golfandfly

I'm not sure the union has much say on the A-380 issue, either the company buys them or not.

I'd like a better 777 rate. First of all, I have not bid the airplane. But I think we can all probably agree it is going to be the Fedex widebody aircraft of the future. If things go as they seem, we will ALL have the chance to fly it. I've worked at other carriers where certain aircraft always go super senior and the masses really don't have a chance to bid them, or if they do, it is the last few years of their career.

That isn't the case at Fedex. We've got guys whose system wide seniority is around 85% or so (don't quote, me it's a guess) that are flying the 777. I'll bet that almost everyone on property now will have the opportunity to bid the 777 within the next few years (maybe much sooner for most).

That said, it is something that we will all probably be able to hold in our career. Even though I'm not on the aircraft, I'd like to see a higher rate. I'm not willing to throw the rest of us under the bus for it, but I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot if try to "screw those guys." I think we'll see a lot of 777s at Fedex and one day we'll both probably be flying them.

FDXLAG

And I go back to my point that my Rep should have voted yes or no on 1 Question. Is this a good deal for my block based on the amount of leverage we are giving up?

That is the hard decision he was elected to make. Saying I dont know maybe we should pass this decision on is a copout. Especially if his/her yes vote is commiting dues money for passage. You either support the TA or you dont. If you do tell me why, but also tell me any reservations you may have. Getting educated on a subject means you have to hear opposing views.

For the life of me I can not imagine how anyone can think this will speed up us getting our next "real" contract. In the very best scenario it has no impact; worst case it could delay a "real" TA by 3 to 4 years.

Finally this is not an attack on my block rep, any member of the MEC, or the NC. Strange I feel the need to make sure I havent hurt anyone's feelings.

FXDX

That is exactly the question being answered by your block rep's vote.

A lot of this back and forth is that you disagree with him/her. That is fine.

But the fact that your rep voted in favor of the TA, even if they say it is your decision, means that THEY think it is as good a deal as our leverage allows.

Gunter

The cost of a higher pay rate includes all the LCA's, managers, and Flex's that get passover if they can "hold" the 777. As you mentioned, most can. That's money that can fund an across the board pay raise.

I think TC is trying to bring home the bacon to these and other folks. Smart guys like TC know we can't float all boats with a rising tide if we choose to raise one up above the rest.

Just sayin'

FDXLAG

I have no doubt that is what my block rep thinks, so dont hide it in we are damned if we do or damned if we dont language and I needed to vote yes so we can send it to the membership.

And again the only real back and forth is here. Take the STV "answer" last week:

"In the previous version of the LOA, there was an allowance for “involuntary” STV assignments. In this LOA, through language change and negotiation documentation, there is no longer any ability for a pilot to be inversely assigned to an STV."

Now how can one argue with this? Language change, meaning we removed the language that said involuntary STVs were limited to 1 bid period. And Negotiation documentation, isnt that what we had to back us up on 4A2b.

So by removing the only languge that talked about awarding STVs we have clarified that you cant be inversed?

But if an involuntary STV is impossible I guess it is impossible. Is ther any language anywhere that compels the company to award STVs in seniority order?

Busboy

You mean, like the ungrounded personal attacks from these two guys?

Just sayin'

Gunter

This is politics, pure and simple. The allocation of resources is always being weighed and is at stake now. If you didn't know that, I'm sorry.

TC alluded to it in his narrative when he said this

He recognizes that there were inequities in the previous contract. Whether you believe he stands for a more equitable contract is up to you. I happen to think some folks view important things, like our FDA LOA, as a "pet project".

Striving can mean asking for something then pushing it aside to ensure another improvement gets funded.

Some guy

I think Gunter is on to something. I did my own independent research regarding TC's claims, and have come to the same conclusion. It's about Union politics and personal agendas...SG

Sleepyflyer

My vote. Union politics!

Overnitefr8

Am I misreading this statement or are you saying the MEC should always have a unanimous vote on a TA/LOA? Why even have them vote. It should go directly from the NC to the union membership.