Memphis road show 9-10
09-10-2015, 06:12 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2005
Position: Retired
Posts: 980
Not FedEx but the corporate world has been killing pensions for years. In most cases it was not because they were too expensive but a good way to boost the bottom line.
“IN 1997, Cigna executives held a number of meetings to discuss their pension problem. At the time, the plan was overfunded, but executives weren’t satisfied and suggested cutting the pensions of 27,000 employees in an effort to boost the earnings they could report on their bottom line. The only hitch? How to cut people’s pensions—especially those for long-tenured employees over forty—by 30 percent or more, without anyone noticing?
Cigna was just the latest of hundreds of large companies, including Boeing, Xerox, Georgia-Pacific, and Polaroid, that had already gone through this charade in the 1990s. These companies had something in common: They all had large aging workforces—with tens of thousands of employees who had been on the job for twenty to thirty years. These workers were entering their peak earning years, and with traditional pensions that are calculated by multiplying years of service by one’s annual salary, their pensions were about to spike. With the leverage of traditional pension formulas, as much as half an employee’s pension could be earned in his final five years. In short, millions of workers were about to step onto the pension escalator.
Financially, that wasn’t a problem. Companies, including[…]”
Excerpt From: Ellen E. Schultz. “Retirement Heist.” Portfolio/Penguin, 2011-09-15. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/nuBWw.l
Cigna was just the latest of hundreds of large companies, including Boeing, Xerox, Georgia-Pacific, and Polaroid, that had already gone through this charade in the 1990s. These companies had something in common: They all had large aging workforces—with tens of thousands of employees who had been on the job for twenty to thirty years. These workers were entering their peak earning years, and with traditional pensions that are calculated by multiplying years of service by one’s annual salary, their pensions were about to spike. With the leverage of traditional pension formulas, as much as half an employee’s pension could be earned in his final five years. In short, millions of workers were about to step onto the pension escalator.
Financially, that wasn’t a problem. Companies, including[…]”
Excerpt From: Ellen E. Schultz. “Retirement Heist.” Portfolio/Penguin, 2011-09-15. iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itun.es/us/nuBWw.l
09-10-2015, 06:26 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by SKYKN6
MD11 Hog, Name calling just shows your lack of information on overall retirement planning. You need to go to a retirement seminar. The TA kept the A plan for new hires. The B fund increases are not great but a start. Grumpy
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
09-10-2015, 07:07 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Originally Posted by FDX1
Wow...are you kidding me. You guys are doing a magnificent job of tearing into anyone and everyone that disagrees with your position. From ****ing on the NC for presenting the TA, to dumping on pilots that are going to actually vote yes.
Do you really want to cast stones at the NC or MEC for pressing this out to everyone for a vote? The NC has worked on this deal for more than 4 years, giving up personal time, sitting behind a desk, or in a conference room, giving their best effort to fulfill the wide ranging desires of 4100+ pilots.
Now you want to shoot them in the head and say they are "selling you" the TA. News flash...this is their work product they believe it's worth your professional consideration as it upholds the cornerstone issues that have been polled. You are pointing your ridicule in the wrong direction...try the folks on the other side of the table.
Remember those guys? The ones that brought you PBS, Sick Leave enhancements, tried to steal your A Plan, kept you out on a 16 hour duty day for one T-storm in MEM, extended you over your kids graduation, called you in for jumpseating into a trip to remove you and then extended your buddy in the field to jumpseat on Company Aircraft to back-fill a crew that went fatigued in the field, dragged out a good faith interim deal with a front about FAR 117 that they were trying to get carved out of, slowed hiring down in an effort to save money only to find their prognostications to be way off.
You get the drift...step back, take a breather, let your brothers and sisters that are doing the same job as you make a decision on their own terms.
Let the NC and the MEC present you with the details, the numbers, and give them your questions. Let them finish their job. I am impressed at the effort and the extent that has gone on to provide us with the TA, TA Questions, videos, Webcasts, Roadshows, and phone calls.
Don't like what your hearing?...Fine, vote no and move on. Don't throw your fellow pilots under the bus while your doing it. Whether they're doing ALPA work, instructing, or just flying the line. Makes no difference, we all come back to the same contract rules at the end of the day and are impacted by the contract equally.
Have you found an APC for FedEx Managers or negotiators yet where they sit back and take public pot shots at each other for the world to read? Nope...neither have I. Why, because its just plan stupid and tears at the fabric of what brings us together- and "they" are loving every minute of it.
I have never been so disappointed in our group of pilots as I have been since this TA has come out and it has nothing to do with the TA. It has everything to do with the personal and confrontational attacks that continue to spew venom at each other in a self fulfilling prophecy of "we get what we deserve".
This decision calls on everyone to weigh the facts and cast a vote. It demands your attention, it deserves your consideration because that is what the majority of the MEC voted for. What it doesn't need is your unprofessional, callous attacks on your fellow pilots whom you will stand, side-by-side with, if this TA tanks.
At the end of the day, whatever the FDX pilots chose to do, I will back it up and support that decision to move forward constructively. This is a Donald Trump moment and you will either hold the process and people hostage because you may lose, or you will accept the outcome and make the best of it either way.
In other words, I'll have your back and be onboard, however this goes down.
What about you?
Do you really want to cast stones at the NC or MEC for pressing this out to everyone for a vote? The NC has worked on this deal for more than 4 years, giving up personal time, sitting behind a desk, or in a conference room, giving their best effort to fulfill the wide ranging desires of 4100+ pilots.
Now you want to shoot them in the head and say they are "selling you" the TA. News flash...this is their work product they believe it's worth your professional consideration as it upholds the cornerstone issues that have been polled. You are pointing your ridicule in the wrong direction...try the folks on the other side of the table.
Remember those guys? The ones that brought you PBS, Sick Leave enhancements, tried to steal your A Plan, kept you out on a 16 hour duty day for one T-storm in MEM, extended you over your kids graduation, called you in for jumpseating into a trip to remove you and then extended your buddy in the field to jumpseat on Company Aircraft to back-fill a crew that went fatigued in the field, dragged out a good faith interim deal with a front about FAR 117 that they were trying to get carved out of, slowed hiring down in an effort to save money only to find their prognostications to be way off.
You get the drift...step back, take a breather, let your brothers and sisters that are doing the same job as you make a decision on their own terms.
Let the NC and the MEC present you with the details, the numbers, and give them your questions. Let them finish their job. I am impressed at the effort and the extent that has gone on to provide us with the TA, TA Questions, videos, Webcasts, Roadshows, and phone calls.
Don't like what your hearing?...Fine, vote no and move on. Don't throw your fellow pilots under the bus while your doing it. Whether they're doing ALPA work, instructing, or just flying the line. Makes no difference, we all come back to the same contract rules at the end of the day and are impacted by the contract equally.
Have you found an APC for FedEx Managers or negotiators yet where they sit back and take public pot shots at each other for the world to read? Nope...neither have I. Why, because its just plan stupid and tears at the fabric of what brings us together- and "they" are loving every minute of it.
I have never been so disappointed in our group of pilots as I have been since this TA has come out and it has nothing to do with the TA. It has everything to do with the personal and confrontational attacks that continue to spew venom at each other in a self fulfilling prophecy of "we get what we deserve".
This decision calls on everyone to weigh the facts and cast a vote. It demands your attention, it deserves your consideration because that is what the majority of the MEC voted for. What it doesn't need is your unprofessional, callous attacks on your fellow pilots whom you will stand, side-by-side with, if this TA tanks.
At the end of the day, whatever the FDX pilots chose to do, I will back it up and support that decision to move forward constructively. This is a Donald Trump moment and you will either hold the process and people hostage because you may lose, or you will accept the outcome and make the best of it either way.
In other words, I'll have your back and be onboard, however this goes down.
What about you?
Classy post. A nice change.
09-10-2015, 07:07 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,052
Originally Posted by Dakota
...For contract ratification, we need to see enhancements to our “A” Plan and get an increase in company contributions to our “B” Plan. In the end, management will need to see your resolve to protect and improve our retirement plans...
I was glad to see, through the week, through the range of the seniority spectrum, that there are a lot of unhappy people with this TA, not only on APC. Even guys I talked with who attended the roadshow were feeling the hard sell and positive spin on everything related to the TA, while nothing negative was addressed in a meaningful way. I would have been there had I not been on a layover, but I also 'heard' that the roadshow folks were not accommodating in any way to our Block 1 Rep. He was not invited to participate, and they turned up the music at the end of the event, when he tried to present his views in the back of the room.
We need to stop talking about letting go of the A-plan for new hires. Just because of the company's stall tactics, and 'lines in the sand' repeated over and over and over by the NC, does not mean they are actual fact. We need to stick to our openers, an improved A-plan, an improved B-plan, and improved work rules, and the raises in the TA are fine, but they need to include a 'me too' clause as some of the legacies have (AA? and DL?). Otherwise, our TA pay raises will be eclipsed within the first 2 years of the CBA, having to wait 4 more years to begin negotiations, that, as history has shown us, will likely be dragged out for 2-4 additional years.
We are in a time of record profits, strongest cash position ever, TNT acquisition, undermanned, becoming the 4th or 5th choice for many potential new hires, we have been optimized (and me a lot less than guys here for more than 10+ years), we are more efficient with less pilots, flying more legs, with shorter layovers, and we will take on the additional costs in our medical insurance, but, we need to not just keep, but IMPROVE both A and B plans. That was in our openers how many years ago? When the economy/profits/hiring-manning environment were not nearly in our favor as they are now. No apologies for demanding to keep what we have worked for, what we stated in our opening negotiations. How can we cave in as a group, on the most important issues, and still throw in so many company 'gained efficiencies' to boot?
09-10-2015, 11:23 PM
#45
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
... I think the NC did the best they could given the restrictions we gave them. They got us what we asked for.
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
We told them first priority keep everyone one the same plan. That is what we got.
Now, I don't know what kind of lenses you are using to view it, but NO CHANGE is NOT an improvement to the DB plan.
I guess you might go to the car dealership driving your old Pinto and looking for a new 2-door sports car. You send your Pinto to the back to be appraised and cleaned up and tell the salesman you want something faster and sexier than the Pinto, but he tells you that all their 2-door cars are very, very expensive, and besides, none of them have steering wheels. Well, by golly, you can't have a sexy 2-door without a steering wheel, so you dig in and demand you must have a steering wheel or there's no deal. Hang on, the salesman goes to the back and returns a few minutes later to inform you that he has one 2-door with a steering wheel, it's Pinto that some guy just traded in, and as soon as they finish washing it, you can have a look. Where do you sign?
You drive away in a Pinto with a fresh wash and wax, but, by golly, it has the steering wheel you demanded. VICTORY IS YOURS!!!!
Some people might think you'd look foolish doing that, and I think we'd look foolish voluntarily surrendering our A Plan to a Company that is wildly successful, hugely profitable, and growing at a tremendous pace. While others had theirs ripped away in times of bankruptcy or duress, you want to vote yours away in an environment of growth and profit?
If we vote this thing in, that's what we'll be doing, and that's how we'll be known. The pilots who voted away their A plan for absolutely noting in return, while their employer was hauling profits to the bank in giant wheelbarrows.
Can they afford to raise the FAE cap? Of course they can. You remember the MEC Chairman and the Negotiating Committee Chairman telling us all along that our demands (including "Improve DB Plan") were reasonable, and The Company could afford them. Of course, and you trusted them to be telling the truth. Why has the story changed now? Before The Company could afford what we wanted, and you trusted them. Now, The Company can't afford what we wanted, and you trust them now? Well, which was it, err, is it?
I submit they were right before, The Company can afford to raise the FAE cap, or they would not have committed in 2006 to do that very thing for the "next" CBA. Now they've reneged, and we're supposed to buy it? No, as of now they've committed to fund a Defined Benefit Plan for pilots who have not even been hired. What's so different between that and increasing the FAE Cap for a pilot who is already here? It's all about dollars, and they have 'em.
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
... so ... I'll vote yes. In a couple of years one of us will get to say I told you so.
.
09-10-2015, 11:47 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 177
Been on a long international trip. Invariably during all the layovers the topic of the TA came up and a civil, open discussion ensued. It appears that 70-80% are "No" voters. The ones in favor are usually Memphis based, mid-level/senior FO's. Granted that this is just a snapshot of the international flyers and I'm sure that attending a Road Show will change the opinions of some. Just my observations...
09-11-2015, 12:13 AM
#47
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Originally Posted by TheBaron Deux
Originally Posted by GetRealDude
TBD
I've detailed plenty on "things I don't like about the TA" thread.
Read the TA from cover to cover first.
I've detailed plenty on "things I don't like about the TA" thread.
Read the TA from cover to cover first.
Originally Posted by GetRealDude
A summary of the CONCESSIONARY TA NONSENSE
Everyone needs to read this deal cover to cover to see just how anemic and concessionary it truly is for the pilots. Productivity and financial gains for the company are many.
Please educate yourself. If this is passed, we'll have to live with it for the next 6-10years. That's a long time to get beat up (QOL) with no recourse.
BIG ISSUES:
...
- loss of first class DH when lie flat business class is available
...
This list falls short of the MANY areas of concern and manipulation found in this deal. But it hits a lot of important areas to consider (QOL) and total compensation.
That is why I asked you to make your argument for a "no" vote using some valid contract points and not just your misunderstanding of some contract points.
- loss of first class DH when lie flat business class is available
That point is not entirely accurate, as it contains the word "business."
I'm not sure where the error originated, or how it has been perpetuated, but it's been repeated often here.
Originally Posted by skypine27
*loss of first class DH when lie flat business class is available
Originally Posted by Raptor
This TA just eliminated first class international DHs. It says that if business class has lie flat seats, then that is now sufficient for a higher class of service.
The thing is, the TA language tells a different story, especially if you read it with an eye to what The Company can do to exploit the language and how they can use it to use us. Here's the actual TA language.
8. Deadheading
A. Deadheading by Air
5. Class of Service for Commercial Deadhead Travel
c. Higher Class of Service
Regardless of a passenger carrier’s nomenclature or hierarchy for classes of service, a Flat Bed Seat satisfies the higher class of
service requirements set forth in this Section.
service requirements set forth in this Section.
Did you see anywhere that the seat has to be in Business Class?
Check these out:
The Future of Lie Flat Economy Seating
Air New Zealand currently offers a SkyCouch option (essentially turning three economy-class seats into a couch).
Airline launches economy 'lie flat' bed... by offering passengers three seats for half the price of a business flight
Air Astana’s new economy sleeper class combines three seats so passengers can rest in a lie-flat position
.
09-11-2015, 01:04 AM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: Right for a long time
Posts: 298
"If we vote yes now with the UPS strike? looming. I think FDX will be very profitable this peak. If its good for the Company It will be great for us.
We will dominate the air freight world. More planes more pilots! Everyone moves UP in seniority. You can gain seniority from people retiring or dropping off the top of the list. But this is slow. If you can build from the bottom. Like we did with the postal contract we will grow. Look at all the day time flights. When I first got here 20 years ago their were none. Lets seize this opportunity."
I like your enthusiasm but if something is good for the company then they should recognized it and also reward us as well. I'm not interested in taking less money so the company can grow. This is corporation ran by people only interested in one thing...profit. If this was mom's pie store then I would be willing to help mom out.
We will dominate the air freight world. More planes more pilots! Everyone moves UP in seniority. You can gain seniority from people retiring or dropping off the top of the list. But this is slow. If you can build from the bottom. Like we did with the postal contract we will grow. Look at all the day time flights. When I first got here 20 years ago their were none. Lets seize this opportunity."
I like your enthusiasm but if something is good for the company then they should recognized it and also reward us as well. I'm not interested in taking less money so the company can grow. This is corporation ran by people only interested in one thing...profit. If this was mom's pie store then I would be willing to help mom out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
