The True Cost of This TA - Finally the Truth
 

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

[QUOTE=Putter Feet;1985904]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.

Yeah, but you were always a YES vote, Futter Peet! Please don't insult the rest of us by implying KT's comm is so gosh darn persuasive that you now feel compelled to vote yes. His comm is like all the other vote-YES comms, how this is far from great, but how my NC speaks for me, and what would happen if we vote it down, and blah blah blah, and it's a business decision and get the emotion out of it, and I'm smart for voting yes and you're dumb for voting no, and on and on with the same ole bull!

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?

A thought or two. KT says it may be possible to do retirement outside of the contract. This is a major point of his if we say yes to the TA. Our chairman, CD, just said that was highly unlikely. The only way I see retirement outside of section 6 is if the company saves more money via that method. Wouldn't that be silly of us to give away money in retirement without gaining something back somewhere else? But, who knows, it could happen.

KT's argument implies to me that all the other MEC votes directing the NC were unanimous. I say this because I can see a MEC member voting NO now wasn't on board the entire time.

He also proposes chaos would ensue at the union. I disagree. I followed the Delta forums closely. They have a lot (huge amount more) of anger at their MEC and a good portion of them prior to their TA wanted to leave ALPA. To say that the same chaos would happen here is unlikely. The only recall I have heard anything about here is CC trying to recall MA the block 11 representative! MA is against the TA, not a yes rep being recalled! I think the NC would step down, but I don't think we would have other chaos recalls and such moving forward.

But, all of this is pure guesswork. Do you want to live for a decade under this TA? Vote yes. Don't want to, vote No. Let the experts take us forward either way. We are all in the cheap seats.

Did you read AS's latest email today? I thought it was an embarrassing mess. But she is essentially saying management has already divided us and we need to be prepared for major changes in union leadership.
Her attempt to "educate" us on the difference between military and civilian terminology was also kind of revealing. For her education, an "after action report" is not the same as a "post mortem" report. Not really even close. But I haven't been impressed with any of her analogy attempts.

I was rather struck by her pronouncements of how we are ALL feeling, in so many different ways. Whether you agree or disagree with the message, it seemed incredibly arrogant to take it upon oneself to speak for ALL FedEx pilots. No matter how this goes down, I will absolutely not have "shaken faith in our fellow pilots".

She calls that (shaken faith in our fellow pilots) a "consequence we can use to our advantage". Yikes.

And what the hell does that mean? I am supporting the decision of the majority no matter how this goes down. If it's a no, I will do whatever is needed and support the group to get the quickest and best resolution possible. If it's a yes, I will hold the company to the contract, know the entire thing thoroughly so they can't take advantage, and not spend my time complaining about people!

I agree. Those first 4 bullet points are rather assuming.

But, the rest of her message was valid, IMO. Particularly her following bullet points:

A Plan improvement for all
B Plan improvement for all
Substantial quality of life improvements
Hourly Rates of Pay that far exceed any industry standard

Are you willing to let this TA diminish our faith and goodwill?
Are you willing to fight for at least one of your cornerstones?
Are you willing to persevere to get the right deal or simply accept the divisive one that management has offered?
Or do you believe that management has defeated us?

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?

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.






.

I may be wrong on this but I thought the multiplier was for guys who hadn't been at FX for 25yrs and was a catch up.

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.

Her paragraph starts out with "After TA ratification or rejection we need to analyze what went wrong." alluding to some type of failure as you have said yourself. Post-Mortem would be an appropriate term for analyzing a failure and I think there are many who believe the process has been a failure! Also, I have read many after action reports that involved death or failure!

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...

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

Complete guess on my part, but I know the company wants to renegotiate our retirement. It sounds like that was one of our lines in the sand. If we approach them outside of section 6 with a list of options we would now consider, they might be willing to listen.
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.

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.

The company wants the changes they negotiated for. My bet is the healthcare section alone will bring them back to the table and we will see another offer soon so they only have to keep the current plan one more year.

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

Healthcare won't bring the company to the table.

It's expensive, and company wants to share a bit more of the pain with us, but it's still fewer $$ than the pay raises associated with the TA.

[QUOTE=Rock;1986234]Complete guess on my part, but I know the company wants to renegotiate our retirement.

I'm dismayed all too often to be unionized with such low common denominators. I can only hope that we've enough common sense to see the uneven and concessionary nature of this contract.

Now that's funny.

Sad, though, that it's drawn from similarities to the new TA.

Of Course the Company would love to renegotiate our Retirement.

Do you really think they want to improve it for us?

They know this is a emotional issue within the Pilot ranks.


So let's assume as soon as this TA Passes, the Company immediately comes to ALPA and says "Hey lets talk about retirement"
Just a rhetorical question to you. (It would be negotiations after all, even outside of Section 6.)

Do you think their opener would be We want to raise the Cap on the A-plan and Change the multiplier.

They will want something. maybe like "Hey we will discuss giving you a
Temporary A-plan Bump but we have this new Computerized Program for Monthly Bidding we would like to implement.

Or "We have received approval for the TNT deal but we need to explore a divestment of our Intra European flying. CGN will have to close as our TNT subsidiary will take over. We need relief on Move packages home and no more Excess Bids. Oh wait we already changed that :(

[QUOTE=Anthrax;1986254]
Pretty freakin amazing, isnt it?! The comments I got from guys I flew with when I got here in 97 had me saying to myself that this is going to be a long career.

You don't think the company wants to renegotiate our retirement?

Redeye, it sounds like you think our prospects in future negotiations are tenuous at best. On that, we certainly agree.

It is becoming extremely tedious receiving these increasingly desperate emails asserting that the only way a pilot would vote No is if he had been brainwashed. K.T.s letter is not different in that regard; it betrays a frantic concern that their 'product' is being recognized for what it is... No, it's not horrible when you compare it to Delta's failed TA (why would you want to compare it to that?), but it certainly is no victory-- and not even close to warranting a Yes vote from me.

It also is a common theme for these guys to associate irrational thought and emotion with any talk of No votes. We get the same accusatory, tiresome, pedantic emails with the same rehearsed changes that are slight improvements as if these alone are justification of a 6+ year TA-- and in so doing insult their fellow MEC reps as well as a substantial portion of the pilot group.

I also take exception to these guys holding me hostage with their ominous forecast of union failure and hardship should the TA fail. Whether this is intended or not, it comes across as either an embellishment which undermines the very principle of pilot ratification, or a petty threat, their own little punishment should the membership fail to 'control their emotions'. If he did not intend it this way then his entire letter should have been much more carefully written.

I have quite a long time before I hit 65, been here for 5 years, and I believe that ratifying a TA of this quality, given our current circumstances (e.g good economy, healthy company, short on pilots), will set the precedent for what I can expect for the next 35 years. Will it continue to be worth the hub-turns? Or will it just be another major airline that just happens to be profitable, yet completely worse due to the majority night flying and solitary environment

Also, with such an important decision at hand- the trite slogan "My NC still speaks for me" is such an empty sentiment. I get force-fed this garbage from the leadership while they accuse the No voters of selling...

Rock, of course future negotiations will be tenuous if this is voted down. They were tenuous before the NC agreed on this TA. Negotiations are always tenuous, especially if we want improvements.

I have no delusions that if this is voted down that things won't heat up
again as we try for TA part II.

But for a Block Rep to suggest or communicate that we should vote this in and then expect that ALPA will continue to improve the Retirement section outside of Section 6 is Ludicrous. Why would Management do that? They have a 6 year deal if this passes?

I won't attempt to sway you or anyone's vote. Vote how you see fit.
I just hope you vote based on what is written in the TA. If you think this is Good enough, Vote in favor of it.

But, for anyone who expects a further Negotiated improvements after this TA is passed (i.e. outside of section 6) is plain naive.

Red eye, I agree with you. But where we probably don't agree is my contention that the best negotiating environment we will ever have was three months ago. That's why I file the idea that we'll gain significant improvements outside of section 6 negotiations in the same place I file the idea we'll gain significant improvements in subsequent section 6 negotiations. And that is exactly why I will follow your suggestion to base my vote on what is written in the TA, and not on what I hope might get written into the TA.

pedantic
 

Man, I knew we were hiring smart guys. I hope CAVOK84 never decides to join the grammar police here.

Sorry, I had a ton of coffee and woke up on the wrong side of the bed!:eek: Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that there aren't plenty of No guys freaking out over misconceptions, nor am I arguing that the Yes guys should not be equally heard.

It's just difficult for some of our reps to keep their credibility in my eyes given the content of their recent emails.

Delta, pilots restart labor contract negotiations


Dec 23, 2015

Aaron Karp

http://atwonline.com/site-files/atwo...300-airbus.jpg
Delta Air Lines A330-300
Airbus

Delta Air Lines’ pilots have returned to labor contract negotiations more than five months after rejecting a tentative agreement.

The Delta Master Executive Council (MEC) of the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) endorsed a tentative labor deal with Delta management in June and sent it to the airline’s nearly 13,000 pilots for a ratification vote, but the rank-and-file flight deck crew rejected it by a 65%-35% vote in July. The MEC leadership stepped down following the vote, and the Delta pilots went into “reset mode,” according to ALPA president Tim Canoll.

The Delta MEC, led by new head John Malone, “re-engaged Delta Air Lines management in contract negotiations,” ALPA said in a Dec. 22 statement.

Malone said the pilots “put a substantial package on the table, calling for major increases in pay, benefits and work rules, representing a significant—and justified—increase to Delta’s operating costs.” He added that “Delta is one of the most profitable airlines in the industry,” justifying pay hikes for flight deck crew.

The pilots’ current labor contract with Delta becomes amendable Dec. 31. The contract’s terms will remain in place as Delta and ALPA negotiate.

“We will further review the proposal we received [from the MEC] and look forward to engaging with ALPA in negotiations to reach an agreement that is good for both Delta and its pilots,” Delta said in a statement.

After the pilots rejected the tentative agreement, Delta shelved an order for 40 new Boeing 737-900ERs and 20 used Embraer E190s. But the airline earlier this month partly revived the order, reaching agreement with Boeing for 20 new 737-900ERs and up to 20 E190s previously operated by Air Canada and now owned by Boeing. A Delta spokesperson told ATW the new deal for E190s “was done under what is [allowed] under the current contract” with its pilots.




See also: New Contract Opener 22 Dec 15








.

Something to be said about doing it right.

So six months to the start, you expecting a quick finish? You willing to trade for their openers?

July to December is not quite six months.

And while your second question indicates you've missed the larger point (it doesn't take 2 years to regroup and re-engage), I'm willing to entertain their hourly rate increases:

Increase hourly rates by:
22% effective January 1, 2016
7% effective January 1, 2017
7% effective January 1, 2018

No giveback of profit sharing, and

Duration

3-year contract, amendable December 31, 2018


Not a bad start.






.

And its all pointless. No sense what ifing when our TA is a done deal.

It is a nice start, particularly how crappy their TA was, cleaning house does wonders. I didn't miss the point my overunder of 18 months looks pretty good, what is your guess on an approved Delta TA. They are nice pay rates, wouldn't trade my crappy A Plan, sick policy, or vacation for them though. Our contract wasn't perfect, so far I am happy. I'll let you know how I feel in 6 years.

Those are the union's openers, not the companies. Seems that would be the max they'd end up with, unless management said, "Sure guys, whatever you want." Not likely.

They certainly deserve to snap back to what their rates used to be, including inflation, as a minimum.

Did FedEx get a 57% effort from the pilots?
 

I hope not ... :confused:

FedEx admits it will miss THOUSANDS of Christmas deliveries | Daily Mail Online



:eek: