and establishing new limits for DC contributions as a way to raise tax revenue. This means we should not consider putting all of our retirement eggs in one basket.

Keeping all of our current and future pilots in the same retirement plans prevents a “B” scale retirement from undermining our union long-term. However, the A plan remaining unchanged with a $260,000 cap and the B plan increasing only 1% at DOS with an additional 1% four years later is insufficient. We have the leverage to increase these amounts and we should keep fighting to address this issue.

Section 31: A 6-year contract is too long given the issues listed above. Given the time it takes to negotiate agreements, this could be a decade-long agreement.

If you decide to vote this TA down, what happens next?

I would consider a rejection of this TA to be a mandate to rebuild, revise, and re-engage. Your volunteer committee members in Negotiations, Pilot to Pilot, the Strategic Planning and Strike Preparation committees have worked hard to get us to this point. When you see them on the line, be sure to thank them for their service. If we reject this agreement, some of these volunteers may want to take a well-deserved break. Strengthening these key committees with experienced volunteers from prior negotiations would help build bridges among our union leaders. I would suggest we poll to identify your key reasons for rejecting the agreement as well as develop additional strategies to enhance our leverage.

There is risk in this path, but we have been here before. In fact, we were “at will” employees at that time without the protections of a contract. The timeframe to renegotiate this agreement is uncertain and will vary based on management’s motivation to get a ratifiable agreement. Using the offices of the NMB would be optimal for further talks, but their absence does not preclude negotiations if we are successful at encouraging management to bring more to the table.

If you have specific questions about my reasons, please call. This is your future and I look forward to working on your behalf regardless of the outcome of this vote.

I'm thankful for the dissenting voters speaking up so people can make their own decisions based on all the information. Just a reminder the union now has an official position and is actively doing their best to convince us to vote for this TA. In order to defeat this we have to work against a funded (by us), professionally organized union with professionally produced videos, talking points, and organized meetings where they control the agenda. The dissenters are providing the critical other side of the argument that we need to consider before voting. I'm a definite No vote, but i want to thank the other No votes for having the courage to stand up for us line pilots. Cheers.

There are other ways to get a pay raise (and significant bonuses!). I suspect that many of us are AT LEAST as qualified as the last guy that had this job?

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact....2-d4ae5284344f

You have to agree to sell the pilots "down the river." Oh ... and I forgot, you also have to agree to mismanage staffing so badly that there's a need to cancel flight every day?


:confused:

From LEC 79: The Tundra Tidbits

14 SEPT 15

Dear Fellow Far North Flyers,

Hopefully by now, everyone has had a chance to read the TA, watch the videos, watch the webcasts and read the Q & A’s.

There are many good gains in this TA, but I believe there are too many concessions or no movement/improvement.

It was promised to poll often to keep the NC/MEC appraised of your desires in a new contract. I can only remember two in over four and half years, one in 2010 and one right before the amendable date this year. Not often in my opinion.

It was said, many times, that we would stay within the structure of the current CBA and not re-invent the wheel. Well, how many sections saw major re-writes???

Section 3: Is a 3% slope a pay raise or COLA?? You be the judge. There are several different websites that have different numbers for cost of living increases between 2006 and 2015. Anywhere from 1.5 to 4.9 is what I found.

Section 4: So much added/changed that we had to have a side letter just to get a contract. This didn’t fix 4.A.2.b.

Section 6: At least it says we (ANC pilots) get a paid move back if the base closes.

Section 8: Lots of changes here—some good, some not so good. We gave up a day of pay for first class and we give up first class for what??? Where was the costing for this section? The higher class of service for over 2.5 hours vs. first class for lay flat seat. No mention of business lay flat. In my experience, when I upgraded to the higher class of service in Asia on my own, it cost me $100 at most vs. $10,000 difference between first class and business class.

Earlier final check-in?

The webcast said that the approved carrier list was the one on Medex, but no mention of the first paragraph saying the current approved list of April 29, 2014.

Too many more to list here.

Section 11: What do you think instructors and LCAs?

Section 24: Pretty much a complete re-write.

Section 25: What can I say??

Section 27: Where are the improvements? Oh, the cost went up and the max the company can raise rates year-over-year went from 6 to 10%.
CDHP?

Section 28: No “A” plan gain at all. Modest “B” plan improvement. So, we went up 3% in the “B” plan from 2006-2021, 15 years worth. No cash over cap is problematic.

SLAB. In my opinion sick should never be part of retirement. Cash for over full DSA has only encouraged flying sick. This will also.
For us Anchorage-based pilots, retiring on the 31st of Dec will be a big tax burden. Per state law, when we retire the company has to pay us what is owed. Therefore, we will get all our accrued vacation pay, two years worth paid with our last paycheck. Unlike TN-based pilots who get the vacation pay the next year.

These are my highlights, at least the major ones. There seem to be too many to mention here.

Were cornerstones met? Did we get improvements in retirement? Insurance? Secondary lines? 4.A.2.b.? The vague wording that was open to interpretation and re-interpretation? What were you looking for in this TA? Remember, we will have to live with this for 6 years minimum.

Please attend a roadshow if you are able—it doesn’t have to be ours.
Read and re-read the TA and ask questions.

Please bring all your questions to the ANC Roadshow to be held on the 16th of Sept., 1200-1430...Fly safe, stay informed and enjoy life.

From Block 1 Rep:

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

Why did I vote "NO" on this TA?

Fair question. Understand that explaining my own actions and opinions below—why I voted against this TA—is not the same as telling you how to cast your own vote. I won't do that. Before I go further, invest a couple of extra minutes in your future. Review this video from last summer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOORJoeG-14

That moment was a show of strength, the likes of which has never been seen on this property. That moment was a powerful demonstration of negotiating capital. That moment should have been replicated manifold this year, but when the crunch time came, you were denied any further opportunity to leverage your Unity, participate in the process, and influence this TA for the better.

I voted "No" because at the very moment when you were ready to go to the wall and fight for what you deserve, your MEC was ambushed with a stunning capitulation which we never saw coming. Because this document encumbered your MEC with a bad option and a worse option, but no good ones.

I voted "No" because I have faith in the strength you've shown throughout this process. Because I have more faith in you than this TA does. Because I believe this TA abandoned you—the most unified pilot group in our company's history—on field of battle. I voted "No" because you asked me to fight for you, I promised you that I would, and when I leave the fight it's supposed to be on my shield, not my horse.

I voted "No" because if I'd told you just one month ago that I'd consider the elements of this TA as acceptable, you'd have recalled me. Because this TA is bad for older pilots and even worse for younger ones. Because the A-Plan increase is AWOL and the B-Plan increase is insulting. Because this TA actually has less than the claimed retro pay and less than the claimed 3% year over year raises, and because if even that simple math isn't right then I have cause to worry that there are undiscovered mistakes in other, more complex sections.

I voted "No" because the small pay increases that do exist will be largely cancelled out for basically having to fund your own retirement from this point onward while paying as much as $2000/year extra for your healthcare. Because there are unadvertised concessions in the new work rule sections. Because the sum total of this mediocrity is locked down in a six year TA, which means you will probably have to live with it for 8 years at the very least.

Most importantly, I voted "No" because this is fixable.

I don't heed the fear mongering. When I hear "The company drew a line in the sand," I take a deep breath, recall the Unity you've shown, and say...So? When I hear "If we don't take this crummy deal now it could be a while before we get a better one," I say...Our pilots would rather wait one year for the right deal than live with this one for eight.

Will the economy be a lesser one next year? Maybe. Will the NMB take a break for a bit? Maybe. Those are considerations. Understand though, that they are only considerations. Those aren't unassailable monsters hiding under your bed at night, as some would have you believe. Understand that there's a bit of fear mongering going on, brought to you by those who are emotionally invested in this TA for having created it, and who will suffer great embarrassment should you reject it in confirmation that they fell short of the mark.

Please also understand; Basic human nature dictates that anyone who creates a TA and is charged with presenting it to you in webcasts, videos and road shows is unlikely to say that there were mistakes made. They are not likely to tell either you or your MEC that there was money left on the table. It's basic human nature to say, "If we didn't get it, it couldn't be gotten." Personally, I don't believe a word of that because my faith is in you—the pilots who are the power in that video above.

You Are The Solution

Again, I'm not here to arm-twist your vote. I'm here to explain mine and to reassure you that the world doesn't end if you reject this TA. If you stand firm, you aren't going to be stranded in a negotiating desert. If you turn it down and send us back to the table, your MEC will have a mandate to:

Poll you
Learn what needs to be fixed
Fix it
That might happen in a month or it might happen a year, but if you want it then it will happen, because you will make it happen.

If you don't reject this TA? Well, we will all just live with it. Exactly what it is (and isn't) will be the subject of a series of comms to follow.

It's guys like Don Ray (block 1 rep) that allow me to keep the faith. I think his letter indicating why he voted not to accept this t/a should be distributed to all. Thank you, Captain Ray!

This TA is insulting on all levels. I read all the data from the actual TA. The information being provided via Roadshows and the YouTube Videos DOES NOT provide data regarding many areas of "grey matter" and blanks. This TA is concessionary at best!

Pilots questioning these areas and concerns are either discounted, ignored or redirected.

Roadshows were nothing more than a "sale" job. Why were the LEC members that did not vote in favor of this TA be allowed to present their opinions and answer questions side by side with the NC Chairman and the SME's? Why weren't the dissenting LEC members permitted to post videos to the membership explaining serious flaws in the TA? Why did the dissenting LEC members have to take refuge at the back of the room with their "booth" to present data which was then drowned out by loud music? What sort of Union does that to their membership? What sort of Union puts a "spin" trying to sway the membership in a direction that may not be in the best interest of the entire pilot group? Why has the MEC Chairman not taken a "position" as to the TA yet LEC has?

Unless you read the entire TA, cover to cover you will not have the "TRUTH" If you form your opinion based on the "Immediate Carrot" (money) in your face and the Videos, you are selling yourself and your fellow pilots short. God forbid we have to live with this for what will likely be 10 YEARS! I commend those LEC leaders who did not vote in favor and posted their reasons why. I cannot understand why they are being inhibited by the very Union that is suppose to represent us. What gives?

What gives is what has always given. The no voters get their one ALPA email to send out, and then their voice is stifled. Same political BS that goes on everywhere.

Block 1 Rep speaks for me.

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.

Wow. Your block rep seems reincarnated from Vichy France.

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.

[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.

[QUOTE=Viper446;1973123]Thats the best comment on APC about the TA that I have heard so far.

I would agree with the comments that the selling seems to be done only on the negative side. I am a yes vote, and the reasons are essentially stated in the last paragraph of the block rep. After checking emotion at the door, the benefits of this TA outweigh DAL or AMR and there is little leverage left for the NC to exercise with the corporation to improve results.

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.

:confused:


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.

You beat me to it! ;)

Step 1: Freeze the A Plan.
Step 2: Bonuses for Executives.
Step 3: Discard A Plan.
Step 4: Bonuses for Executives.

Exactly!

They just went immediately to steps 3 and 4 with the other employee groups because they didn't have ALPA in the way.

I am not settling for a 9% B Plan--it is a frozen A plan coupled with 18% B. I can't count on the A plan (frozen or not). Would FedEx try to come after the A plan? Of course! That is their job! The frozen part merely eliminates the need for FedEx to continue to pour $ Billions into the fund and deal with the long-term liabilities and regulatory hurdles put in place after the Enron fiasco and the Dodd-Frank requirements. While AA has the A plan frozen, I personally believe it is a pipe dream for the AA pilots to think it could be re-established. The amount of $$$ that would be required to bring the fund back up to required level would be astronomical!

You may be of the opinion that I am selling myself short--I certainly respect your opinion but I do not agree. The lack of leverage after 2015 peak (when negotiations would recommence if this doesn't pass) the time value of money we lose by not taking the TA offered, and the very real possibility that TA2 would not be substantially better influence my decision. I personally do not think the gains in TA2 would improve dramatically. To do so would leave the company vulnerable to the next TA several years down the road with the pilot force believing that as a matter of course they should vote down the TA because the trend is we will get something better. (Ask the AirTran pilots how that worked out...the MEC turned down the first offer of pay and seniority from SWA without even sending it out for a vote. The second--and final and accepted--offer was substantially worse).

I have had the mantra "my negotiating committee speaks for me" preached at me for over a decade--and now that they have spoken, most of the posters on this board are more than anxious to send them packing. Could the TA be better, sure, but I have to trust the men and women we put in place to get the best deal possible. Politics and personal preferences will always play a part, but that is life--here, home, church..wherever.

I have read the TA. Our numbers are commensurate with AA, we still have our A plan, no PBS, no messing with vacation, changes to section 8 that will help the vast majority of pilots, and improvements to the B plan. The B plan changes are not stellar, but SWA has only a 401k match (same effect as B Plan) with a 9.3% match. They have profit sharing and we have the biggest A plan in the industry by far (that everyone on this forum seems willing to fall on their sword for because it isn't even BIGGER!)

I respect your opinion to vote no, just as I will vote yes and those fellow pilots (in both seats in several fleets) that I have discussed this with are ready to vote yes as well.

I respect your voice and vote as well. However, I just don't get what I summarized from your post (above).

By voting yes you are indeed settling for a 9% B-plan - which we will only reach in 4 years (the typical duration of an airline contract). That is what is on the table TODAY, nothing else. Maybe the 18% you want will be there in 10 years, most likely not. The time value of money, for the life of this likely to be decade long contract, is not a good argument, think about it. About AirTran, well, they were acquired by Southwest. Very different scenario than what we have going on here. I don't think that comparison is valid in any way, IMO.

Yes, my Negotiating Committee Speaks for Me, is a great phrase to display unity, but now YOU and I have our vote, otherwise the NC would have voted for all of us. What would be the point of sending it to us if we just say "I won't even read the document, and fully trust them with this decision that will affect me and my family for the rest of my career here".

And to correct your last point. Yes we actually do have PBS here already (read the Q&A from our union), and vacation is indeed affected in this TA, by the PBS already on property. Our new PBS (called SLR to not peak interest, IMO), will now grow by 20% of the R-days system wide, and our MEC has no say in the final implementation of this new and yet-to-be-discovered PBS.

Please read the TA, and apply some critical thinking to it and don't assume that "My Negotiating Committee Speaks for Me" applies to your vote. It is worth your effort. You are signing up for this for the next 10 years, and laying the groundwork for the next contract as well.

I suggest you read two book before casting your vote. Retirement Heist - Pension Fraud Book - Ellen Schultz


Hedrick Smith** Who Stole the American Dream?

Why does anyone, pilot or Union compare FedEx to AA, DAL or United? We never have been in the past but now the Union shows our pay rates vs AA? I don't care what the majors make, pay isn't the issue, its QOL, retirement and contract language that can't be abused by the company. We operate differently from the majors and have been told long ago by management, we aren't the same. Cargo cutout comes to mind. But to compare ourselves to companies that have gone through a bankruptcy is pointless. Why should we look at the major airlines and say we are lucky to have what we have? We do have what we have because of our Union and our resolve. I don't understand why anyone would lay down over the retirement issue. Our retirement needs to be resolved for those about to retire and those that will retire in 25 yrs or more. But I guess the feeling is we should pass this TA and ignore a better retirement because we can just stuff our pockets with the new pay rates. Can we expect everyone to ***** themselves out after the TA passes because they'll have no choice but to prepare for retirement?Heck, I'm surprised the company hasn't told us that already.

When the Majors are all doing well, we are not like them. The reverse is true. That seems to be the prevailing logic!

Now that you put it that way...:rolleyes:

AA - passenger airline that is actually in the red looking back over the last three reporting years is your benchmark?

So, we have cost of living pay numbers "commensurate" with a profitless passenger airline, we kept something we would have to vote away (short of bankruptcy), we didn't get a sub-standard bidding method we vowed would never happen anyway, we kept a vacation system we already had, we got to keep half (sort of) of the DH money that was already spent on us and the top earners might see an annual $2600-$3000 bump in their B-fund for the first three years.

That about cover it?

I thought we were supposed to tighten up vague language. Instead, we end up with vague language about where a lie flat seat can be and if the company could have fewer bid periods in a year. When that is brought to the NC's attention, they are shocked. HTF can they not anticipate these "opportunities for improvement" for management to exploit sometime in the next 10 years? If, it is as they say, and the company has no intention of reducing the number of bid periods and if, in fact, the discussion around lay flat seats was centered on business class, then why is it so unreasonable to get that in writing and in the TA? Those are just the relatively small and easy pieces of language that need to be "tightened up" and yet our own union is balking.

He lost all creditably when he put this statement in his post!

“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.


When has this worked out for us, I believe the same thing was said about many things before but never goes our way! 380 pay rates come to mind!! Sadly we cannot count on the aggressive contract enforcement via grievances by our own legal team they always want a sure win or they will not fight.

I'd actually argue that not getting A380 pay rates was a blessing in disguise for this current negotiation because now every WB pilot A300/MD11/B767 at FedEx will make B777 industry leading rates. By splitting out the B777 into it's own rate the rest of the WB pilots at FedEx would be making less on this contract, and the only rate they would have pegged to be the industry leader would have been the B777. I believe that would have been the likely scenario.

Remember we turned down ULR at 11 hours when the B777 came on line because we had to improve the B777 rate. We ended up with neither so it didn't work out too well for us on that one...

But, we ended up with neither because of 4.A.2.b. How could we consider passing the long range premium (was it at 11.5 hours) 777 LOA when faced with what the company was doing at the time.

My whole perception of how I think about this TA (look for the worst interpretation and assume the company will exploit) is colored by two major things:

1) the seemingly unbelievably poor track record we have with grievances and how few we actually even try to fight as a union

2) 4A.2.b--the company did what they wanted and the union said that wasn't the meaning behind what we agreed to.

So, when I read the NC missive of the 17th where they explain deviation bank will be higher, I just don't believe that will be practice because of plain language in the TA.

Fool me once....

We didn't get ULR because we said no we want separate 777 rates. - we got nothing in the end, yes the economy went south... we had no leverage, but could have walked away with ULR at 11 hours. That was a huge loss for our pilots.

The union is obligated to grieve any grievance you have if you follow through with the process.

Right now you get the lowest accepted fair for your deviation bank - period. Under the new TA you will get the higher of the accepted fair or the fair when ticketed. Where's the confusion? Regardless, it will not be less than what we get now, and then you get to bank it with a 50% shelf life and a 1 month look back and forward for 100% of the bank. That is considerably better than current book IMO.

[QUOTE=Flaps50;1974112

Right now you get the lowest accepted fair for your deviation bank - period. Under the new TA you will get the higher of the accepted fair or the fair when ticketed. Where's the confusion? Regardless, it will not be less than what we get now, and then you get to bank it with a 50% shelf life and a 1 month look back and forward for 100% of the bank. That is considerably better than current book IMO.[/QUOTE]

My understanding that is not exactly how it works.

Just the way the lawyers like it.

I'm not following the "shelf life" / 100% point you're making.

The way I read it, if you have excess bank at the end of May, the first thing that happens is that excess amount gets cut by 50%.

THEN, that 50% number is available to offset expenses that weren't covered in April. Whatever remains of the 50% after that gets added to Jun and the process repeats.

The only month 100% of the bank can be used in is the current month. Once you start applying any excess to a previous or subsequent month, that excess is cut by 50% before you start.

My point was we never win and hardly ever fight not if 380 rates would have been good or bad. The union and its lawyers stated that it was clear the 777 would get 380 rates and were wrong.

You might want to check about the union having to grieve something. Actually it goes like this they decide if they want to grieve it or not and if not it is up to you to do all the leg and legal work to grieve it! At least this is what they told me personally!

Re the accepted fare two looks, agree this is better. I was referencing (not very well, my bad) the negotiating committee post of September 17th:

Flat Bed seats and Class of Service: A number of pilots perceived the potential for reduced deviation banks. We want to make it clear that this is not the case. Section 8.A.5.c.vi. (p. 120 of your TA) provides that your deviation bank will 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. This rule has not changed. A 'flat bed seat' is defined as 'a seat on a commercial deadhead carrier that when fully reclined is greater than 175 degrees.' 3 seats that you can lay across do not count as a 'flat bed seat.'

And here's the actual TA language:
vi. v. Regardless of the class of service actually bookedticketed, 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 baseline fare:
a. The Company shall publish the Baseline Fare for all scheduled commercial deadheads.
i. For trips in the bid period package, the “Baseline Fare” is a fare quote obtained no earlier than 7 days before and no later than 2 days after the publication of the bid period package.
ii. For trip revisions, and for trips constructed after the publication of the bid period package, which include a commercial deadhead(s) for
which a Baseline Fare has not yet been published, the Baseline Fare
is a fare quote obtained at the time the Company constructs or
revises the trip.
iii. A Baseline Fare is applicable to all crew positions on the trip
containing the commercial deadhead.

So if you're booked a lower class of service (business instead of discounted first), because the flat bed seat will qualify for higher class of service, you get a one time look BASELINE fare.

The two look fares are:
b. The Company shall determine and publish the Established Fare for all scheduled commercial deadheads after the publishing of First Officer monthly bid awards, as provided in Section 25.__, and no later than 14 days prior to the scheduled departure of the commercial deadhead (except where less than 14 days remain).
i. The Established Fare is a fare quote obtained pursuant to Section
8.A.4.b.
ii. For trip revision(s) involving revision(s) to a deadhead(s), and for
trips constructed after the publication of the bid period package, the
Established Fare will be determined:
(a) When a pilot is assigned to the trip, if 14 or more days remain
prior to the scheduled departure of the deadhead;
(b) 14 days prior to the scheduled departure of the deadhead, if no
pilot has been assigned as of that time; or
(c) At the time the Company constructs or revises the trip, if less than
14 days remain prior to the scheduled departure of the deadhead.
iii. An Established Fare is applicable to all crew positions on the trip
containing the commercial deadhead.

Can someone explain to me why this phrase is in there...if you get deviation bank like the NC says for the higher baseline? i. Regardless of a passenger carrier’s nomenclature or hierarchy for classes of service, a Flat Bed Seat satisfies the higher class of service requirements set forth in this Section.

Now for the "rolling" deviation bank:
ii. To the extent that the pilot’s allowable/reimbursable deviation
expense claims for a given bid period are less than his deviation bank
credit for that bid period, that balance shall first be reduced by half.
This deviation bank allowance (DBA) shall be available to offset past
or future deviation bank overspends, as follows:
(a) If the pilot had allowable/reimbursable deviation expense claims
for the immediately preceding bid period which exceeded his
deviation bank for that bid period, the DBA shall be applied to
offset the prior overspend; and
(b) Any DBA balance remaining after application of Section
8.C.2.a.ii.(a) above shall be added to the pilot’s deviation bank
in the immediately subsequent bid period.

Does this mean the "rolling" deviation bank can keep going forward forever, each month being reduced by 1/2, or will it only go forward for ONE month, then be gone. I haven't seen this question asked in the Q&A and it's unclear to me.

The process is nasty if the union doesn't want to grieve it. After a lot of internal processing, they say no. Then the pilot can essentially do it himself at his expense. And, the union can take a position in opposition to you. Not a very friendly system. See the last area in red for going it alone:

GRIEVANCE PROCESS
A. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING NON-DISCIPLINARY GRIEVANCES
1. Pilot contacts MEC Grievance Office with complaint.
2. Contract Enforcement Specialist obtains details and other information and provides an interpretation to the pilot.
a. Unfavorable Interpretation:
(1) Contract Enforcement Specialist contacts complaining pilot to relay interpretation and discourage filing of grievance.
(2) If the pilot maintains his or her right to access the grievance process, the Grievance Chairperson shall file a grievance for processing in accordance with Section 20 of the Agreement.
b. Favorable Interpretation:
(1) Contract Enforcement Specialist, in conjunction with the grievant, may attempt resolution by direct contact with the appropriate Company department.
(2) Failing resolution, the Grievance Chairperson shall file a grievance for processing in accordance with Section 20 of the Agreement.
c. Local Executive Council Notification:
(1) The Grievance Committee shall notify the respective Local Executive Council Representative(s) of the pilot(s) involved. This notification can be done electronically and in a timely as practical.
B. PROCEDURE FOR PROCESSING DISCIPLINARY GRIEVANCES
1. Pilot contacts MEC Grievance Office and is referred to the MEC Contract Administration Office.
2. A Contract Administrator or grievance representative obtains details and receives the appropriate course of action from the ALPA Representation Department.
3. Grievance Representative may accompany the pilot to any management hearings and/or appeals as appropriate.
4. If no resolution acceptable to the pilot is reached after the final appeal, the Grievance Chairperson shall submit an appeal to System Board of Adjustment subject to review by the Grievance Review Board.
5. The Grievance Committee shall notify the respective Local Executive Council Representative(s) of the pilot(s) involved. This notification can be done electronically and in a timely manner as practical.
C. SUBMISSION TO SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR NON-DISCIPLINARY GRIEVANCES
1. The Board will determine whether the grievance brought before it seeks to establish a result or pursue an argument that would be contrary to the agreements, commitments, understandings or policies of this organization as the representative of the FedEx pilots.
2. During the MEC Grievance Chairman’s review of a grievance, any concerns that arise with regard to System Board jurisdiction or whether an undesirable result might occur, the MEC Grievance Chairman will contact the grievant to discuss these concerns before a decision is made to invoke a Grievance Review Board (GRB).
3. In the event that the MEC Grievance Chairman makes such determination and the grievant does not agree to withdraw the grievance, the MEC Grievance Chairman shall report his findings to the MEC Chairman.
4. In the event that the MEC Grievance Chairman decides to invoke a GRB, grievant shall be notified in writing by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such notice shall advise the grievant of a hearing before the MEC Grievance Review Board for review of the determination not to submit his grievance to the System Board.
a. The Association may choose to request an extension or file a submission for a grievance to the System Board in order to preserve the right of appeal while awaiting a determination from the Grievance Review Board.
5. The Grievance Review Board shall conduct a hearing within forty-five (45) days of the notice of hearing referenced in 4 above. Said hearing may be conducted by telephone. The MEC Grievance Review Board shall allow the grievant (or representative from a group of grievants) to make a presentation during the said hearing.
6. Disposition:
a. The Grievance Review Board shall make its determination within fourteen (14) days after conclusion of the hearing.
b. If the MEC Grievance Review Board determines that the grievance should not be submitted to the System Board, the grievant shall be so notified by certified mail, return receipt requested.
c. If the MEC Grievance Review Board determines that the grievance should be submitted to the System Board, it shall so direct the MEC Grievance Chairman.
7. After exhausting the process described above, should a grievant(s) reject the determination of the Grievance Chairman and/or Grievance Review Board, or if a grievant determines to represent himself at any time after the filing of the grievance, the following shall apply:
a. The Association shall retain the right to attend all hearings, receive all documentation, remain a party to the System Board, and take any positions on substance or procedure during the grievance process that are deemed necessary to protect or advance the interests of the FDX pilots, even if such positions are adverse to those taken by the grievant.
b. The grievant shall be given access to the grievance process but the Association shall retain administrative control over the grievance process. The Association shall only be responsible for payment of the following:
(1) One-half (1/2) of the hearing room expenses.
(2) One-half (1/2) of the arbitrator’s expense and fees.
(3) One-half (1/2) of the court reporter’s expenses, including the cost of one transcript to be provided to the grievant.
(4) Reasonable expenses of the Association’s System Board members.
c. The grievant shall be responsible for all other expenses associated with the grievance including:
(1) Any attorneys’ fees and related expenses should the grievant decide to retain legal representation. The MEC is under no obligation to provide legal representation to a grievant in these circumstances.
(2) Trip removal and travel expenses for any witnesses called by the grievant, and any other associated administrative expenses.



I'm feeling more like TonyC every day! :D

I read it as it keeps rolling forward. Once the excess DBA is added to the next month's bank, the two parts become the bank for that month. There doesn't appear to be any method of segregating them to allow the prior months portion to be "gone".

But, I've been wrong about how I read the contract many times, so a Q&A answer wouldn't hurt.

The loop hole is obvious. Just schedule a flat seat on a flight that doesnt offer a higher class of service. Easy to see.