My 2¢
 

My 2¢
If you look at it as a problem, then my issue is I always try to look at the root cause.
I think the best thing pilots can do is to convene wherever possible, (APC forums), and discuss things, get our values, standards, goals, and such together- at least discuss them, THEN we can go and stand our ground as a GROUP. When we get separated, and some of us stand our ground when it is necessary, then we get screwed for standing for what is right. Even if we didn't convene, but simply all decided to be more firm, and active in the matters of the industry I think we would all be on the same page anyway! I also think the main problem lies in the fact that in today's society money and personal gain is more important than values and honor..

Where's MacGyver when you need him?!

Repubs or Dems, irrelevant. They are an illusion of choice. It is part of the dialectic. I read that somewhere.;)

It is no accident that the highest paying jobs are in the most successful business', unions have almost no effect on the outcome. Nor do feeble political endorsements.

If you think the success of your company has nothing to do with your pay, you might want to think again.

We will all find more success in a strong economy, a successful business, low taxes, and reasonable regulation. Everything else is just wishful thinking.

The FAA falls under the DOT, which is a part of the Executive Branch. The head of the Executive Bbranch lives in the WH.

If ALPA really feels this is a huge safety of flight issue then S.O.S.

M
 

This is a troubling precedent being set here. The FAA implemented a different safety standard for cargo airlines which can have far reaching impacts in the future. Just think how much more profitable our company would be if they could implement unmanned cargo flights, since safety is no longer an issue in the cargo world. I know that's a bit of "Glenn Beck style 1 + 1 = 100 theory", but we should take some action to pressure the FAA to make change. We obviously can't defeat the money, but we can have a tea party style/occupy the FAA movement to enlighten the public of the dangers. After all we do share the same airspace as those all important passenger carriers.

It only adds insult to injury when you see FedEx alone had a gross profit of almost $ 8 billion last qtr.... $306 million is a 10 year cost for the industry..less than $30 million a year......

Your pay is only tied to the success of the company, when the company is doing poorly. When profit is down.. Pay is down 4a2b. Strangly, the current record profits have not change my pay one bit.

On this FAA rules remember the mantra from your conservative coterie..We need to end these job killing regulations" ....ironically, implementing these new rules would result in increase hiring. The relatively small cost could easily be passed on to the customer. Sharing the ten year cost of $306 million for the industry is not going to affect the success of a $40 billion dollar annual company. Seems like reasonable regulation to me. But Big business wins again. I'm sure the company will share some of that $300 million savings with the crew force....

Of course a strong economy, a successful business, low taxes, and reasonable regulation is most conducive for success, and I would agree that the success of my company is related to may pay, but not directly proportional. From my experience at UAL, a defense company and at FDX, I can assure you that our salaries are not directly proportional to the success of the company.

And in general the highest paying jobs are in successful biz, except AIG, JP Morgan, Citi, MFS, Home Depot... lotsa high rollers there- with joe the stockholder (small owner of capital) holding the bag.

"unions have almost no effect on the outcome" dont know what outcome you're referring to- the NPRM, or biz success.

If its the NPRM -we freight dogs lost out, but our pax brothers got some relief- I beleive that ALPA's participation in the ARC had a positive impact for the better aspects of the Rule.

If it's biz success - why do business lobby so hard against unions?- note the latest outcry from big biz community on the rulemaking on union organization. But you're right in the fact that in a properly managed company it should not matter (FDX!), but why is big biz so against unions? Collective bargaining may make their labor cost higher than individual renumeration. Have you ever compared your salary & benefits as a commercial airline pilot to those of a profitable non-unionized carrier?

Of course the employer has to have the ability to renumerate, no negotiator can garner whats not there, but collective bargaining enables the union to negotiate for a reaosnable part of the pie that they help create- owners of labor vs owners of capital can agree and prosper. A rising tide of economy, taxes regulation "can" float all boats, but we only get what we negotiate, and that is where the value is.

The CEO of MESA was quoted as saying he would only pay his pilot enough so that they wouldnt quit, and not a penny more!!

The Chamber of Commerce was allied to the industry that oposed the rule, and some of their comments were specious at best, as they are often quoted by legislators when there are initiatives that get in the way of profit. Nothing wrong with profit, but this is a prime example of how the well financed powerful lobby bought their way through the legal onslaught delineated in the report, at the expense of our profession, and in the face of the adminstrations' purported One level of safety that came with the origianl draft of the NPRM.

I would be interested to know how much/if the WH leaned on DOT & FAA in the administration of their ruling. The pdf went into significant detail delineating compliance with executive order etc,

According to the document, the FAA makes the decision based on the processes described therein. W all that's going on in the Nation/World- tax, deficit, Korea, Iran, ... It would seem unlikely the POTUS would micromanage this single fed department rule, ----the FAA as well as all federal departments make a lot of rules, "hey Lahood, Huerta-rule for the pax carriers, but cut out the freight dogs".

Seems more likely based on the pdf that the lobby rolled hard on OMB's analysis- disputing & providing data, as they saw fit, then bringing in lawsuits vs FAA/DOT on the grounds of some of their evidence as documented in the pdf.

It'd be great to have the "inside" story, but after reading thru the pdf, it looks like the corp lobby just rolled the FAA, and created enough doubt, challenging their data, assumptions, etc, and likely the FAA didnt have the legal power to fend it off.

See it often in the military aviation basing battles, the DoJ lawyers just get crushed by a larger and well resourced legal team, where the gov just settles as they can't afford to keep up the fight, even tho' their case makes "sense" and is ethically correct.

Just goes to show how important is is to lobby- too bad that ALPA will never be able to keep up $$$ wise against the ATA, NACA, Chamber of Commerce resources.

Remeber the Golden Rule- He who has the Gold Makes the Rules!!

Hmmm, while I know we made money last quarter, it seems like it was about $342 million. A lot, I know, but an order of magnitude less than the numbers you are throwing out. Where did you get your numbers? Mine came from the quarterly report for Fedex Express.

I disagree. I think the Reps are pro rich people, and are pro the rich people (read, Upper Mgmt, Board of Directors) in corporations. They don't care about the company or the rank and file workers in the company.

On the other hand, the Democrats are the same.

So we, the sheep, get to vote for Wolf 1 or Wolf 2. Most of the people I see supporting the Dems are those who have been blinded and believe they will help the common person. Most of the people I see supporting the Reps are sheep that believe that they WILL end up being one of the Rich People someday in the future. They don't realize it is lottery odds, and they won't make it.

The Reps and the Dems do NOT care about us, and they do NOT care about America. They only care for themselves and their political party.

Don't believe me? Then why has Goldman Sachs been the #1 contributor to the Bush, Sr. Presidential campaign. And the Clinton campaign. And the GW Bush Campaign. And the Obama campaign. And the Romney campaign??? The rich are allowed to run all of the political campaigns, and then the politicians have to do what the rich want, as their dollars got them into office. Voters do not matter in the slightest.

cliff
RMS

You sir are correct. Plain and simple.

My suggestion is to replace all of them with a troop of baboons. The baboons would be cheaper to keep, less destructive, honest, more intelligent, cleaner and far more amusing.
They might even make CSPAN fun to watch.:D

How would you like to replace all of your company's contractual scheduling rules with Part 117? I bet UPS or FDX could go for that.

Curious as to how you don't understand the Final ruling came from the Executive Branch of Government????? It's really not hard to comprehend. They had the final say, not congress, not the senate, and not the Supreme Court.

While a nice number, it contrasts with this

FDX: Key Metrics and Competitive Analysis for FedEx - Wikinvest

which gives us $1.75 B for the whole year, and for the whole corporation vs Fedex Express. I have trouble believing the money the tech geeks and truck drivers earn us has anything to do with the cost of safely operating jets.

Fedex can still afford to operate under the new rules, but I don't think your numbers reflect the reality of our situation.

Two Words: John Corzine

The term for a group of baboons is a Congress! Need I say more!

He is misinterpreting "Gross Profit". Google it. For FedEx it is essentially gross revenue. You have to subtract operating expenses, taxes, and interest to get net income, which is what most of us think of when we hear "profit."

As far as operating under part 117, I agree. Now we have a target for scheduling improvements in the CBA

Actually "He" is not misinterpreting anything. 'Gross Profit' is used in finance to measure how effectively management uses labor in the production cycle. This is a labor issue isn't it. The rule changes will impact this effectiveness. However, when you compare a FedEx annual cost of $10 to 15 million to implement the rule changes vs. a $30 billion plus GROSS PROFIT it seems quite small. Something a few cent increase in shipping cost could possibly pay for.

You are correct the executive branch of gov has a cabinent of 15 different departments: Commerce, Agriculture, veterans affairs, education, energy, Defense, Health & Human services, Homeland Security, Housing & Urban development, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Treasury & Transportation.

The POTUS appoints the head of each cabinent member (department), but I find it unlikely that the WH staff can micromanage the minitua inside of every single rulemaking event, in every single department, unless it is extremely politically charged, with outcome that can effect the majority electorate. (i.e. the morning after pill where HHS overuled the FDA- big politically charged decision)

In this case the rulemaking inititiative had some congressional and political impetus, but unfortunately "we cargo guys" don't matter in the bigger picture of $$ & politics.

From History -the WH appoints cabinent members that align to its vision and goals, but as pointed out by others- there will never be an encompassing saviour- more of a general policy direction.

I'm disgusted by the outcome, but I applaud them for partially addressing the issue and finally making a decision for the majority of commercial pilots.

The $1.75 b number is net income. I believe I stated gross profit. Usually, two totally different items have a tendency to contrast. Gross income is an indication of the effectiveness of labor in the production cycle. Since this is essentially a labor issue, I used the gross income number to state my point. Additionally, " money tech geeks and truck drivers earn" are part of this cost" since there is essentially no product without them. I hope you also realize the cost of these drivers and tech geeks is also reflected in the net income number.

It's nice to see the UPS union showing some leadership on this issue. Thanks UPS guys/girls ...

UPS Pilots Union to Sue FAA Over Exemption From Rest Rules - Bloomberg

We (FDX) just moved one more notch closer to a return to 4A2B.

You're not really that naive in real life, are you?

You seem to realize that the head of the FAA is a political appointee of the president, as is his boss, the Secretary of Transportation. Do you also realize that the OMB is full of political appointees who work directly for the president, and who are essentially an extension of the WH staff?

When the "final" NPRM left the FAA headed up the chain, it didn't have a cargo cutout. Didn't have one when it reached the OMB. When it came back down, after much industrial lobbying of the president and the NMB, it DID have a cargo cutout. You're suggesting that this change was the idea of the most junior appointee in the process, presumably after everyone above him had approved something else?

Everyone else realizes otherwise.

See: Why New Pilot Fatigue Rules Took a Rest Stop at OMB - Washington Wire - WSJ

Thank you, UPS.

I think you meant "Thank you IPA". UPS worked very hard, in a very public way, to make sure the cargo cutout was there. I will be contacting my reps to make sure ALPA is a part of this as well.

I'm not sure why FDX ALPA drafted this press release instead of joining IPA in a law suit?

FedEx Pilots Respond to Release of Pilot Fatigue Rule - Yahoo! Finance

Great job FDX ALPA!!! You showed them!!! :confused::confused::confused:

The IPA law suit is a nice gesture but doesn't stand a chance at changing anything. First look back through history, it takes on average 10 years for a law to make its way through the system and be changed by a court (unless it is politically charged). Even if they prevail we will not see any changes for at least 10-15 years. Look at the Exxon Valdez case, it was settled in 2006, 17 years after the event. Do you think UPS and the FAA can stonewall as well as Exxon. Second, they really have no chance of winning. All the FAA needs to do is point out there are multiple sets of rules companies fly under. This is just one more set, of many.

Because they are lame?:rolleyes:

Except that labor cost at FedEx is classified as operating expense and not cost of goods sold. As a result increased labor costs have zero effect on 'Gross Profit'.

A more appropriate comparison of cost would be to total operating expense, or to operating profit. You are causing confusion by using a term which at Fedex differs little from revenue, but sounds alot like net income.

Of course not ... :rolleyes:

IPA legal should have consulted with MD10 Pilot attorneys first to gather their expert opinion on the matter. Oh never mind, it can be found for free on an internet forum.

Seriously, I 'm not going to speculate at what can be achieved with the lawsuit ... but the option of standing around and doing nothing is unacceptable to most IPA pilots.

;)

Don't take this the wrong way, it is intended to be directed at the FedEx pilots mostly.

This is basically what's wrong with this country; too many people looking for the government or the lawyers to solve their problems. You want to fix this, go straight at your management and use your best tool: Unity.

I haven't heard a peep about the ATP requirement, is that located somewhere else? I know in the original bill it said August of 2013, does that still stand.

I stated the fact that FDX annual gross profit exceeds $30 billion. That's a fact and an appropriate use of the financial term. Maybe you would use a different comparison, but that does not make my comparison incorrect or confusing. It highlights the fact that the FAA's reasoning for exempting cargo carriers based on cost is flawed. I think we both agree FDX and UPS can afford to implement the changes. If the smaller cargo operations cannot compete in that environment, the free market says they will simply go out of business. Luckily, many of those jobs will be absorbed by the bigger companies. This certainly will be the case for many of the regional carriers in the passenger world since the cost of operating the 50 seat jets will surely increase under the new rules.

On the latter points we certainly agree. In fact I think both the we and the company would benefit from part 117 being applied to cargo. I haven't read all 300+ pages yet, but it seems our competition would be much more affected than us.

That is and will continue to be done !

UPS management is our greatest asset when it comes to achieving unity within the IPA.

;)