R&I Math ... X * 1000 =
10-11-2015, 09:02 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by Raptor
I think you have a good point. With this TA, let's say the company needs 200 less pilots to fly the same block hours. They save $700,000,000 million plus in staffing avoidance--if not more as I just made a very quick calculation.
I've said in other posts that our raise and bonus are cancelled or greatly mitigated by health care and A plan. And, beyond that, I see more concession value than gain value in the TA. One of the big value items in the NC paper is SLB which I don't like on principle.
When we don't recognize that more efficient pilot staffing by the company is a big cost avoidance and capture some of that value, we do ourselves a disservice.
I am not as concerned as to the TA value overall as I am concerned as to its value in gains for individual pilots. We could come up with win-win scenarios for the company and the individual pilot. We could easily argue that big gains for us and some gains for the company (by their efficiency gains) are win-win. In that win-win, we recognize our company pilot force gets smaller.
Remember when we had over 4500 pilots and about 4190 now? What happened to that staffing level? Some is undermanned (about 100 I think), some is a little less flying (guessing at 75) and the remainder 125 is a reduction as the company has found ways to tweak our efficiencies. Don't we all think we're working harder. Shorter turns internationally, more multi legs both internationally and domestically? And I'm sure other posters can come up with other changes over the years since the 2006 contract. The company has saved a billion uncaptured dollars to now, they will get a billion more under this TA.
Instead of cost neutral and zero sum all items in the TA, there is a rising tide of value we all can share in. Index our A fund. Expensive but affordable based on what I've shown. It's only a line in the sand because we permit it to be.
And to your question, our TA isn't a failure until the company loses. I just don't want to lose by a blowout. We all say we have a pie to split up. I think there are hidden pies of savings. Give us an extra pie, I'll be happy and the company still has pies in reserve for them to improve their bottom line.
I've said in other posts that our raise and bonus are cancelled or greatly mitigated by health care and A plan. And, beyond that, I see more concession value than gain value in the TA. One of the big value items in the NC paper is SLB which I don't like on principle.
When we don't recognize that more efficient pilot staffing by the company is a big cost avoidance and capture some of that value, we do ourselves a disservice.
I am not as concerned as to the TA value overall as I am concerned as to its value in gains for individual pilots. We could come up with win-win scenarios for the company and the individual pilot. We could easily argue that big gains for us and some gains for the company (by their efficiency gains) are win-win. In that win-win, we recognize our company pilot force gets smaller.
Remember when we had over 4500 pilots and about 4190 now? What happened to that staffing level? Some is undermanned (about 100 I think), some is a little less flying (guessing at 75) and the remainder 125 is a reduction as the company has found ways to tweak our efficiencies. Don't we all think we're working harder. Shorter turns internationally, more multi legs both internationally and domestically? And I'm sure other posters can come up with other changes over the years since the 2006 contract. The company has saved a billion uncaptured dollars to now, they will get a billion more under this TA.
Instead of cost neutral and zero sum all items in the TA, there is a rising tide of value we all can share in. Index our A fund. Expensive but affordable based on what I've shown. It's only a line in the sand because we permit it to be.
And to your question, our TA isn't a failure until the company loses. I just don't want to lose by a blowout. We all say we have a pie to split up. I think there are hidden pies of savings. Give us an extra pie, I'll be happy and the company still has pies in reserve for them to improve their bottom line.
With regard to your point on our capturing some of the value of the efficiencies the company creates, I look at it differently than you. I hate it when people try to tell me what I am saying, so I am going to try to focus entirely on my perspective without implying what yours might be.
In my perspective, we are not entitled to any money the company generates beyond what the company is obligated to pay us in our contract. If FDX figures out how to net a trillion dollar a year profit, that doesn't change the value of the service I perform until they ask me to change what I do for them. If they change their manning model by reworking their network, but it doesn't require me to work outside my contract, I'm entitled to none of the profits they realize by doing so. With regard to lifestyle, I've moved through three airplanes, two seats and three bases before finding the right combination for my desired lifestyle. My schedules have never been less painful than they are now and I am not even close to the top half of our seniority list. I rabidly support people making their own decisions regarding their career progression at FedEx, but when I hear junior captains complaining about flying night hubturns, my pity is tempered to almost zero by the reality that nobody forced them to upgrade.
When I hear people argue that management salaries are bloated, my response is to tell them to go work in management. I'd rather stick my arm in a wood chipper. I don't care if our senior managers make $50 million a year and fly to work in gold plated helicopters. I don't want their jobs. And if I wanted their money...I would figure out how to move into their jobs. Frankly, most of them don't seem to be that bright (current manning problems being one indicator). So if their benefits are a goal, most of us could probably put ourselves on a path to move into their chairs and enjoy their benefits. But until we do, we aren't entitled to their benefits. We are entitled to OUR benefits.
Same thing with company profits. I fly airplanes for FedEx. I don't make longterm financial decisions for the company. If the people who do, do their jobs well and the company makes big profits...well did I mention that I fly airplanes for FedEx. I'm happy for them and happy for me, because a healthy company means I continue to get a paycheck.
In short, in my opinion, my job in the company does not entitle me to increased compensation because the company makes bigger profits. If that was something I believed in, I wouldn't have come to FedEx in the first place, because it wasn't in the contract I signed when I started working here, and it isn't in our contract now.
With all that being said, I would LOVE to see a provision in our contract that involves profit sharing. I believe the company would do itself a huge favor to move in that direction. Imagine the enthusiasm for a fuel savings program if individual crews were directly compensated for taxing on less than all engines or only running the APU when required for safety and comfort. Instead, the company asked us for a favor, we gave it a polite golf clap, and over time we're about back to where we started. Their request required our help, they didn't increase our compensation, so they are now getting what they paid for. That is ultimately, how you establish the value of your services. If someone requires your services, they'll pay what it takes to get them. If they don't, you can argue until you are blue in the face about how much they need you, but if you aren't willing to walk away...you need them as much as they need you. And that is a push as far as calculating compensation is concerned.
When people stop upgrading at their very first opportunity because life at the bottom of the bidpack sucks more than the pay raise, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. When everyone retires at their first opportunity because the pain of working at FedEx makes the reduced income from a pension a more attractive option, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. When FedEx can't hire anyone because no one wants to work under our work rules, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. But if our leading argument at the negotiating table is we should make more money because the company is making more money...we're back to even. The company will give us a polite golf clap, and we will end up essentially where we are now. Which, according to many no voters, is just fine.
10-11-2015, 09:39 AM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 711
Originally Posted by Rock
I've got nothing to base it on, but I wonder if our staffing level didn't shrink as a result of going from 3 seat cockpits to 100% 2 seat cockpits.
With regard to your point on our capturing some of the value of the efficiencies the company creates, I look at it differently than you. I hate it when people try to tell me what I am saying, so I am going to try to focus entirely on my perspective without implying what yours might be.
In my perspective, we are not entitled to any money the company generates beyond what the company is obligated to pay us in our contract. If FDX figures out how to net a trillion dollar a year profit, that doesn't change the value of the service I perform until they ask me to change what I do for them. If they change their manning model by reworking their network, but it doesn't require me to work outside my contract, I'm entitled to none of the profits they realize by doing so. With regard to lifestyle, I've moved through three airplanes, two seats and three bases before finding the right combination for my desired lifestyle. My schedules have never been less painful than they are now and I am not even close to the top half of our seniority list. I rabidly support people making their own decisions regarding their career progression at FedEx, but when I hear junior captains complaining about flying night hubturns, my pity is tempered to almost zero by the reality that nobody forced them to upgrade.
When I hear people argue that management salaries are bloated, my response is to tell them to go work in management. I'd rather stick my arm in a wood chipper. I don't care if our senior managers make $50 million a year and fly to work in gold plated helicopters. I don't want their jobs. And if I wanted their money...I would figure out how to move into their jobs. Frankly, most of them don't seem to be that bright (current manning problems being one indicator). So if their benefits are a goal, most of us could probably put ourselves on a path to move into their chairs and enjoy their benefits. But until we do, we aren't entitled to their benefits. We are entitled to OUR benefits.
Same thing with company profits. I fly airplanes for FedEx. I don't make longterm financial decisions for the company. If the people who do, do their jobs well and the company makes big profits...well did I mention that I fly airplanes for FedEx. I'm happy for them and happy for me, because a healthy company means I continue to get a paycheck.
In short, in my opinion, my job in the company does not entitle me to increased compensation because the company makes bigger profits. If that was something I believed in, I wouldn't have come to FedEx in the first place, because it wasn't in the contract I signed when I started working here, and it isn't in our contract now.
With all that being said, I would LOVE to see a provision in our contract that involves profit sharing. I believe the company would do itself a huge favor to move in that direction. Imagine the enthusiasm for a fuel savings program if individual crews were directly compensated for taxing on less than all engines or only running the APU when required for safety and comfort. Instead, the company asked us for a favor, we gave it a polite golf clap, and over time we're about back to where we started. Their request required our help, they didn't increase our compensation, so they are now getting what they paid for. That is ultimately, how you establish the value of your services. If someone requires your services, they'll pay what it takes to get them. If they don't, you can argue until you are blue in the face about how much they need you, but if you aren't willing to walk away...you need them as much as they need you. And that is a push as far as calculating compensation is concerned.
When people stop upgrading at their very first opportunity because life at the bottom of the bidpack sucks more than the pay raise, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. When everyone retires at their first opportunity because the pain of working at FedEx makes the reduced income from a pension a more attractive option, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. When FedEx can't hire anyone because no one wants to work under our work rules, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. But if our leading argument at the negotiating table is we should make more money because the company is making more money...we're back to even. The company will give us a polite golf clap, and we will end up essentially where we are now. Which, according to many no voters, is just fine.
With regard to your point on our capturing some of the value of the efficiencies the company creates, I look at it differently than you. I hate it when people try to tell me what I am saying, so I am going to try to focus entirely on my perspective without implying what yours might be.
In my perspective, we are not entitled to any money the company generates beyond what the company is obligated to pay us in our contract. If FDX figures out how to net a trillion dollar a year profit, that doesn't change the value of the service I perform until they ask me to change what I do for them. If they change their manning model by reworking their network, but it doesn't require me to work outside my contract, I'm entitled to none of the profits they realize by doing so. With regard to lifestyle, I've moved through three airplanes, two seats and three bases before finding the right combination for my desired lifestyle. My schedules have never been less painful than they are now and I am not even close to the top half of our seniority list. I rabidly support people making their own decisions regarding their career progression at FedEx, but when I hear junior captains complaining about flying night hubturns, my pity is tempered to almost zero by the reality that nobody forced them to upgrade.
When I hear people argue that management salaries are bloated, my response is to tell them to go work in management. I'd rather stick my arm in a wood chipper. I don't care if our senior managers make $50 million a year and fly to work in gold plated helicopters. I don't want their jobs. And if I wanted their money...I would figure out how to move into their jobs. Frankly, most of them don't seem to be that bright (current manning problems being one indicator). So if their benefits are a goal, most of us could probably put ourselves on a path to move into their chairs and enjoy their benefits. But until we do, we aren't entitled to their benefits. We are entitled to OUR benefits.
Same thing with company profits. I fly airplanes for FedEx. I don't make longterm financial decisions for the company. If the people who do, do their jobs well and the company makes big profits...well did I mention that I fly airplanes for FedEx. I'm happy for them and happy for me, because a healthy company means I continue to get a paycheck.
In short, in my opinion, my job in the company does not entitle me to increased compensation because the company makes bigger profits. If that was something I believed in, I wouldn't have come to FedEx in the first place, because it wasn't in the contract I signed when I started working here, and it isn't in our contract now.
With all that being said, I would LOVE to see a provision in our contract that involves profit sharing. I believe the company would do itself a huge favor to move in that direction. Imagine the enthusiasm for a fuel savings program if individual crews were directly compensated for taxing on less than all engines or only running the APU when required for safety and comfort. Instead, the company asked us for a favor, we gave it a polite golf clap, and over time we're about back to where we started. Their request required our help, they didn't increase our compensation, so they are now getting what they paid for. That is ultimately, how you establish the value of your services. If someone requires your services, they'll pay what it takes to get them. If they don't, you can argue until you are blue in the face about how much they need you, but if you aren't willing to walk away...you need them as much as they need you. And that is a push as far as calculating compensation is concerned.
When people stop upgrading at their very first opportunity because life at the bottom of the bidpack sucks more than the pay raise, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. When everyone retires at their first opportunity because the pain of working at FedEx makes the reduced income from a pension a more attractive option, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. When FedEx can't hire anyone because no one wants to work under our work rules, we'll have more power to negotiate a better contract. But if our leading argument at the negotiating table is we should make more money because the company is making more money...we're back to even. The company will give us a polite golf clap, and we will end up essentially where we are now. Which, according to many no voters, is just fine.
One of the first things I heard from a union committee chair I know was that the NC had signed NDAs and they were convinced when they saw the company books that the contract and pension we wanted were unaffordable. He didn't know the exact numbers, but there was enough overheard talk in the hallways for him to surmise this. That's what started me on this path.
I think showing the contract is affordable, we are a small portion of the overall cost, and that the company has saved billions with the past CBA and with this coming TA ARE factors when deciding if I think this TA is good enough and if I think we can improve things in TA 2.0.
10-11-2015, 10:03 AM
#53
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Rock
I've got nothing to base it on, but I wonder if our staffing level didn't shrink as a result of going from 3 seat cockpits to 100% 2 seat cockpits...
As part of its member education I would love it if midway in a contract the union would analyze the last contract and educate us on what changes resulted in what efficiencies for the company. How it effected manning and what they saved. Call it an after action report.
10-11-2015, 05:25 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
As far as pilots are concerned, the biggest efficiency gains for a company with PBS come from the removal of conflict provisions for vacation and training. Pilots don't care for example, about the gains from ditching a department of experienced employees in favor of a cheap button pusher who largely refers you to the reasons report or to call the vendor or union rep. If the SIG wrote reserve lines there could be massive shifts moving 20% of the blocks to the secondary process, but that's not the case. The raw reserve lines and blocks today represent what the company's magic 8 ball forecaster predicts as the needed reserve coverage. While the point about a one day block is valid, it seems more likely that they'll keep the blocks where they wanted them. After all it's what they wanted and it's not like they knew beforehand who was going to bid/receive what line with respects to conflicts or how they'll handle it. The biggest likely effect of all of this is that the very bottom guys now could have some ugly stretches of reserve as those even slightly above them get a measure of choice with days off. I can see the very bottom guys ending up with schedules that have only one day off between R day stretches for most of the month and one big stretch off because of which R day blocks are available when their lines are constructed. We don't fly the level of block hours as our pax brethren, but there are cases when writing lines like that reduces efficiency because you can't legally use an 'available' reserve due to FAR or contract limitations.
10-11-2015, 06:36 PM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Daniel Larusso
... I can see the very bottom guys ending up with schedules that have only one day off between R day stretches for most of the month and one big stretch off because of which R day blocks are available when their lines are constructed...
10-11-2015, 07:06 PM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by Rock
...But if our leading argument at the negotiating table is we should make more money because the company is making more money...we're back to even...
You guys should pay more in health care and take a lessor retirement because were making more money
(...Record stock prices, record stock buybacks, increase in product pricing 4-5% every year, increase in fuel surcharges)
Your argument is that we don't necessarily deserve more when the company is doing well
OK --- but we somehow deserve less in healthcare & retirement ???
10-11-2015, 07:43 PM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,196
Originally Posted by DLax85
OK --- but we somehow deserve less in healthcare & retirement ???
Side note, but did anyone else notice the predicted rate of inflation for 2015 is .1%?
Last edited by Rock; 10-11-2015 at 08:01 PM.
10-11-2015, 08:01 PM
#59
Organizational Learning
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by Rock
... we lost the healthcare fight the same time the company (and I would argue the country) did...the day Obamacare started.
Until then, our benefits cannot be reduced, and our costs cannot be increased more than 6% per year. Our current TA, effective now and until a new TA is ratified, protects us from external changes.
Approve the TA, and there's no limit to how high the costs will be.
.
10-11-2015, 08:12 PM
#60
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by Rock
What we deserve isn't really definable because there are an infinite number of opinions and variables that make up that value.... Finally, our pension is not being reduced. Part of it isn't changing and the other part was increased.
...You could argue that the predicted value of our A plan will be less in the future, but you can't argue that the company is shrinking our pension.
Predicted rates of inflation are shrinking the potential value of our pension. What those rates will be, and whether they will be offset by the combined increase in our payrates and the eventual 2% increase in our B plan matching is unknown.
Side note, but did anyone else notice the predicted rate of inflation for 2015 is .1%?
...You could argue that the predicted value of our A plan will be less in the future, but you can't argue that the company is shrinking our pension.
Predicted rates of inflation are shrinking the potential value of our pension. What those rates will be, and whether they will be offset by the combined increase in our payrates and the eventual 2% increase in our B plan matching is unknown.
Side note, but did anyone else notice the predicted rate of inflation for 2015 is .1%?
Assuming a FAE based on 1,000 hrs a year & max WB (or NB) Capt pay rates, what's the ratio between the earned A fund pension payment & the FAE
...today?
...and someone retiring in 5 years under this TA?
...and beyond ? (assuming the $260K cap stays in place forever)
I'll head to bed while you run the numbers
(Note: Let's argue the pros & cons of the contract, but let's be genuine in our arguments and the associated math)
Now, I'll fully admit --- there is a B fund increase value that can make our overall retirement (A & B) equivalent, but I assure you these two 1% bumps are not it
It will take a B plan bump of 5-6% to keep the total retirement ratio constant.
Remember, the company's argument with the A plan is the new govt imposed accrual accounting methods for DB plans
That's not stopping them for paying more in B fund/DC plan which does not put any future liability on their books
It an important issue we should address now, not in 6 years
Last edited by DLax85; 10-11-2015 at 08:27 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
