Incomplete Information from NC
 

Email today from NC lists how the values add up in the TA. They only show one minus (for healthcare increased costs). Everything else is listed as increased value to the pilots. Wouldn't it be fair to list the costs of the company gained efficiencies to the pilots? The NC has definitely identified many of them. See www.purpleTA.com and look for the MEC TA Highlights link from August 17th. Why didn't they provide the minus value for many of these items so I can get a complete picture of the TA. Show me the cost of company paying for lay flat seats regardless of other nomenclature. (If the ALPA national folks can cost out 2.5 hour business class, they can certainly do this.) Cost out the giveback of the HILO changes. What's the cost of 20% of reserve lines going into the secondary system to be used more efficiently by the company. As most on APC know, the list could go on and on. I was hoping I wasn't going to have this sold to me. I appreciated having the thumbs up and down sections of the MEC website. But, I want to see my gains AND losses to make the most intelligent decision....really.

Every agreement has areas that simply cannot be costed beyond an educated guess. This TA is no different in that respect. However, ALPA E&FA was able to cost many areas of the TA. Below are some of the costing estimates that were provided to the MEC during negotiations1.

• Estimated Average Annual Amount Per Pilot2 (excluding Signing Bonus, International Upgrades, Flight Pay Loss, and Known Crewmember):
  • American Airlines $25,000
  • Delta Airlines (failed TA) $30,000
  • FedEx Express TA $60,000

• FedEx Express TA:
  • Total Amount to Pilot Group in Year 1 $150.2M
  • Total Amount to Pilot Group per Month in Year 1 $12.5M
  • Total Amount per Pilot per Month in Year 1 $2,988

Total increased cost of this TA to the Company is over $1.67 billion dollars over the 6-year duration.
Section 3 ($1.42B)

• Compensation ($1.24B)
  • 10%, 3%, 3%, 3%, 4%, 3%
• Retro Signing Bonus ($145.2M)
  • $134M to pilots pursuant to ALPA Lump Sum distribution policy and methodology developed by MEC Bonus Advisory Group. The difference between $145.2M and $134M is attributable to DC/DB contributions (the retro signing bonus is fully pensionable) and & employer-paid taxes (FICA and Medicare).
• International Override Increases ($6.1M)
  • $10 per hour TAFB for Captains
  • $8 per hour TAFB for First Officers
• Ultra-Long Range Premium ($0.00)3
  • $24 per CH for Captains
  • $17 per CH for First Officers
  • Pays for entire trip guarantee if at least one flight sequence is scheduled for over 16 block hours (currently no flight sequences are scheduled in excess of 16 block hours)
• New Hire Increases ($24.5M)
  • Training pay increase to $4000 per month
  • FDA 1st year pay increased to $100 CH

Section 5 ($7.6M)

• Per Diem Increases
  • Domestic
    • .10 at DOS
    • .05 at DOS +2 years
  • International
    • .10 at DOS
    • .10 at DOS +2 years
    • .10 at DOS +4 years

Section 8 ($29.4M)

• Higher class of service required for all flights 2+30 block or more internationally

Section 11 ($14.8M)

• Instructor Pilot and Check Airman Override increases
• Standards Check Airman Premium increases

Section 12 ($25.5M)

• Change of 36-in-168 to 32-in-120 rest provision

Section 18 ($1.4M)

• Increases in Flight Pay Loss Bank for safety programs

Section 25 ($2.9M)

• Reserve Period change penalty extended to all RP changes
  • 1+30 CH per block change
• Soft R-Day moves
  • 3+00 CH per move

Section 26 ($2.0M)

• Uniform allowance increases
• Known Crewmember

Section 27 (-$23.1M)

• Savings to the Company (compared against current plans) based on ALPA's assumed trend rate of 8% medical inflation for all plans (over 5 years) beginning in 2017

Section 28 ($212.5M)

• DC improvements ($91.1M)
  • +1% at DOS
  • +1% at DOS +4 years
• Sick Leave Buy-back ($68.4M)
• Advance Notice to Retire ($53M)
  • Based on chart found on page 534 of the TA

FDA LOA ($2.2M)

• Increased Tuition Assistance

As you can see, these numbers represent a substantial increase in value to our pilots. The numbers were derived through a standard costing process designed to provide a clear and reliable analysis of the value contained within a TA. We encourage you to consider them as you make your decision. Thanks again for your active participation in the ratification process.
See you on Tuesday!
Scott, Bill, Tom, & Andrew


1 These numbers are based on 4,190 pilots on the Master Seniority List and final TA language as of August 19, 2015.
2 Stated value of new money in the contract divided by the number of years of the contract divided by the number of pilots at DOS.
3 FedEx currently has no FAA authority for ULR flying.

Email today from NC lists how the values add up in the TA. They only show one minus (for healthcare increased costs). Everything else is listed as increased value to the pilots. Wouldn't it be fair to list the costs of the company gained efficiencies to the pilots?

This is the question they do not want to answer! I really love the cost associated with paying for sick leave that has already been earned.

So vote no and cash in all of your sick leave when you retire? Talk about misleading information.

The final roadshow in MEM on 10/6 should be exciting. The MEC and NC better bring their A game because it's going to be intense. Ever hear of the "murder board" in the Navy? I know CD is familiar. Strap in tight boys ...

The block 1 rep has called into question the calculations of the pay rate slope and signing bonus - both related. The NC must be compelled to show the data with every month accounted for since the ORIGINAL amendable date. The interim pay bumps are factored of course. The problem is almost a full year of "missing money". $105 million accounting error on our part? Say it isn't so Joe.

If the data is miscalculated - admit the mistake and fix it. ASAP. Include a company acknowledgement and amend the TA. Simple.

At least 10 pilots will be in the ranks to put the NC to the test on this very subject. We ALL have a vested interest in this calculation and compensation. Not a threat whatsoever. It's a promise and part of our expectation of accuracy and full disclosure from those operating on our collective behalf.

Raptor, you aren't going to believe this, but I agree with you. Presenting one side of the equation is only half the job.

... deleted so as not to offend the sensitive among us ...

That's why I said...."really" in my post. I'm not posting just to complain. I want to know it all--good, bad, everything. If I'm being told we're getting $1.67 billion value in this TA, I need to know what's the value of the give backs to be fully informed. The NC already has said the lay flat and HILO paid for the rolling deviation banks. I would simply like to see the numbers--to see how much we "overpaid"!

There is a LOT of good stuff in the TA. I just can't get around the fact that I don't think we met the pillars. And, if we're not going to improve the A plan, I expect to see tremendous value added in B, 401(k) match, pay rates--something!

That HILO change is a big deal to me. It just sticks in my craw--probably because someday I thought of using it in an FDA assignment. But, if I were presented data that showed that the company was only spending $100,000 on it, I would say that it wouldn't impact that many pilots, so I would be more in favor. Over the years, I've probably used $25,000 or more in international HILO and I think it's a fantastic benefit.

I am very willing to entertain civil discussions. I have gone out of my way to speak with YES voters in the hub to find out WHY? :p

I know the union is going to present the positive aspects of this TA. I am appreciative we get to see the pro and con MEC opinions unlike in 2006. I have had a few disappointments, though, in the process. I have asked, and seen other questions in the Q&A where the answers stopped short of telling the whole story. I have watched videos that glossed over givebacks and sold only positive aspects. Now I see this NC email with value and once again, not the whole story.

I'm a grown man. I can handle the truth. I can weigh pros and cons. I can understand being told this was discussed in negotiations and we selected item B instead of A as a trade off.

Disappointed.

I agree. That email was notably one sided. They were definitely trying to sell it, showing the money going to us, but not away from us.

They have to do something to offset all the very vocal, machismo, inflated ego, burn the house down NO voters that continue to spew half truths, lies, exaggerations, misrepresentations and all the other stuff they are accused of doing :rolleyes:

Ha. I have to admit, I haven't seen much balance from any of the emails I've been getting. It's either one side or the other, the yes's leaving out the negatives, and the no's leaving out the positives. In fact, the most balance I've seen is here on this forum (surprisingly enough).