meatloaf

Bears repeating. If the MEC goes counter to the wishes of their constituents on this, it would be the most destructive thing to unity in a decade. Just rumor at this point, but if it goes down like it sounds the stupidity index would be off the charts.

We already gave the company what they wanted. That ship has sailed. Why give back what little we did gain now?

appDude

Rock-
Nice thought, and I do not disagree about wanting to vote with your wallet, but last I checked, the last contract included that all current and new members pay union dues, even if you quit the union. You are just an indentured wallet to them.

Gunter

Specifically it was the company that didn't want to negotiate before the rules came out. We'd still be in talks right now.

It's not changing one's tune to consider different factors for the second, and last, 3%. It was negotiated and is now ours to take possession of or give away. Call your MEC rep with your take on it. If he doesn't take your call, find another one.

MeXC

The MEC doing something different than the crew force wishes? Inconceivable.
The MEC informing the crew force how unwise it would be to do something but then turning right around and the top leadership doing it themselves? Inconceivable.
-Vizzini

FDXLAG

We can argue all day whether tax equalization is a benefit to us or the company. We can argue all day whether the German Social Security issue is a problem for the employer or the employee. We can argue all day about german labor laws. You obviouly think the company settled because they are nice guys and I think they settled because they got everything they wanted for 2 3% raises. I can live with your opinion youll have to live with mine. All that I know is that the current contract didnt fix 4A2b or any other issues I care about.

4A2B

Agreed LAG! Main point is, we can argue all day long about past leverage and this discussion is now about do we want to give up the money we DID trade the German LOA for? And I agree with your comments on that, wholeheartedly.

DLax85

Could you please show us in the New contract where this is written?

I believe we write those type of assurances in the Scope Section.

4A2B

section 1.B.2

International flights‖ are all Company flights which originate from, terminate in or transit the U.S. or its territories via a location outside the contiguous 48 states. International flights also include all flights conducted by any pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List assigned to Foreign Duty Assignment (FDA), or Special International Bid Award (SIBA).

this is as close to a scope link as i could find.

FDXLAG

Not trying to pick another fight but the irony of your screen name and the weak contract language associated with that provision and the use of the above contract provision to reassure yourself that "... I for one am glad we have a package that ensures the flying remains on our seniority list....." is to hard to pass up.

For example if the company decides to close the fda tomorrow doesnt that mean we no longer have that flying. What is they decide to go London-Paris-Madrid with those darn Irish Pilots? How does our scope language stop them?

4A2B

no fights here LAG! Just trying to point out positive things, you are correct in pointing out if we did NOT have an FDA LOA, and now with SIBA being gone (except for the 727) we would have ZERO ownership of the EU FDA flying. The only thing we would own was what shows up (or not) in the bid packs.

The Company appears to want our behinds in the purple tails, all good and if the Company now closed an FDA, yet kept all the flying and transferred it to a third party we would have a case, not a great one but better than having never "owned" the flying.

if you feel we would be in a stronger position having not yielded to an FDA deal then so be it, obviously I do not. Let's not get into those "press to test" scenarios, because history shows we do not come out smelling like roses or anything close.

My screen name reflects how important i feel that cba clause is, it needs to be fixed but not having pilots furloughed is something I think is a common goal we need to keep in play. it just needs to be much more detailed than we have today.