Rock

We never get to vote on a TA until the MEC approves it. It's called process. They vote. Then we vote. We can't vote, until they vote. But we can override their vote if we choose to by voting no. Voting yes doesn't make our input useless. It just means that we have considered what they voted on and agree with their assessment. Just like voting no means we don't agree with their assessment.

Viper446

My point was, if we have the option of voting NO, then we should be able to vote no. I know how the MEC process works and how a contract is forwarded to the crew force. Read my whole rant. I was using sarcasm on letting the MEC control our destiny.

Rock

As this website makes abundantly clear, people are very definitely exercising their option of voting no. You believe we can't do worse. I hope you are right. But even if we do exactly the same, we will have lost the war, delaying any form of a pay raise for an extended period of time just to prove we can say no. And if we do a little better, it is going to come at a cost that a lot of people won't believe was worth it. I really don't believe even the most adamant no voter believes we'll do a lot better on a second attempt.
In my opinion, whether we approve or vote down this TA, the strength of our union has been permanently damaged. Some of the most vocal union advocates are now some of the most angry no voters. For the first time since I've been at FedEx (well over a decade) a majority of pilots are wearing something other than a union lanyard. That might be just a small symbol, but it's significant. We've always had trouble convincing guys to fly only BLG. Now who is going to rally the troops? Certainly not our union. Too many guys think our MEC has sold them out. And too many other guys are going to take it personally if the current MEC is forced out. The greatest leverage we have comes through unity. The nucleus of that unity was our union. CD might be a good guy, but I think he'd have to be a combination of Martin Luther King, Ghandi and Adolf Hitler to rally the troops back into one team once all the pieces of this have stopped moving.

Viper446

A simple No vote shouldn't mean a total restructure of the Union, MEC and NC. A No vote is just, "No". Let the NC go back to the company and say that the TA isn't acceptable. Its a big guess as to what will happen. But the fear of voting NO, is just fear. Its unfounded. If this TA sucks, or is great, then vote how you feel. I have no issue with voting against this TA. The sky will not fall and the Union will not crumble.

If this TA passes, I've stated that I will have a lack of faith in the Union. But, I won't vote on any future TA's just because of my personal feelings. I'll vote for what I think is the right course.

I've been here 21yrs. I've been fortunate to have been hired in 1996 when there was a lot of hiring and growth. I made WBCA at 47 and can sit in that seat until I retire. I'll be around 90 something on the seniority list if I stay until I'm 65. I could reap lots of money under this TA. I'll probably have enough in my 401K and MPP to not care about the pension. But I won't vote for this TA because it screws too many other guys, guys that are just getting hired here. The lack of an A plan fix is just wrong. Are we really going to walk out the door as a senior pilot, and say to the guys behind us that we did them a favor by keeping the A plan without a COLA or suitable compensation? We were polled about keeping the A plan, and our Union followed that lead. But we got nothing for keeping it under this new TA. Some people here get all upset at the mere mention of breaking out a new retirement plan for new hires. Maybe its time to think about it. If and IF the company won't move on an A Plan fix, I think we are falling on our sword to keep it for everyone. There has to be a solution. And in NO WAY, am I advocating selling anyone by creating a B plan, sub par retirement to divide the crew force. But if we vote this TA down, we are voting members, have to have some idea of how we want to proceed.

Rock

I think the "fear" card is over played in this debate. It's basically a cheap attempt to belittle the decision making of people you don't agree with. Similar to bragging about having big balls for clicking on a no box on a website. That's not an act of courage (unless you believe there is something to fear about voting no). We've all witnessed courage. We've all witnessed acts that took big balls. Clicking yes or no on a box on a website requires neither.
I think you lay out a rational decision making process for why you are voting no. I happen to disagree with it. I actually like many of the changes we are getting in the TA. I have talked with many other pilots who agree, including a new hire who can't believe how good the TA would be for him. FedEx isn't his first airline rodeo. He's experienced several TA rejections in his career prior to FedEx and says they led to nothing. Is he "afraid" of voting no? Of course not. He just believes it is a bad decision in this case.
Voting no is taking a risk. We take risks everyday in our career field. But we have learned through experience how to avoid taking stupid risks. Flying an approach at night, in marginal weather, into high terrain with possible wind shear warnings is taking a risk. Flying that approach without loading or briefing the missed approach procedure is taking a stupid risk. The whole TOGA analogy regarding our TA is kind of cute, until you hit the TOGA button and realize you have no idea what will happen next. Avoiding that situation isn't demonstrating fear. It's demonstrating rational thought. That is something we should all respect.

FDXLAG

Nope my point was if we wanted it raised we should have raised it 2 contracts ago. IMO I see no reason for FEDEX to ever raise the 130K cap. I know, you already have a pink and orange A Plan Cap Removal lanyard ready but that ship has sailed.

kwri10s

You're right. If we vote yes, then there will not be an increase in the A plan in 6-8 years. Period. Not negotiable. Since we know there will not be an increase and they know we won't get an increase, then we will have to spend valuable negotiating capital to fight for a B plan increase. For the top half of the crew force, nothing over 11% does them any good.

So if you are over 45 now and the TA passes. That is it. You can already plan your retirement. Your contributions will be cap'd at the IRS limit and your A fund will not increase. Of course, Congress can always lower your cap much farther in the future, and then no B fund increase will help at all. No reason for Congress to want the Cap to be more than the 401K cap. Now what do we do? We can't go back and re-engage on an A fund that we accepted as frozen a decade ago.

Also, the new hires will continue to scream for a larger B plan instead of the A plan as the future value of the A fund continues to drop. Wallah, FDX gets exactly what they want. Out of the A fund business and our future negotiating committee has to give something up to "allow" new hires to have a increased B fund instead of an A plan. It does not take much forward projection to see the path we will travel next contract.

Busboy

Our current top hourly pay rate as of Mar 2012, is $260.61, for a WB Capt. Using our union's stated average of 1,000 pay hrs per year...An average WB Cap would have made $260,610 per year.

Those numbers became effective with the last raise of our last contract. Not, 2 contracts ago.

You don't suppose THAT might be part of the reason that raising our A plan cap was not a "cornerstone" priority for those contracts?

That ship has sailed? So, if we didn't fix it then, it'll never be fixed? Like accepted fares, FDA deficiencies, scheduling, new hire pay, etc.?

mcdbirdman

Okay. So many posters here keep bringing up the A plan freeze as the main sticking point for ALL, young new hires to soon to retire. Let me ask each and everyone of you-What were you promised for retirement income replacement value when you where hired? I was hired in 1989 and I was promised a 50% retirement salary of my highest 5 earnings years. After I got over "my mad" on the capitulation at the MEC level I did the math and I challenge each and every one of you to do the same. Today I have a B plan that SUPPLEMENTS my A plan. Use a 4% growth factor on that B plan monies and estimate your final average earnings into the future assuming that salary grows with historical inflation. Then use that B plan money to depletion while it grows 4% for the next 25 years in retirement. My math for me shows over a 50% income replacement using 300k. Your results may vary some but not by much. Please everyone don't let "your mad get before your money"

FDXLAG

So that is your story, pensionable earnings for guys with 25 to 30 years here is 260K? Sure it is.