Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo > FedEx
TA lack of balance versus Contract 2006 >

TA lack of balance versus Contract 2006

Notices

TA lack of balance versus Contract 2006

Old 10-06-2015, 10:33 AM
  #1  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
maddogpyrat's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 777 Helm
Posts: 17
Default TA lack of balance versus Contract 2006

During my 2004-2006 stint on the MEC, ALPA strove to reach a balanced Contract, not only from Section to Section, but from the most junior pilot to the most senior. Contract 2006 thus gained somewhat less direct compensation in order to achieve improvements in health care and pension funding. The former R&I chairman (who became MEC Chairman) was a prime mover to establish the VEBA, fund the $25K HRA, formulate the DB multiplier for older pilots and, thru MEC efforts, gained an additional 2% B-Plan bump (implemented early in the Contract, to total 7%). The intent was to begin the process to move away from a DB-centered pension towards a DC-funded pension. It was ALPA’s intent in 2006 that the next Contract (2011) would continue that process.

Instead, in the 2011 Contract extension, our MEC Chairman (our Contract 2006 R&I chairman), led us away from this process, abandoning each aspect outlined above in two ill-thought out Section 3 inflation-only pay bumps. In the grossest of terms, this is exactly what we face in the 2015 TA. The TA has a taxable, dues-paying bump of Section 3 compensation that is eaten away by Company-planned scheduling and bidding efficiencies. The TA significantly shifts Section 27 health care costs into our wallets. The TA makes the erroneous assumption that Section 28 incentives to delay retirement and fly sick, along with minimal (and delayed) B-Plan bumps somehow make meaningful pension plan improvements.

So, it’s been nearly 5 years since our exchange of openers in 2010. After a review of both the Company’s and ALPA’s PDF openers, I’m struck by how many specific goals the Company attained, and how ALPA fell well short of many improvements.

Section 3, clearly the only area where ALPA made some gains, albeit at the cost of givebacks or efficiencies in other Sections. Contrary to the balanced approach in Contract 2006, this TA seems to stand alone on this one leg of the “stool” (for those of you who were around in 2006).

Section 8, ALPA wanted to “address class of service rules”, which we did, downwards, losing to the “flat bed” provision while also losing a day of pay. These match the Company’s openers. So we trade dollars and comfort for an extension of the deviation bank.

Section 11, Company clearly met their prime opener, expanding use of professional instructors. ALPA met their goal for a significant increase in instructor override pay.

Section 12, ALPA met some goals with max landings adjusted and trip extension reductions. Company meets goal of gained efficiencies thru 8-in-24 language changes.

Section 24, Company met their goal to eliminate “bid to relieve excess”. Both parties gained bid for training slots.

Section 25. Very complex for us line dogs to decode, but Company indicates in their press releases that they’ve gained efficiencies to offset Section 3 expense. I was struck by the amount of permissive language, elimination of which was a major overall ALPA goal. I am also troubled by the side-door implementation of PBS thru the Secondary Line Replacement System.

Section 27. Clear giveback to Company, meeting many of their openers (CDHP, close HRAs, reduce Company cost share to “industry trends”). Clear loss to ALPA openers with loss of $25K HRA, increase of overall health care cost to pilots from 11% of cost to 20%, thus resulting in increased impediments to pre-regulated age retirement.

Section 28. Clear cost-neutral solution for Company, while helping Company manage their manning shortfalls thru incentives to work thru peak of each year (Dec retirement notice $$) and incentive to fly sick (SLB “bonus”). No inflation fix for senior pilots who are near their desired retirement date. Minimal B-Plan bump. ALPA openers were “Improve DB Plan (FAIL), Improve DC Plan (minimal, delayed and capped by IRS limits), remove retirement impediments (increased due to structure and timing of bonuses).

The lack of balance, the abandonment of health care cost containment and lack of pension plan changes are at the center of the reasons why I’m voting NO.

The Way Forward. Once the TA is rejected, ALPA must immediately poll the membership for the reasons for rejection and necessary changes for passage of a new TA. Our Negotiating Committee has shown they are unable to push back from the table (say NO) and must be immediately replaced. There is great incentive for BOTH parties to quickly reach a new TA. On ALPA’s side, reasonable modifications to the TA could consist of mere number changes (ie., Section 27, reduce pilot percentage of costs, HRA, etc.) and reinstatement/adjustment of certain provisions in Section 28 (i.e., multiplier, increase and accelerate B-Plan bump). For the Company, its incentives to reach a new TA lie in its continued high health care costs under the current Section 27 and the need to resolve labor issues as it tries to gain EU approval for the TNT buyout, not to mention the continued cost of labor unrest as it struggles with its self-induced staffing crisis.

In closing, I am disappointed with the stated fears and defeatism I’ve read over the last several weeks from many MEC representatives and Negotiating Committee. I’m especially disappointed in their collective ignorance of pilot resolve this past summer and their inability to have the backbone to use this resolve to make gains at the negotiating table. I’m also struck by the specificity from the minority MEC members as they explain their reasons for their NO vote. No one I’ve flown with or spoke to in the crew room (nor any of the conversations I’ve overheard) are trumpeting this TA as a victory for the pilots.

I remember the sense of accomplishment we had in 2006. I want to experience that again before I retire, as that means I can go out the door with my head held high, knowing that I did my part in leaving the profession a bit better than when I became a Flying Tiger/FedEx pilot almost 28 years ago.
maddogpyrat is offline  
Old 10-06-2015, 11:34 AM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 177
Default

Very well said. Thank you!
Some guy is offline  
Old 10-06-2015, 11:52 AM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
DLax85's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,189
Default

Excellent post --- clearly one of the best to date!

It strikes a great balance in arguing why a "no" vote is justified in both general & specific terms

I feel the second to last paragraph is the best -- however, I disagree that everyone on the NC must be replaced.

I think a NC armed with a definitive "No" vote, and a refocused agenda, will have more power to communicate to the company what's actually acceptable to this pilot group

As always, the company will have to weigh the costs & benefits of what improvements we're seeking

When our collective resolve is properly articulated and understood, I think they will agree to improvements

It will be in both parties mutual best interest

With this TA, we are not there yet

Last edited by DLax85; 10-06-2015 at 12:33 PM.
DLax85 is online now  
Old 10-06-2015, 11:52 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CloudSailor's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,037
Default

Great to see the pride in our profession, from guys who are soon to retire, is first and foremost in their minds.

Thank you maddogpyrat!
CloudSailor is offline  
Old 10-06-2015, 12:20 PM
  #5  
Gets Weekends Off
 
NoHaz's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: let it snow, let it snow, let it snow
Posts: 825
Default

Sad but true... Many of us were hopeful the new coop approach would work. instead it was used against us to delay. All that burned trust and waiting for this TA. They were counting on 51% but as the above analysis shows, its a hard sell for the Yes vote.
NoHaz is offline  
Old 10-06-2015, 12:41 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,108
Default

Hey maddog - your memory is incorrect. There was a 1% increase to the DC plan at DOS+1 year. 2015 has a 1% immediately and a 1% down the line - in other words, it is a much better improvement to section 28 then what you got back in 2006. The value of the multiplier is less than the total value of retirement incentives this time around. 2006 had a TON of negatives in it - I still here guys complaining about daily. But hey, if your memory tells you that you did a great job, then have at it.
Tuck is offline  
Old 10-06-2015, 02:54 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Default

Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
Hey maddog - your memory is incorrect. There was a 1% increase to the DC plan at DOS+1 year. 2015 has a 1% immediately and a 1% down the line - in other words, it is a much better improvement to section 28 then what you got back in 2006. The value of the multiplier is less than the total value of retirement incentives this time around. 2006 had a TON of negatives in it - I still here guys complaining about daily. But hey, if your memory tells you that you did a great job, then have at it.
Correct about the 2006 CBA, the B fund was raised by 1% (from 6 to 7%).

There were some other gains, 3.75 rig that got us from 6 to 6+24 a day. The 8-10 BKO has been a big gain for long haul international (mainly 777).

As far as the multiplier goes, some got theirs raised to 2.2. That's a 13k/year gain. I'd take that in a heartbeat over the SLB and/or SLB plus or whatever they call it.

First of all, those under 54 don't get the 40k. And, I'm not selling back an hour of my sick bank, so I won't see a nickel of that. So those incentives aren't worth jack squat to me.

I'm not sure why we are costing this as a gain. It's a gain for the company. They know they'll get a years notice and can hire fewer pilots because they can plan retirements better. They'll also pay half (at best) of a pilots sick leave.

I hope we turn this down, I'd prefer to take the 110 million in gains (really?) for something usable.

Last edited by golfandfly; 10-06-2015 at 03:09 PM.
golfandfly is offline  
Old 10-06-2015, 04:46 PM
  #8  
Organizational Learning 
 
TonyC's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Default

Originally Posted by golfandfly View Post

First of all, those under 54 don't get the 40k.

Those under 57 won't get 40K, and those 57 and over only if they already have 25 Years of Service.

Over 58 with 24 Years of Service, and 59 with 23 Years of Service also qualify for the 40K "PLUS".

The amount falls immediately from there to 30K for a bunch of years, then 20K and 10K. Nothing to really brag about here.






.
TonyC is offline  
Old 10-06-2015, 06:59 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2013
Posts: 360
Default

Well informed logical post. One of the best I've read. Thank you.

I only wish I was finding this the norm, rather than the exception, as I fly the line. Whether for or against (most uninformed are for, as they are just lazily taking the MEC and NC's word for it), I'd like to see it based on a thorough review...
BlackKnight is offline  
Old 10-07-2015, 07:28 AM
  #10  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
maddogpyrat's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 777 Helm
Posts: 17
Default

Originally Posted by Tuck View Post
Hey maddog - your memory is incorrect. There was a 1% increase to the DC plan at DOS+1 year. 2015 has a 1% immediately and a 1% down the line - in other words, it is a much better improvement to section 28 then what you got back in 2006. The value of the multiplier is less than the total value of retirement incentives this time around. 2006 had a TON of negatives in it - I still here guys complaining about daily. But hey, if your memory tells you that you did a great job, then have at it.
Check out your FPA contract, we went from 5 percent to 6 percent at DOS, then one more percent at DOS plus one year.
maddogpyrat is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Turbanpilot
American
1446
12-24-2014 05:31 PM
pipercub
Union Talk
66
09-12-2014 06:33 PM
Sink r8
Major
688
09-24-2013 05:12 AM
Rogue24
Major
104
06-15-2012 04:49 AM
AAflyer
Major
24
01-23-2007 12:39 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices