Some guy

Why don't they then? Why offer us a better LOA?

I think that when compared to their other options (out sourcing, buying TNT, etc), the cost differential is quite large. We don't need a better LOA to motivate pilots to bid Europe (that was proven with the last Paris 757 bid). They need the LOA to give them the desirable regulatory environment (work rules, tax benefits, etc.) to operate in. Plus they need us to provide the RELIABILITY. They obviously don't want European pilots subject to European tax and labor laws to fly the freight.

Remember they approached us first with regard to the new LOA. If they could go it alone, they would have already.

SG

FedElta

DAL mgt has estimated that the NPRM will add 150-200 bubbas, at most. Maybe whistling in the dark, but that's with 12000 guys. Ask your NC for their best guess at changed manning requirements.......get them to call Moak......he probably already knows the exact language...IMHO.

Regards, and good luck....I have family starting March 7th.

pipe

Because he wants an NMB that doesn't work directly for the people at Hack's Cross, for one.

TheBaron

Uhhh....Sarah Palin ring a bell?

Falconjet

With all due respect, I don't think that you are hearing correctly. Its not that there is no leverage with the FDA. There obviously is some leverage, or we wouldn't be voting on a TA. The issue is how much is that leverage worth?

We are getting a pay raise, albeit a small one, and two safety programs that we have been trying to get for over 10 years. Is that enough for you? Only you can decide.

Should we have those safety programs anyway? Yes. Have we been able to get them? No. Why? I can't answer that, but I would think it has to do with the same reasons why we continue to have DPs flown, aircraft bid without pay rates, etc. We haven't had the collective will to get them. So that is something to at least consider. Will we get them anyway down the road? Again, I don't know. What do you think? Do you want them now, and if so, how badly?

Notice I did not even mention the actual gains in the FDA LOA, as those too are things I think we should have had all along. For some reason though, we collectively did not demand them before as we should have, and now we have a chance to get them. Not a huge issue for me, but maybe for some.

I am encouraged by a NC that doesn't feel like they have "won" the negotiation process with giddy talks about hidden money, improved retiree health care (for some) and capturing FDA flying. Hard selling a POS FDA LOA and telling us how senior it will go, then bidding the 777 while telling us that the man had his hand in our pockets. How well did that work out for us?

This NC is humbly presenting a package to the pilots to decide if they want it or not. They know they have a lot of work do and plenty of gains to achieve for us in the full blown CBA TA to come.

Again, I am not completely sold, but I do feel like there is some merit to the path this NC has offered for our consideration.

FJ

magic rat

Aviation Week and Space Technology article on new rules said United would need 2200 pilots if rules go into affect as is, and operating revenue up 1.2 billion (with a B) overnight.

JG quoted FDX would need 812, that's what company told the FAA in arguing against rule changes.

That's alot of bodies and alot of cabbage...

pipe

So, now is our opportunity to show some collective will.

PIPE

ForestGump

Totally agree! Are we better off than we were for the last contract?...LOA's? The company manages to recover any concessions in contract language...whether perceived or real by changing the rules (working within vague wording) and/or adjustments to system form and schedule to re-coup their losses.

seefive

It will be sad if we are hoodwinked into this TA....again.
I don't want 4A2B money back. 3 percent raise isn't all that awful.
But.....the FDA LOA is leverage. Period.
Why do u think the company wants to make this deal at all? It's for the FDA!!

We need to obtain real gains in scheduling. Better reserve rules. Instructor issues. Real time trip trading. Optimizer limitations. Mid trip PDO bumps.

I realize the company doesn't want to negotiate until the scheduling rules change but why give away FDA leverage for NOTHING.

This is a one to two year contract extention while giving away the FDA.

Ask yourself this question. In your time at FedEx, after each contract or LOA that we have signed, have we wound up happy with the gains?? or do we wind up saying the company pulled one over on us??

4A2B. LOA was the best we could do?? right. A380 payrate. No scope. No optimizer control.

I want our company to be strong financially. I don't want to break the bank. What I do want is for our crew force to stand together, use the leverage we do have, and clean up some necessary parts of our contract. Hopefully this will be the time we do that. I have my doubts though.
As for me, I will vote no on this TA.

Gunter

Worked out great if you wanted to trade scheduling rules, including some in a secret side letter that came out after the vote, for the hidden money.

But I'm hearing many on this forum talk how they're angry scheduling rules suck. You don't like that reserve days can be worth well south of 4 hrs per day. If you see BC in the AOC make sure you let him know how much you like the scheduling rules he negotiated now that we have to wait even longer for the NPRM implementation deadline to fix them.

Sure, someone had their hand in many pockets during the negotiations for CBA 2006. His initials are BC.