A Letter to FDX ALPA Officers
03-13-2009, 02:01 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2009
Position: low hanging fruit
Posts: 116
Moneyman
"If you want to wine on your salary or whatever, fine by me. The fact is if I go from $250 down to $160 I will not make my high 5 and there will be no way to retire at age 60."
My response was crystalline clear. That was obvious. Anybody could see that. You need to pay attention. It is your head that is in the sand. Your nonsensical ramblings about how poor you are with your massive $160K paycheck is nothing less than shameful. Again, you completely missed the point. YOU are only concerned with YOURSELF and making YOUR high-5. I, and about 700 people, would love to have your dilemma. Instead, we're concerned with losing our entire livelihoods, homes and possibly having to file bankruptcy with ZERO income resulting from a furlough which will drastically affect our retirements. We junior folks could and would live off 48/60 a month for the next two years if the regrettable alternative is zero income. You may be accustomed to a certain lavish lifestyle making your $225K a year but there are some of us who are getting by with a fraction of that who also have homes and have to pay medical expenses like you. Sorry to hear keeping hundreds of guys employed is preventing YOU from maxing out YOUR high-5. So what will your high-5 retirement income be if you can't max it out?... $100K/year instead of $130K/year? If we have to take a BLG reduction to keep everyone on the property and prevent the catastrophic financial hardships resulting from the junior folks being furloughed then that is the right thing to do. That is obvious to anyone who has a moral and humanitarian fiber in their body. Clearly you don't feel that way.
You DON'T know for a fact the company is going to furlough so enough with your chicken little whining about how we must flush the bottom of the seniority list because it's going to happen anyway. Stop spewing your inflammatory conjecture. Nobody is interested in what you think is going to happen. You're not the one making the decisions. You're doing nothing but demonstrating how little you know and how shamefully greedy you are.
Don't ever expect anyone to lend you a helping hand when you're in need. Clearly, helping others isn't considered important to you. I guess what is important to you is what benefits only you.
"If you want to wine on your salary or whatever, fine by me. The fact is if I go from $250 down to $160 I will not make my high 5 and there will be no way to retire at age 60."
My response was crystalline clear. That was obvious. Anybody could see that. You need to pay attention. It is your head that is in the sand. Your nonsensical ramblings about how poor you are with your massive $160K paycheck is nothing less than shameful. Again, you completely missed the point. YOU are only concerned with YOURSELF and making YOUR high-5. I, and about 700 people, would love to have your dilemma. Instead, we're concerned with losing our entire livelihoods, homes and possibly having to file bankruptcy with ZERO income resulting from a furlough which will drastically affect our retirements. We junior folks could and would live off 48/60 a month for the next two years if the regrettable alternative is zero income. You may be accustomed to a certain lavish lifestyle making your $225K a year but there are some of us who are getting by with a fraction of that who also have homes and have to pay medical expenses like you. Sorry to hear keeping hundreds of guys employed is preventing YOU from maxing out YOUR high-5. So what will your high-5 retirement income be if you can't max it out?... $100K/year instead of $130K/year? If we have to take a BLG reduction to keep everyone on the property and prevent the catastrophic financial hardships resulting from the junior folks being furloughed then that is the right thing to do. That is obvious to anyone who has a moral and humanitarian fiber in their body. Clearly you don't feel that way.
You DON'T know for a fact the company is going to furlough so enough with your chicken little whining about how we must flush the bottom of the seniority list because it's going to happen anyway. Stop spewing your inflammatory conjecture. Nobody is interested in what you think is going to happen. You're not the one making the decisions. You're doing nothing but demonstrating how little you know and how shamefully greedy you are.
Don't ever expect anyone to lend you a helping hand when you're in need. Clearly, helping others isn't considered important to you. I guess what is important to you is what benefits only you.
03-13-2009, 02:19 PM
#32
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Social Conservative
Posts: 56
I give up. It isn't my way. But you obviously can't see the point, and there is nothing any pilot or economist can say to you that will make the point. Not being mean, but just realistic.
I've determined from those I've heard from personally that it boils down to those that are "socialist" and those that are "capitalist" on how they view things. The two sides will never agree on handling things.
Those in ALPA leadership that are making 90-100 CHs each month feel no requirement to "share the pain" with the crew force, so my points I made are all valid from my perspective except for the furlough option, which is based on statements made by others.
I've determined from those I've heard from personally that it boils down to those that are "socialist" and those that are "capitalist" on how they view things. The two sides will never agree on handling things.
Those in ALPA leadership that are making 90-100 CHs each month feel no requirement to "share the pain" with the crew force, so my points I made are all valid from my perspective except for the furlough option, which is based on statements made by others.
03-13-2009, 02:25 PM
#33
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Social Conservative
Posts: 56
My response was crystalline clear. That was obvious. Anybody could see that. You need to pay attention. It is your head that is in the sand. Your nonsensical ramblings about how poor you are with your massive $160K paycheck is nothing less than shameful. Again, you completely missed the point. YOU are only concerned with YOURSELF and making YOUR high-5. I, and about 700 people, would love to have your dilemma. Instead, we're concerned with losing our entire livelihoods, homes and possibly having to file bankruptcy with ZERO income resulting from a furlough which will drastically affect our retirements. We junior folks could and would live off 48/60 a month for the next two years if the regrettable alternative is zero income.
There are several "junior folks" right now going through bankruptcy. There are several facing foreclosure. There are several that are supplementing their jobs with second jobs and the wives are working. And there are some that are seeing other airline jobs overseas. So tell me how these FedEx fellow pilots are willing to live off 48/60 a month for the next two years. Nevermind, don't tell me, tell them. Tell them how lucky they are to have a job even if they lose everything. Feel their pain.
03-13-2009, 02:28 PM
#34
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Social Conservative
Posts: 56
Final point I will make with you. I've already conceded that fact. The point was made based upon the rumor that the company WAS going to furlough 400 (according to some manager comments). So I already withdrew that point based upon comments here that there will not be a furlough (although I'd like to see that in writing by the company).
03-13-2009, 02:30 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 577
So far, you're the one saying furlough is going to happen!
Not the company
Not the Union
You're certainly seem to advocate it with the whole if it is going to happen thing.
If it's going to happen.....I want MY BLG back to normal NOW......so put the junior on the street SOONER!
Nice attitude!
Funny thing is I happen to working on my resume and job apps as i was reading this. Nice to know I have your support!
Not the company
Not the Union
You're certainly seem to advocate it with the whole if it is going to happen thing.
If it's going to happen.....I want MY BLG back to normal NOW......so put the junior on the street SOONER!
Nice attitude!
Funny thing is I happen to working on my resume and job apps as i was reading this. Nice to know I have your support!
03-13-2009, 02:31 PM
#36
Permanent Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,682
[quote=MoneyMan;577761]I give up. It isn't my way. But you obviously can't see the point, and there is nothing any pilot or economist can say to you that will make the point. Not being mean, but just realistic.
I've determined from those I've heard from personally that it boils down to those that are "socialist" and those that are "capitalist" on how they view things. The two sides will never agree on handling things.
I would not equate it with being a socialist vs. being a capitalist.
One's perspective depends on what that person has at stake.
While you may have some valid points, the people at risk of financial ruin (or possibly worse, as a result of no medical insurance) find it hard to empathize with those at the top end of the seniority list that complain about petty things (in comparison)
I've determined from those I've heard from personally that it boils down to those that are "socialist" and those that are "capitalist" on how they view things. The two sides will never agree on handling things.
I would not equate it with being a socialist vs. being a capitalist.
One's perspective depends on what that person has at stake.
While you may have some valid points, the people at risk of financial ruin (or possibly worse, as a result of no medical insurance) find it hard to empathize with those at the top end of the seniority list that complain about petty things (in comparison)
03-13-2009, 02:32 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
This is from the whitehouse.gov budget website:
FY 2010 President's Budget--Jumpstarting the Economy
Go to page 29 of the document(PDF File page 13), and read the section titled, "Reducing Itemized Deduction Rate for Families With Incomes Over $250,000".
Of course, I wouldn't want to confuse you with the facts.
03-13-2009, 02:33 PM
#38
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Social Conservative
Posts: 56
So if the company is not going to furlough, then the point is not valid. I've said that several times. The point was stated assuming it was true, which you've clearly said it is not true. So read the responses I made where I said it was a moot point. Geez!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
