The True Cost of This TA - Finally the Truth
10-05-2015, 05:14 PM
#11
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Putter Feet
This is must read from Council 7 LEC, Block 4 Rep. Well need to evaluate this carefully. No hysteria, just the truth. Thanks K.T. Changed to a YES.
https://fdx.alpa.org/Home/Content/Co...e-10-5-15.aspx
I always get a little nervous when the letter begins with, "I have to be honest ..." I have to wonder, did he actually consider the alternative?
The truth is Kit was a proponent of freezing our A-Plan (with emphasis on semantics of hard vs. soft) and insists that we got everything we "demanded" in the A-plan by keeping newhires in it and maintaining the structure. Ultimately, to him "stay the same" is equal to "improve."
It has already been pointed out that he mischaracterized the Defined Benefit improvements in the 2006 CBA. Apparently, retirement is not his forté.
His suggestion that we'll be able to get The Company to the table to negotiate improvements to retirement prior to opening Section 6 negotiations 6 years after signing is ... well, it's just ludicrous and naive. Never has The Company met us at the table unless they had something they wanted.
.
10-05-2015, 05:25 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 296
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
The Block 4 rep is certainly entitled to his opinion.
He stated, however, that the 2006 Contract did not improve the DB Plan or A-plan.
This is quite inaccurate. It was improved for some. Remember the everyone above the Age 54 issue?
There was a pretty good Multiplier Bump indexed up the older a pilot was (up to 2.4%) which did in fact raise the pension well above $130,000 for the Pilots retiring within 5 years.
This was to make up for the Lack of years to gain anything from a 7% B plan which was raised from 6. It was done in 2006, why couldn't it be done today?
He stated, however, that the 2006 Contract did not improve the DB Plan or A-plan.
This is quite inaccurate. It was improved for some. Remember the everyone above the Age 54 issue?
There was a pretty good Multiplier Bump indexed up the older a pilot was (up to 2.4%) which did in fact raise the pension well above $130,000 for the Pilots retiring within 5 years.
This was to make up for the Lack of years to gain anything from a 7% B plan which was raised from 6. It was done in 2006, why couldn't it be done today?
10-05-2015, 06:19 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by MaxKts
Post-Mortem: An analysis or discussion of an event held soon after it has occurred, especially in order to determine why it was a failure: an election post-mortem on why the party lost
What was that you were saying?
What was that you were saying?
AS obviously assumes that whether the TA passes or fails, the process has been a failure. Personally, I plan to wait for the vote to close before I make that decision. But "leading from behind" AS is already writing an epitaph for us. There are solid and productive advocates for a no vote on this TA. AS is neither.
10-05-2015, 06:38 PM
#14
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by Rock
An after action report does not imply death or failure. A post-mortem is done after death or failure. The two are about as synomous as "examination" and "autopsy". And why even bring up a difference between military and civilian? I consider us all FedEx pilots. But then again, I also don't consider pilots having shaken faith in each other to be an advantage for us.
AS obviously assumes that whether the TA passes or fails, the process has been a failure. Personally, I plan to wait for the vote to close before I make that decision. But "leading from behind" AS is already writing an epitaph for us. There are solid and productive advocates for a no vote on this TA. AS is neither.
AS obviously assumes that whether the TA passes or fails, the process has been a failure. Personally, I plan to wait for the vote to close before I make that decision. But "leading from behind" AS is already writing an epitaph for us. There are solid and productive advocates for a no vote on this TA. AS is neither.
10-05-2015, 06:56 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,055
Our MEC Chairman recently stated that our company will ONLY meet us outside of Section 6 if it is in THEIR best interest.
Now, I want our airline to continue to be the most successful freight airline in the world, but when it comes to our CBA, the company's interests are in direct opposition to our's. How can this Rep. use this logic to support his "hope... that you will take the emotion out of our business decision and vote with me...".
...just saw TonyC covered this already...
Now, I want our airline to continue to be the most successful freight airline in the world, but when it comes to our CBA, the company's interests are in direct opposition to our's. How can this Rep. use this logic to support his "hope... that you will take the emotion out of our business decision and vote with me...".
...just saw TonyC covered this already...
10-05-2015, 09:10 PM
#16
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 798
ROCK, FDXLAG-
Both of you consistently challenge all of us for explanations regarding the plan after a no vote.
Will someone please throw me one sliver of explanation as to why ANYBODY thinks that the company would entertain retirement negotiations outside of Section 6? If the company was willing to fix retirement outside of contract negotiations, why didn't we address it years ago?
Pipe
Both of you consistently challenge all of us for explanations regarding the plan after a no vote.
Will someone please throw me one sliver of explanation as to why ANYBODY thinks that the company would entertain retirement negotiations outside of Section 6? If the company was willing to fix retirement outside of contract negotiations, why didn't we address it years ago?
Pipe
10-06-2015, 03:00 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by pipe
ROCK, FDXLAG-
Both of you consistently challenge all of us for explanations regarding the plan after a no vote.
Will someone please throw me one sliver of explanation as to why ANYBODY thinks that the company would entertain retirement negotiations outside of Section 6? If the company was willing to fix retirement outside of contract negotiations, why didn't we address it years ago?
Pipe
Both of you consistently challenge all of us for explanations regarding the plan after a no vote.
Will someone please throw me one sliver of explanation as to why ANYBODY thinks that the company would entertain retirement negotiations outside of Section 6? If the company was willing to fix retirement outside of contract negotiations, why didn't we address it years ago?
Pipe
But I would not argue that someone should vote yes based on the hope of post TA retirement negotiations. I am voting on the TA for what is and isn't in it currently.
10-06-2015, 03:18 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by pipe
ROCK, FDXLAG-
Both of you consistently challenge all of us for explanations regarding the plan after a no vote.
Will someone please throw me one sliver of explanation as to why ANYBODY thinks that the company would entertain retirement negotiations outside of Section 6? If the company was willing to fix retirement outside of contract negotiations, why didn't we address it years ago?
Pipe
Both of you consistently challenge all of us for explanations regarding the plan after a no vote.
Will someone please throw me one sliver of explanation as to why ANYBODY thinks that the company would entertain retirement negotiations outside of Section 6? If the company was willing to fix retirement outside of contract negotiations, why didn't we address it years ago?
Pipe
But that is just my opinion.
10-06-2015, 03:54 AM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
I think you have me confused with someeone else. After a no vote we do what Delta is doing, fire everybody and start over. I give it an over under of 18 months. As to company motivation to discuss retirement changes, it depends on whether they plan on hiring 2000 pilots to replace the 2000 pilots leaving in the next 10 years.
But that is just my opinion.
But that is just my opinion.
10-06-2015, 04:06 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Posts: 135
Oh please do not negotiate outside of sec. 6. Have we not learned yet?
I imagine it goes something like this:
ALPA: We'd like to address our retirement now that the contract has been ratified.
Company: So would we.
ALPA: Excellent! We want to change the 260 cap.
Company: So do we... We will lower it to 180, but, hold on now, we are going to increase the melon in the crew meals 200% to a max of 2 pieces of melon!!
ALPA: well, I guess it IS a 200% increase...
Company: We are willing to reduce the number of crew meals by 100%
ALPA: Well...I guess if your willing to..??
Company: Now, of course we would like for you to be more active in the procurement of the A plan.
ALPA: yes, so do we...???
Company: We would like to roll back hourly rates to CBA 2006, and invest those monies into the funding of the A plan, at the lower cap. This will give you more ownership of the A plan.
ALPA: Ownership you say?!?!
ALPA PRESS RELEASE:
Good news! after extensive negotiation, outside of section 6. We have gained substantial improvements as follows:
*31% inverse POSITIVE increase in the "A Plan" cap
*200% INCREASE in melon
*100% inverse POSITIVE increase in crew meals
*New ownership in the A Plan
This new LOA has an inverse cost to company of $1.76 B over the next 10 years
I imagine it goes something like this:
ALPA: We'd like to address our retirement now that the contract has been ratified.
Company: So would we.
ALPA: Excellent! We want to change the 260 cap.
Company: So do we... We will lower it to 180, but, hold on now, we are going to increase the melon in the crew meals 200% to a max of 2 pieces of melon!!
ALPA: well, I guess it IS a 200% increase...
Company: We are willing to reduce the number of crew meals by 100%
ALPA: Well...I guess if your willing to..??
Company: Now, of course we would like for you to be more active in the procurement of the A plan.
ALPA: yes, so do we...???
Company: We would like to roll back hourly rates to CBA 2006, and invest those monies into the funding of the A plan, at the lower cap. This will give you more ownership of the A plan.
ALPA: Ownership you say?!?!
ALPA PRESS RELEASE:
Good news! after extensive negotiation, outside of section 6. We have gained substantial improvements as follows:
*31% inverse POSITIVE increase in the "A Plan" cap
*200% INCREASE in melon
*100% inverse POSITIVE increase in crew meals
*New ownership in the A Plan
This new LOA has an inverse cost to company of $1.76 B over the next 10 years
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
