Priority 3

Trying this attachment feature, here goes. The IPA published this table in the latest edition of the union newspaper.

Priority 3

Hey, that worked. Here's one more chart.

Priority 3

Two points I need to make about our proposed pay. First, For captains it amounts to an inflation adjusted raise only if you use 1998 12 year captain #. Our company's profits have exploded, yet I and every other UPS captain have been left behind. First Officers benefited greatly in this T/A, however. The pseudo B scale is erased over 5 years, and $40 big G's are tossed their way to help get the Yes vote.

This T/A overall is a dog, and I have yet to meet someone who disagrees. We've given away so much already that even a No vote won't assure us anything in the future. I'm voting Yes nonetheless because waiting another year could be fatal for our group, as in another terrorist strike, Fedex settles with many areas below what we've got T/Ad, PEB possibility, etc. If this T/A goes under we only see microscopic improvements if any in a 2007 T/A. This group has made collective mistakes in the past, as it did when it rejected B. Miller's midterm T/A a few years ago. I hope we don't make another costly mistake. Fire away.

sandman2122

Priority:

Since when did you know what FedEx "settled on" prior to reaching a TA - especially the PEB nonsense?

FreightDawg2

Your reasoning is sound and perhaps it isnt as bad as we think it is.

FreightDawg2

You know Art L. told us to fear the PEB. I believe he is right because there is no way Linda P or any other person in her positiion will sympathize with us. Nor would anyone in the public sector. I think many of us have lost touch with reality.

Priority 3

There are certain to be surprises, on the low side, in any Fedex T/A. This could hurt us.

I'm not a labor law expert, but our hired labor consultant warns us that a PEB is a realistic possibility in our group's case.

BIGBROWNDC8

Un freakin believeable!!!

P3. I just wish you would have said that you think this TA is good, thats why you are voting Yes, That IMO would be fine, but no, you say the TA sucks but will still vote yes because your scared...

I hope the IPA never goes on strike, If we did, UPS might threaten to fire us all for striking, and based on your spineless actions with this TA, I could see you being the first to cross the line... We wouldnt want you to lose you job now would we...


BBDC8

jungle

I can't quite understand the argument that states the TA is a dog, yet a Yes vote is called for because: 1. Terrorists may strike again. Pretty low odds on that. 2. FEDEX may get a lower offer. Seems they already are beating us in certain areas under their old offer. 3. Another year of Union strife. How would this be any different?
The TA could be fine tuned in a few areas and made much better, why not give that a chance. The downside is purely in the longer wait.

If there is a big downturn in business they will reopen and negotiate down before you can say "Bob's your Uncle".

As it stands we are waiting another six years to be where we should be now, if you discount the paltry retirement.

BIGBROWNDC8

P3,
I'm not sure if you have read this inspiring and courageous post from the B&G. This is what being in a Union is all about, I'm worried about the outcome when this TA gets voted down, but I'm also not going to let UPS stick it to us again for another 8-9 years. The line in the sand is drawn... Read on...

Fellow Crewmembers



In a little less than a week, voting begins for one of the most important
decisions we will ever make in our aviation career. The precedent we set
will send ripple effects not only throughout our ranks, but to the industry,
and around the world. Our profession is at stake, as company executives have
exploited laws, bankruptcies, and contractual language to slowly deteriorate
what our fellow brothers who came before us fought so hard to obtain. As
grievance committee members, former members and co-chairmen, who have worked
under this administration devoting hundreds of hours, to defend our
contract, ensure benefits, and protect oneıs safety, we would be derelict in
our duties, should we sit on the sidelines and say nothing.



We believe the proposed agreement is concessionary not only to our current
agreement but to the Federal Regulations we operate under. Through many
outlets, we have been told this is the best we can do, and that we have no
leverage. We disagree! Negotiations is a two way street. We give and take
based on the needs of our demographics. Our current contract has high value
items that the Company desires. They will decrease cost, and increase
productivity. Under the proposed agreement, they have received them. The
question is, what did we receive in return?



The Captain verses First Officer IRO is a high value item. Currently, the
75/76 fleet is the only aircraft the Company is allowed to augment with a
First Officer. The language is aircraft specific. Therefore, the Company
could not augment the MD-11 with First Officerıs. This led to the MD-11 MOU
allowing the Company to augment the crew utilizing Captains. Under the
proposed agreement, we have conceded the Captain IRO on the MD-11 to First
Officer. Further, Article 14 L conceded the augmentation of any two-pilot
aircraft certified for 300,000 pounds max take-off weight or greater
utilizing First Officers. What does this mean? Fewer crews and less
upgrades. With the recent announcement of the Anchorage Domicile for both
the MD-11 and the B-747-400, the Captain IRO issue is a high value item and
the Company really wants this piece. If we vote the down the proposed
agreement, the Company will have to staff the Anchorage Domicile with extra
Captains. Should the proposed agreement pass, the Company will have the
latitude to augment all wide-body jets with First Officers.



Article, 14 M of our current contract allows the Company to double crew the
747-200 for up to two legs. This double-crew consists of TWO CAPTAINS, two
First Officers, and two Flight Engineers for a total of six crewmembers.
Under the proposed agreement we will allow the Company to fly the 747-400
and A-380, with ONE CAPTAIN, and three First Officers for a total of two
legs, so long as one leg is over 11 hours. This is a net reduction of one
Captain and two crewmembers overall. Combine this with the increase duty
limit from 18 hours to 19:45; we believe this language is not only
concessionary, but dangerous. Having one Captain responsible for a plane
weighing over a million pounds, flying up to two legs, in just under 20
hours is an accident waiting to happen.



Under the current contract, staffing of any new equipment type, (i.e. MD-11)
was treated like that of a new domicile. Due to the lack of aircraft in
the beginning, crewmembers were being displaced from their lines for IOE (5%
rule). Under the proposed agreement, this will not happen. Article 14 N
allows the Company to withhold lines up to six bid periods (1 year) from the
arrival of the first aircraft. Should this agreement fail to pass,
crewmembers who have upgraded will continue to bid a line, and the Company
will be forced to displace. With the implementation of the 747-400 and the
A-380, this article is a high value item. Should we accept the proposed
agreement; the company will have the latitude to withhold flying for up to
one year. What does this do? Prolongs upgrades.



Currently, summer vacation drives our staffing model. Bids open September
1st, just one day after the final vote count. Under the new agreement we
have conceded a 20% reduction in vacation for the summer months. What does
this mean to us? Fewer vacations during the time of year our children are
home, and less upgrades. Should this agreement fail to pass, the company
must maintain status quo with the current summer vacation allotment. Again,
this article is a high value item.



The IPA was founded on Strength, and Unity. At one time we were the envy of
other labor groups, a force to be reckoned with. We had a motto, ³Leave no
one behind,² which included our hostages. Against the repeated
recommendations of the Jumpseat Committee experts, Captainıs Authority was
placed on the negotiating table utilizing a jumpseat matrix. Once this
occurred, the FAA no longer viewed this as a regulatory issue, but a labor
one. The Company in turn, published MRB 06-02 which wiped away ³Captainıs
Authority,² with regards to Priority 3ıs. The Union published a
clarification of the Companyıs intention in its IPNN January 27 press
release stating, ³The final say as to how many jumpseaters can ride on a
given flight, however, remains in the hands of the PIC.² These words turned
hollow as Captains who exercised their authority were threatened,
disciplined, and given time off without pay. As a Union we should have
fought for these pilots, their career and this profession. Sadly, we
didnıt. Instead of negotiating their loss of pay into the agreement, we
left them behind.

We have been told that the jumpseat matrix is an improvement over current
contract language. We disagree. Captainıs authority was protected under
the FARıs and FSAT 0206 and should not have been negotiated into our labor
agreement. We should have fought this issue at the regulatory level, much
like our peers at FedEx. If we accept the proposed agreement, Captainıs
Authority will be jeopardized.

The purpose of a Union is to protect jobs and to ensure safety, not to give
it away. Voting for this agreement is not in our collective interest.
Accepting a concessionary contract with a Company that made $3.9 Billion in
net profits on $36 Billion in income last year is a move in the wrong
direction. Many of these regulatory issues we stated above will never be
regained. Upgrade times for First Officers will be lengthened, and
compounding of oneıs income will be lost forever. No other airline has a
safety record like ours, flying in 24 time zones, 200+ countries, 24 hours a
day 7 days a week. It is because of our hard work, skill, and expertise,
that UPS is so successful. The items mentioned above are high value items.
The Company would love nothing better, than for us to accept this agreement.
We equate it to trading in a Lexus for a Yugo. Therefore, we cannot support
the proposed tentative agreement as it is not in the membershipsı best
interest.



Should we vote down the proposed agreement, the consequences will not be as
drastic as some would lead us to believe. The RLA is very clear on the
steps that must be taken to receive a PEB. With peak season, right around
the corner, the Company would be foolish to ask for a release. The NMB must
authorize the release, and at that time the PEB has 30 days to investigate
the dispute and report to the President during which status-quo remains in
effect. The parties may choose to accept the recommendations of the PEB,
negotiate their own agreement, or, after 30 days of the PEB report to the
President, exercise Self Help. As committee chairs, former chairs, and
committee members, it is our belief, we can do much better. We believe the
reward outweighs the risk. With the recent announcement of the Anchorage
domicile, the B-747-400, and the A-380, we would do ourselves a tremendous
service by overwhelmingly sending this agreement back to the table and
negotiate a contract that rewards our work, protects our safety, and insure
our jobs.