Thanks. I don't know either, so it sounds like a job for my accountant to show me the answer.

That sounds awesome! Where do I sign up? I'd love to meet those steely-eyed guys some day! The guys I know are more aluminum-foily eyed guys.

They are such good dudes that they surely must have been Marines in another life!

Here's a funny thing -

Management says an accepted fare system improvement is waiting for us in their proposal...That sounds so tempting.


Fact - They fouled up current accepted fare policy mid contract. There is nothing preventing them from restoring it's full functionality IMMEDIATELY.

A new CBA is not required. No LOA is required.

They don't even need to tell anyone, which is how they changed it in 2006 and how they implemented the sick optimizer. Apparently this method is preferred.

This "smart efficiency achievement" was a mid contract give back. We'd like it back with no penalty toward other improvements. We won't even ask for the money we lost from 2006 until now. This shouldn't be hard because I've been assured from a good source that the company's offer is not concessionary. Therefore this is a no brainer. Implement at soonest.

Yes. Their letter to the membership, signed by each Block Representative, has been mentioned and discussed many, many times here on APC throughout the course of the past ... what is it now ... 8 years.

They did not support a change to the Regulated Age, they agreed to DROP OPPOSITION to the change, PROVIDED that certain conditions were met. The conditions were met, and we dropped our opposition.

(Only a third of FedEx pilots who responded to Prater's Blue Ribbon Panel poll wanted to oppose the change even if change was inevitable. The percentage for ALPA pilots together was about the same.)



Nothing hypothetical at all. You may notice my deliberate insertion of the word "indirectly", separated by commas, into the sentence describing the relationship between Committee Chairmen and the MEC.Since the entire MEC cannot be in continuous session to oversee the day-to-day affairs of the MEC, they elect officers and charge them with those responsibilities. It is the MEC Chairman who speaks and acts on behalf of the MEC to conduct the daily business, which includes oversight of the MEC Committees. If a Committee Chairman refuses to conduct himself in harmony with the goals and direction of the MEC, it is the MEC Chairman's responsibility, and it is certainly within his authority, to fire said MEC Committee Chairman.

It makes one wonder why the MEC had to meet and do the dirty work in this instance. It would imply that the MEC Chairman wasn't doing his job.






.

[QUOTE=TonyC;1760285]
They did not support a change to the Regulated Age, they agreed to DROP OPPOSITION to the change, PROVIDED that certain conditions were met. The conditions were met, and we dropped our opposition.

That is one of the main reasons you guys were ousted. You still don't seem to get that.

I don't know what you mean by "you guys" or who you think was ousted. If you're referring to me, I wasn't on the MEC then. Nobody who was on the MEC then was ousted. Our current Secretary-Treasurer was a Block Rep who signed the letter.

So, maybe you could clarify.






.

I mean guys from that regime and those that continue to pine for their return.

Does "that regime" include the FedEx ALPA R&I Committee Chairman who served on Prater's Blue Ribbon Panel that commissioned the poll? Question 1: "Do you want the regulated age to change to 65?"






.

Which would be immediately be taxed at your normal rate instead of growing taxed deferred in a retirement vehicle of your choosing........