Nothing changed on the js issue. It is only an incorporation of a grievance letter from 2008 that is currently in the contract.

^^^Exactly.

I am still unclear about the company jumpseat language, but I do know the language was changed from 'Operational Deadhead' to 'Business Necessity Deadhead'. That could mean nothing, but it could also be one snuck past us. I thought one of our 'lines in the sand' was to clean up the language in the contract to not allow the company leeway into loopholes. It seems we failed there, big time.

As busdriver12 says, clean up the language, make absolutely sure that GetRealDude's points are absolutely valid, and then distribute. I will do the same.

Of course, it is not in anyone's best interest to bring this up in a contentious way on the way out to the jet, or while operating. Now, on a layover dinner or breakfast, I think this is a great idea. I still am 1/2 way through the document, line by line (will pick it back up on Tuesday). I think there are many though, whose vote can be swayed (maybe even FDXLAG apparently!!! ), because they will not take the time to read or educate themselves on the TA. The TA that will be set in stone, and we will live and breathe it for the next 10 years!!! Not only that, it paves the way for the A-plan to never again be improved, regardless of the company's cash position and profits. It also paves the way for future negotiations. The company now can see, that even after stalling, delaying, PBS tactics, undermanned situation, they can still present us with a tremendously concession-riddled contract, and have us divided. Imagine when the macro environment for negotiations is completely working against us...

GetRealDude,

To at least level the playing field in the information arena, you need to develop some sound talking points.

Just like our roadshows will be full of talking points for the YES vote, we need those one-liners to describe each and every concession. Just like [xyz] cable news, talking points are extremely effective (to sway those that won't do their own research).

Personally I think convincing people to vote yes is more a matter of convincing them we will get a better deal sooner rather than later. I personally am tired of making sacrifices well others take advantage. Convince me will give the NC better and more authority to deal on retirement.

This is copied from page 34 of things I don't like about the TA thread -- it's the big picture for me. The details to support it are found in the list I provided.

We all understand difficult choices must be made in life. The right choice is RARELY the easy choice. We teach these BASIC principles to our children. The right choice isn't always the popular choice. Leaders make tough choices.
So here we are at a pivotal moment in our careers. Do we "settle" for the easy choice and take the short term money. Or, do we hold out (collectively for once) and make the difficult choice of standing up to FDX. There are no guarantees and no timeline for a resolution if this TA is voted down.
The rumored comment by the NMB chairman, "You will never be released into self-help" to our union leaders and NC staff sets an onerous and unacceptable tone. He also passed this little nugget (allegedly), "Pigs get fed, but hogs get slaughtered." With those comments and tone, I'd love to see ALPA national and FDX MEC rally to take him to task in violation of the RLA or removed from his position and replaced. I've got a few other comments for him but at press time I should probably refrain from comment.
Big picture: we are in a once in a career moment of tremendous corporate success and profitability. We either accept a concessionary TA with declining benefits year over year -- or we decide ENOUGH IS ENOUGH for once in our collective unity.

None of us have waited this long for this deal. Making difficult choices is for grown men and women. This is real life with real long term implications. We all deserve better and should not tolerate anything less.

Big thumbs up to FH's daughter for standing her ground and not SETTLING FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN SHE DESERVES.

A valuable lesson for us all.

Come on LAG, you're out of here in 6 years. I get it, I'd view this the same way as you, no shame in it man. We will all make the decision that is best for ourselves, and nobody else.

What matters though, in what might be a very close vote, is to help educate those who will not research this TA on their own - those who believe roadshows will provide all the answers.

FDXLAG,

As a semi-interested outside observer, I've seen you repeatedly mention newhire retirement in relation to this TA.

Are you advocating cutting future FedEx newhires out of the DB plan, so that current FedEx pilots can see improved DB benefit?

Of course we couldn't convince you we'll get a deal soon or that the NC will be given more authority on retirement. I wouldn't try, I have no idea when we'd see a new deal, but hopefully we could sway the MEC to look at retirement differently.

Like many of you, I applauded their decision to not split the retirement for new hires. However, like many of you, I also felt very confident about getting gains in the A plan (high 5 or multiplier). After all, it was one of our collective goals. IF, I knew that we would absolutely see no increase in the A fund, I would very possibly reconsider my position.

I don't want to throw future new hires under the bus. But, did we do just that?? Not sure of their average age, but if just assume the average age is 40 (probably much lower) and they have 25 years of work ahead of them (FAA age will probably be higher than 65 then). What will this 130k pension be worth in 2040? How about 2050? How would a 16-17% B fund compare? Hard to be sure, since we can only estimate rates of inflation and investment performance. Would the company be willing to up the offer on the A plan if we split the plan? As you know, I think the company is looking at future hires more than our cost. What if they go nuts and we go to 6,000 pilots? Lots of pension funding.

If they still won't budge on the A fund, how about starting with a 15% raise, and/or a significantly higher cash over cap B fund? My point is that as a collective group, we may be more inclined to push the MEC to look at alternatives. It could conceivably be a win/win for all of us including the future new hires. Just a thought.

I was excited to hear we had a TA, and like everyone else, I wanted it to be over. But I was so underwhelmed by its contents that I am OK with waiting. We all get a vote, and the TA is ratified, so be it. It's not personal with me, I respect your choice. Cheers!

This sums it up for me as well! I'm just sorry that I bumped your informative post up by one, without adding anything of value...

Background information. Our current DB is capped at 50% of 260k for 25 years of service. The company has refused to budge on this. They also want to put new hires on a different plan, we refused to budge. So the status quo the best a new hire can hope to get when he retires in 30 years is about 130k from the A plan. So yes I am in favor of negotiating with the company. More for them, more for us.