I will be voting for this TA.

These letters to two of Capt Lutat's Reps are worth reading:

Mike:

Thanks, 3 weeks later, for finally putting in writing your views. In an age of instant communications I find this to be irresponsible and, as I told you on the phone deceptive. Unfortunately, your letter grossly distorts the state of affairs at the the end of negotiations, the actual real value added to the CBA of this round of bargaining, and incites views that are unrealistic, narrow-minded and confrontational at a time when level-headed thinking, objectivity and fairness are the most important values for leadership to have. The persistent "burn down the house" position barely disguised in your rhetoric addressed to our pilots in this letter is dangerous and misleading.

First, where in your letter is the voice of the one member of our LEC who voted for the TA? You seem to be determined to use your position as the LEC chairman to present a single voice (your voice) when communicating information on this agreement to not just the entire council, but to the Block 11 pilots who elected you. It is a gross overstep of your position, if that is in fact how you view it.

Second, you have been strident in your support of Section 11's gains (at least to me), yet you do not even mention this fact in your letter -- and it is the Block 11 pilots that you represent FIRST. Your failure to address your block and support your stated position on Section 11 gains is irresponsible. There is not a single instructor, including yourself, who should not work to ensure this TA is approved. Ratification of this agreement will ensure that along with other gains that this Negotiating team has achieved in every area of the deal, gains in Section 11 are locked-in for years. It is, as we both agree, the first contract in which both sides of the process did not squeeze productivity out of this section, but actually secured meaningful gains for our pilots.

Third, your characterization of "What could happen next" is completely askew of reality regarding negotiations, the negotiations process, the current calendar, and the fate of hundreds of pilots whose retirement is impending and who, along with every other pilot at FedEx, stand to gain with this agreement. In fact, I think you know this; your fantasy of what might happen by rejecting this TA and in turn representing that to the crew force as a likely outcome is inaccurate at best and deceptive at its worst. The tone of this letter is borderline alarmist and follows the pattern of inciting communications that have become typical of your leadership.

I am embarrassed to be represented by this kind of alarmist leadership. Your voice as expressed in your letter do not represent the majority of Block 11 pilots and puts their futures at risk.

I ask that you retract this communication immediately and allow the communications process to include opinions that are not only based in the reality of RLA negotiations but other members of the LEC.

Sincerely,

Chris

Anita,

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 Arcamuzi (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 our multiple 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 Arcamuzi 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 Arcamuzi 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 Arcamuzi 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.

Anita, 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,

Chris

*Though I thought the allegory of the Go-Around that you used in your letter was barely clever, it bears no relationship to how the real world of Contract Negotiations actually works. If it were just so easy… we’d all just go-around, all the time.

 

How about you pull the guy's name, phone number, and email address.

 

Agreed. Leave personal information out of it.

 

Sounds like some attacks are on for a yes vote, which is OK I guess.

I view Mikes and Anitas positions are that, although there are some gains, there are also some losses. Along with the usual unknowns due to lawyerly language.

So, you can look at the whole and say forget it, the package stinks overall. Or you can say that yea, some areas are lacking and others are OK.

Weigh the TA and vote based on what you think you are worth and what you are being offered.

My personal opinion is if Behnke were to read some of the stuff on here he would be crying.

 

He asked that it be associated.

 

Talk about a defensive/attack dog. Somebody needs a vacation.

Does this guy think his LinkedIn profile actually qualifies him as somehow superior and qualified to dress down block reps? His tone is on the level of speaking to children that have misbehaved. I hope he gets ripped in return.

 

I guess he missed Mike's communication to his Local Council from 2 weeks ago. So he publishes another on the day the vote opens, with still 3 weeks to go before the vote closes -- and that's irresponsible? Is this letter intended to persuade his Block Rep to change his mind, or is it a temper tantrum?



All three Block Reps in Local Council 26 represent all the pilots in Local Council 26, not just the pilots in their respective blocks, and they each have equal access to communicating with all of those pilots as often as they see fit. That's how it works, Chris.


I worked alongside Chris in the Gucci building and understand how Instructor issues are more important to instructors than they are to non-instructors. Nevertheless, this isn't a TA for Instructors, it's a TA for pilots, and it has more to it that Section 11. I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore all the other sections and vote to ratify the agreement based on any single section. We will be living under the totality of the deal for a long time.



Informational picketing, attending stockholders' meetings, media campaign, strike vote ... yeah, those are completely askew of reality. Well, at least they were under the previous MEC Chairman. It would be irresponsible for Mike to claim the path after rejecting this TA will be easy. It won't be. He accurately describes hardships and challenges we are likely to encounter, reflects on how we have met similar challenges in the past, and encourages us to stand up to meet them again. Not just for hundreds of pilots, but for thousands of pilots, now and to come.


Because an argument that cannot be made on its merits can gain victory by suppressing the other side.


I have always held Chris in high regard, but his accusation that Mike is somehow supressing the voice of the other Block Rep in his Local Council is very disappointing. I know Derek, and while I don't agree with his position on this TA, I am absolutely positive that if he wants to speak, his voice will be heard.

I'm not going to slice and dice Chris' letter to Anita. I am proud of his commitment to the Subcommittee on which he served, and the product which they delivered. I only wish I could express the same pride in the other sections of this TA. We don't get to vote on individual sections -- it's an all or nothing deal. I'm sorry that this work will fall victim to the failures in other sections, and I empathize with the personal pain that must cause.



Barely clever? Was the personal attack really necessary, Chris?






.

 

An excerpt from the block 6 reps letter:

◾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 does this even mean?

I will be writing to said rep for clarification.

 

Borrowed from another thread, what FedEx has told investors, as reported by Motley Fool:

5 Things FedEx Management Wants You to Know

Here's #3, highlights mine:


New pilot contract won't hurt earnings

"We think it's a win-win contract. It is in our outlook for not just this year but our strategic outlook [...] where we [...] are expecting to continue to grow our earnings, our cash flows, and our returns." -- FedEx CFO Alan Graf

FedEx reached a tentative contract agreement with its pilot union last month. The pilots haven't ratified it yet, but if they do, they will get raises averaging 10% in November, with steady annual raises for the next five years. The agreement also provides a signing bonus of $20,000-$35,000 (depending on seniority) to make up for missed raises in the past couple of years.

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.






.

 

Tony-

We are short of crews now. Even if the T/A passes we will have 1,057 pilots turning 65 (not counting the rest of 2015) between now and 2021.

The rep that I referenced has stated that we are giving back 5, 10, 15% (which is it and of what?) if we vote this T/A in. And, as a result an X number of pilots will A- not be hired or B- forced to down bid or C- FURLOUGHED? or a combination of all three.

It's a totally ridiculous argument and it smacks of fear mongering. In fact, if a pro T/A person had made them it would be trumpeted loud and long as fear mongering.

Also, I read that statement by FDX management as saying their company wide cost saving efforts would help to defray the gains made in this T/A. But then I'm spineless, need to grow a sack and man up...