captexpress

Decided to call Fred E. myself and get it from the horses mouth and highly encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Bottom line: He was fired by the MEC Chairman, but being a stand up guy, after some personal soul searching, he decided that the process wasn't about him and rather than cause a sh- storm, he would step aside. As to why? Ask your reps because Fred isn't sure himself.

So please, MEC half truths insult not only the intelligence of the electorate, but also the elected. So while the MEC might have unanimously accepted the resignation...the part left out was that it was not their decision, but a spineless rubber stamp. IMHO, I think the electorate you represent deserve a reason for your action/inaction.

You know folks, prior to the way the MEC handled age 60 and then the LOA, there was some real hard won unity developing here at FDX. After the Captains Authority issue, things really started to change, people stood a little taller, spoke with more confidence, began to believe that standing strong for a fair pay and work rule package was not only justly deserved, but a negotiating prerequisite.

In closing, met another brother from a different crew while checking out of the hotel the other day and noticed that his ALPA pin was upside down. I pointed out that he was "inverted" thinking that it was inadvertent.........he told me quite brusquely, that it wasn't!

990Convair

Excellent post.

I have asked and have received zero straight answers as to why FE was asked to step down.

I suppose if you want to be on the MEC one of the prerequisites is to leave your spine at the door.

If I might add, and this is for debate/discussion, I also heard from reliable sources that after peak there would be an announcement that the company will hold another excess bid, similar to the other and announce massive furlough's. The number stated was 600-1000. I realize this has been posted before, but it was heard again so I wanted to present it again. I can't believe they could do this since it would be extremely costly in more than one area.

More thoughts on this:

1. This is another "play-action fake" similar to the FDA LOA. Remember that one? Work with our MEC to scare the membership into passing the LOA. Once passed, excess bid canceled.

Why would the company/MEC present this?

I believe FE told the company to go pound sand on the 777 implementation. You can arbitrate pay-rates all day, but you can't apply it to the multitude of other areas that the company needs language on to introduce the 777. The issues the company had with the 757 ramp-up especially regarding training (instructors), will present themselves again with the 777. The problem this time is far larger because you also have deployment issues with ULR flights that is not addressed.

So "OUR" fired NC had the company by the proverbial nads, and all it took was a call to DW and his posse and just like "GS" a few years back, FE is removed from being "in the way".

I believe this stinks to high heaven and I fully expect the aforementioned excess/furlough to be announced then rescinded in the 23rd hour if we swallow the crap LOA forthcoming on the 777 that will be written by the company, and sponsored by our MEC.

If you don't think there is some collusion going on I believe you are mistaken. Look at the history of our Union/FPA leadership. What happens to those Union leaders when they are done with Union work? Answer that one on your own.

Any other thoughts, or am I way off base?

iarapilot

Since when does a resignation have to be voted on; unanimously or otherwise? Just smoke and mirrors to create a perception of something on the up and up, so to speak. When a person decides to resign, no vote is needed except the "resignees"!

FDXFLYR

I asked my rep what happened but was told that due to a non-disclosure determination made by (I assume) the MEC, they are unable to tell us. Our society did not stand for governance in secret which is why sunshine laws were enacted. This is another example of governance in secrecy. It is time for the MEC to stop belittling serious, honest questions from the membership and quit hiding abusive governance behind repeated use of non-disclosure agreements.

The ranks of those upset with the MEC have moved from "just those five nuts on airlinepilotforums" to what I believe is a majority of the membership. My co-workers here in ANC and my friends in MEM say that everyone they discuss this Fred firing issue with is ****ed off at the MEC. Continued silence suggests foul play by the MEC. We deserve an explanation about both why Fred was fired, and now why you believe hiding behind a non-disclosure agreement is appropriate.

Strike one: you voted against the membership when you voted for the Age 60 rule change. Strike two: you completely fouled up the foreign domicile LOA. Strike three: you fired Fred and now you're trying to hide yourselves behind a veil of secrecy.

The MEC is solely responsible for the breakdown of trust with the membership and they are the only ones who can repair it but instead they choose to hide from us. Are you listening MEC? I no longer trust you. My union does not necessarily speak for me anymore.

Gunter

I've got a theory--

The company got a taste of Fred and became concerned they were dealing with a very competent negotiator.

You can fill in the rest.

HIFLYR

Spot on! I have always said that if the 777 was not the 380 for pay how could it be the 380 for the work rule changes? Remember it will be the best we can get and it will go senior, at least this time it will 50% correct.

captexpress

990,

You bring up some interesting scenario's. I think we can all agree that the company will do what it can, using what ever leverage it can muster, to achieve it's goals. (A lesson we should emulate by the way).

I think any reasonable person would view the firing of a Negotiating Chairman as a fairly significant event and deserving of a reasonable explanation, but absent that, we can go on all day assuming all sorts of things. Ask all sorts of questions....like:

1. What kind of message does this send to management at this critical juncture, or did they know ahead of time?
2. If the company did know before the MEC and the pilots, that raises some interesting questions.
3. If the company didn't know, but someone was trying to send a message,...what kind of message was it? Was it that we are toughing up or loosening up? If we were toughing up, I would think you wouldn't risk a problem with your MEC and your pilots by not including them in the plan?
4. There would have to be a pretty good reason to do something like this without any warning. Was the MEC aware of a problem with Fred before hand? If not, why not?
5. Is there a different agenda going on here. The last thing an MEC Chairman seeking to move up needs right now is problems at the negotiating table when there are other bigger fish to fry. You have to pick your successor (run DM, run), you have to put things in place on a national level....all sorts of distractions?

I can keep listing possible scenario's, but what good would that do.....at least until we get a real explanation on what happened.

Disappointed. We have to get beyond this type of closed door nonsense, there is too much at stake right now.

Gunter

Good luck with that. I wouldn't hold your breath.

DaRaiders

I am not in denial that there might be furloughs, but those numbers seem really high. If one reads the canceled excess bid as an indicator, 150-200 pilots had nowhere to go. I did this by looking at how many 727 S/Os were there in the end, and calculating the crewing level. I think there were something like 150 to 200 extra bodies. 600-1000 seems like Great Depression levels to me. But what do I know?

FreightDawgyDog

There have been questions raised on the FDX ALPA board just as Tony C and Albie had asked us to do so they could answer us on a less public forum. So far all there has been as a reply from anyone is VL and his answer was just another cookie cutter MEC response. At this rate, I would like to see some campaign promises by those recently elected fulfilled, especially about the openness that was promised in the communication department. So far with the NC situation, I can't see that they have.