Again you can think the 2 year deal at 3% per year was a bad deal and still think taking the (already negotiated and paid for) 3% is the right thing to do. Particularlly if you thought we had leverage then but dont now.

We have nothing the company wants.

[QUOTE=Busboy;1113583

If I recall correctly, it wasn't that long ago that we were all hootin' and a hollerin' about this group firing our old Neg. Chair. [/QUOTE]

Dave Webb fired FE, not "this group".

.............................

The FDA wasn't negotiated for the 3% this year - it was for the 3% last year along with a year delay. This time it's the delay that is what we are giving up - and make no doubt about it, it is a delay. That's the whole point the Company agreed to it. It would make ZERO sense from their perspective (and they usually aren't idiots in this thing) otherwise. Regardless of how fruitful interim discussions are, we just delayed Section 6 by another year, and for that you get 3%. If they offered the same thing next year would you take it? What if the economy were exactly the same? If not, why not? I hear a lot of guys that say "oh, no we still want changes in work rules, accepted fares, etc." but they never answer that question. If the Company offered another 3'% to stay out of formal Section 6 (but by all means continue the "interim discussions") a year from now would you take it? What about in 2013?

The MEC voted the way the members wanted and that's great - especially when it was overwhelmingly one way but I'm not so sure that was the smart decision, even with the economy as it was. What was the big gain the Company got out of the 2006 contract? Their was no apparent leverage until we created it and that's the same way it'll happen next time around, not by the RLA or an impasse or self-help. Just my belief.

You're absolutely correct.

Thank you, I fixed my post. And, I apologize to "this group" and any of their cronies for the misrepresentation.

[QUOTE=Tuck;1113541
- 4a2b was still ongoing, as was all the questionable implementation (i.e. max reserve days, max carryover, no equality across fleets, etc)
- Company Safety gave out privileged info to FAA which Union argued against
- Company strongly attempting to discipline/terminate HKG pilots over confusing housing allowances
- Company abusing their rights regarding sick call verification in ANC
- length of time and negotiating capital it took to get ASAP and FOQA enacted
- Arbitrarily changing Reserve day form in ANC and LAX
- Lines have gotten worse and worse

Why do you guys think differently? Albie I really value your comments and I'm wondering why you think this?[/QUOTE]

Tuck,

I'm not trying to ignore the issues that irritate many of us. The question is which course of action is best going forward to fix them?

I believe discussions on section 4 are currently happening. When will it be fixed? Dunno. I'm not sure going straight to section 6 would make it any quicker.

HKG issues? Well...legal told the pilots the offer of amnesty was a company offer, NOT a requirement. In fact, the Legal team made it clear they would defend any pilots who did not accept the offer per their rights under the CBA. What do you think should happen?

ANC Sick nazi? Hmm...back on the line. Did ALPA pushing back help? Dunno.
In any case, that problem apparently is over. I'm in VIPS if you want to discuss this one offline.

FOQA and ASAP have been on the plate since ALPA was on the property in 2002. Maybe a better question is why could the previous group never get it done but this one did. Seriously-not trying to take credit or lay blame--the company has stalled on safety initiatives for years. The real heroes here was the Crew of Flt 80, who finally made the arguments for improving safety the front issue for both the company and the union. I think everyone who's been an ALPA volunteer has wanted this for years. DR--former block 8 rep--probably brought up FOQA/ASAP at every meeting for years. This was a long, long battle. If you want to criticize or praise anyone for the pace or lack thereof, you just threw words at every guy in the process since 2002. Really.

Lines getting worse? First, the 777 and 757 are grabbing trips from the MD11 and 727 with regularity. Bidpacks in those older jets are shrinking. Have you read Parker's quarterly missives? The company is constantly looking at improving margins. That means the company is always going to be looking at ways to optimize and improve their efficiency. We own the bid pack--we don't make the pairings. To protect the quality of our trips--we need solid parameters and a capable SIG/PSIT. You can argue for either hard parameters or a SIG with more muscle--either way the goal is to make sure the trips are decent. How do we do that? I think the key is our next contract, and because we finally have some very SIG savvy guys on the NC I think we have a group who can actually get some solid improvements.

Someone else commented on the thread our legal team is weak and contract enforcement is like talking to an ACP. You know, I said EXACTLY the same thing when I ran for rep. Our CE guy was hired back by the FPA---he predates Webb, Stratton, and has been around forever. I came in wanting to clean house, straighten things up, etc. Then I did some digging and you know what---these SOBs are usually right. Nobody likes being told "no", but the old Q&A book, and past contracts including the 1998 deal all establish precedents that have legal weight. Do we like it? No. But jumping up and down, burning time and money on grievances that we've either lost previously or know we will lose wastes time and arbitration slots we can use for cases we can win.

Think our legal is substandard? Try asking the pilot fired for initiating his own little self help campaign if he is glad to have his FedEx job back, or would rather be back at Eithopean Air flying around Africa. Ask anyone who's been at the proverbial green table if they appreciate where their dues were spent. There is a LOT of legal action that the line guy never sees, and once exposed to it I gained an appreciation for the process.

Regardless--love them or hate them--our legal team has been more in less in place since 2005-6 and predates this administration. If you want to wail on someone for not making changes--you can wail on me--because I flat out backed off my initial pledge to try to change that team. I backed off because I discovered I was wrong...

Bottom line to all this is when we want fixes, there are a few venues available. Direct talks with the company are one, and sometimes we get some traction, and sometimes we don't. I don't remember any better results from the past than we are getting now. Second--we can do some wildcat self help. That s a great way to bun through dues when we get sued, and an even better way to get some guys fired. It also really chaps the public, one of the fulcrums we use our leverage against. Finally, we can negotiate. And this is the crux of the question--which method works best? We've had 2--a whopping 2--contracts here at FedEx. Some say we really only have one, as they don't count the 98 deal as "negotiated". Whatever--take a look at how section 6 went last time here--it took 2 extra years. Look at American, United, and US Air, and see how effective their section 6s are going. Maybe we could do better. Maybe we would also get slow rolled. What we have NOW is 7% more pay since April 11. We have a set pattern of discussions underway. Why do I think this might work? Well--because the opinions of ALPA National's Representation, their EF&A, and the MEC chairs at the other airlines all indicated they thought it was a solid idea, and showed a good chance of progress. Its a bet--but an educated bet. The complaints I hear from others all seem to think section 6 or some kind of dramatic posturing will get us more sooner. I disagree--at least for now. I say let's let this play out and see where we are in Jan 13. As I said--if I'm wrong we'll know this was an complete failure and we will stick with old school stuff.

So, practices like accepted fares? It's a fact, that actual fares used to become the accepted fare, if higher. No grievance filed when that changed. By the time I personally ran into it, and complained...The new practice had become past practice. Now, we'll have to use negotiating capital on something that we had, the company changed and we didn't grieve.

And, our legal team? Contract language...Need I say more?

Like I said before, I really don't care if our leadership wants to collectively beg or collectively bargain. Just get us some results.

That buffoonery occurred right after the 2006 contract. Guess who was running the show? The DW team. The DW team wants control again.

You say you don't care who's in charge but sounds like you care about what they do when they get there.

No, that's not the way. We need another arrogant guy like BC again. That will do the trick

BC was so smart he fired his only scheduling expert during negotiations. Turned out great.

Someone is gonna have to explain to me how it's going to work this time. CB and TH's campaign e-mails indicated they did not like the SIG or a NC full of SIG folks. My understanding is that has not changed. They apparently have different goals for section 6. I don't know what they are but I know it ain't scheduling.

I don't care what they do...I care what they produce.

Our new team has negotiated the same number of contracts that the old team negotiated. I didn't vote for either one.