I always get a little nervous when the letter begins with, "I have to be honest ..." I have to wonder, did he actually consider the alternative?




The truth is Kit was a proponent of freezing our A-Plan (with emphasis on semantics of hard vs. soft) and insists that we got everything we "demanded" in the A-plan by keeping newhires in it and maintaining the structure. Ultimately, to him "stay the same" is equal to "improve."

It has already been pointed out that he mischaracterized the Defined Benefit improvements in the 2006 CBA. Apparently, retirement is not his forté.

His suggestion that we'll be able to get The Company to the table to negotiate improvements to retirement prior to opening Section 6 negotiations 6 years after signing is ... well, it's just ludicrous and naive. Never has The Company met us at the table unless they had something they wanted.






.

I may be wrong on this but I thought the multiplier was for guys who hadn't been at FX for 25yrs and was a catch up.

An after action report does not imply death or failure. A post-mortem is done after death or failure. The two are about as synomous as "examination" and "autopsy". And why even bring up a difference between military and civilian? I consider us all FedEx pilots. But then again, I also don't consider pilots having shaken faith in each other to be an advantage for us.
AS obviously assumes that whether the TA passes or fails, the process has been a failure. Personally, I plan to wait for the vote to close before I make that decision. But "leading from behind" AS is already writing an epitaph for us. There are solid and productive advocates for a no vote on this TA. AS is neither.

Her paragraph starts out with "After TA ratification or rejection we need to analyze what went wrong." alluding to some type of failure as you have said yourself. Post-Mortem would be an appropriate term for analyzing a failure and I think there are many who believe the process has been a failure! Also, I have read many after action reports that involved death or failure!

Our MEC Chairman recently stated that our company will ONLY meet us outside of Section 6 if it is in THEIR best interest.

Now, I want our airline to continue to be the most successful freight airline in the world, but when it comes to our CBA, the company's interests are in direct opposition to our's. How can this Rep. use this logic to support his "hope... that you will take the emotion out of our business decision and vote with me...".

...just saw TonyC covered this already...

ROCK, FDXLAG-

Both of you consistently challenge all of us for explanations regarding the plan after a no vote.

Will someone please throw me one sliver of explanation as to why ANYBODY thinks that the company would entertain retirement negotiations outside of Section 6? If the company was willing to fix retirement outside of contract negotiations, why didn't we address it years ago?

Pipe

Complete guess on my part, but I know the company wants to renegotiate our retirement. It sounds like that was one of our lines in the sand. If we approach them outside of section 6 with a list of options we would now consider, they might be willing to listen.
But I would not argue that someone should vote yes based on the hope of post TA retirement negotiations. I am voting on the TA for what is and isn't in it currently.

I think you have me confused with someeone else. After a no vote we do what Delta is doing, fire everybody and start over. I give it an over under of 18 months. As to company motivation to discuss retirement changes, it depends on whether they plan on hiring 2000 pilots to replace the 2000 pilots leaving in the next 10 years.

But that is just my opinion.

The company wants the changes they negotiated for. My bet is the healthcare section alone will bring them back to the table and we will see another offer soon so they only have to keep the current plan one more year.

Oh please do not negotiate outside of sec. 6. Have we not learned yet?

I imagine it goes something like this:

ALPA: We'd like to address our retirement now that the contract has been ratified.

Company: So would we.

ALPA: Excellent! We want to change the 260 cap.

Company: So do we... We will lower it to 180, but, hold on now, we are going to increase the melon in the crew meals 200% to a max of 2 pieces of melon!!

ALPA: well, I guess it IS a 200% increase...

Company: We are willing to reduce the number of crew meals by 100%

ALPA: Well...I guess if your willing to..??

Company: Now, of course we would like for you to be more active in the procurement of the A plan.

ALPA: yes, so do we...???

Company: We would like to roll back hourly rates to CBA 2006, and invest those monies into the funding of the A plan, at the lower cap. This will give you more ownership of the A plan.

ALPA: Ownership you say?!?!

ALPA PRESS RELEASE:

Good news! after extensive negotiation, outside of section 6. We have gained substantial improvements as follows:

*31% inverse POSITIVE increase in the "A Plan" cap
*200% INCREASE in melon
*100% inverse POSITIVE increase in crew meals
*New ownership in the A Plan

This new LOA has an inverse cost to company of $1.76 B over the next 10 years