4A2B

partially correct Tony, sans an agreement like we signed we would either have ASAP or an "exemption" from that rule as they are pretty good at getting them. If we got it without "bargaining" it it would not be anything more than the boilerplate program from what I understand and ours has some stuff that is not boilerplate which we really needed and were the items that kept ASAP off the property for as long as it was.

TonyC

ASAP is a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) signed by the MEC Chairman, the FedEx Sr. V.P., Flight Ops, and the FAA.

FOQA is an LOA (Letter of Agreement) signed by the MEC Chairman, the ALPA President, the FedEx Sr. V.P., Flight Ops, and the System Chief Pilot.

LOSA is a MOU -- we implemented it with a signature by the MEC Chairman and the V.P. of Flight Ops., with no membership review or ratification.

The Collection of Human Performance/Alertness Data MOU was signed by the MEC Chairman, the ALPA President, the V.P. Labor Relations, and the Sr. V.P., Flight Operations. (The entire Negotiating Committee affixed their autographs as Witnesses. ) This MOU serves as the foundation of the Fatigue Risk Management System.

All 4 components of the Safety Management System, ASAP, FOQA, LOSA, and FRMS, are implemented by MOU or LOA. None of them required membership review or ratifications. None of them required a change to the CBA. One of them, the LOSA MOU was implemented just that way in order to actually conduct a LOSA.

Now, let me pose this hypothetical question. If the membership had rejected the 2011 CBA with the MOUs and the LOA, do you believe The Company would have withdrawn their agreement to these critical safety programs? In light of the pressure from the FAA to implement a Safety Management System, how favorably do you suppose they would have received the news from us that we had reached an agreement, but The Company changed their mind because we didn't like the rest of the CBA?


You're right, there is more to the story -- there always is. I believe it's disingenuous, though, to tout the safety programs as one of the glorious achievements of the CBA. When Albie wants to suggest that we saved guys' careers with that CBA, and when AFW_MD11 suggested that The Company had no motivation outside of quid pro quo CBA negotiations to agree to the safety programs, I thought it would be fair to consider more of the story.


Safety as a priority should never be used as leverage -- it should be a GIVEN.






.

Albief15

I want to back-peddle just a bit. My point was there was VALUE to what got locked down in the interim contracts. The fact that ASAP was finally on paper was a win for us, but I did not mean to imply we gave nor should we have given up capital for it.

My point was simply that there was more to the interim deal that had value than the 3%.

When I joined the MEC in 2008, the Block 8 rep SR had been working for years with ASAP as one of his pet concerns. I was boggled that it took so long to finally get it on the property, and the amount of resistance it had even when we were dealing with some pretty grim accident statistics. I have a lot of respect for the effort the guys put into the program over the years, and I was very relieved to finally have it here--regardless of the how/why it finally showed up. I think pressure from the FAA was part of the reason, as was the tragedy of Flt 80.

Again--not trying to stir to pot--just pointing out the interim deal was more than a 3 % raise. Part of the reason I eventually supported it was the hope that it might help us reach our eventual goals in a less dramatic, more effective manner. The next few months will let us know if that is the case. I may have been wrong, as I have in the past on other issues. The company has a chance here to do some good things. Failure to follow through on their end will telegraph to future union leaders and the entire crew force the direction we will go in our future negotiation strategies not only this year, but in most of our future contracts as well. The ball is in their court, and I hope they do the right thing. Our crew force will be ready regardless, and if required both the optimists and the cynics will be working together to do whatever it takes to get our next contract.

The Walrus

I learned how the company negotiates with the first and second contract. No surprises coming on that front.

MaxKts

Albie, do you really think something with the CBA will happen in the near future? A couple of months ago the company walked in with a PBS proposal! Now why would they do that if any headway had been made in the last 2 years? They knew our answer to that proposal before they threw it across the table! They are going through the motions, just like in the past. Eventually, they will walk in the door with a complete CBA and say "take it or leave it this is our final offer" just like they have in the past. How many times are we going to do this before we get smart?

AFW_MD11

If you were MEC Chairman and/or Negotiating Chairman, what, if anything, (specifically, not in vague generalities) would you do differently than we have done/are doing?

MaxKts

Stop sugar coating the fact the interim talks were a waste of 2 years time! Admit that they miscalculated and that the company has no intention of making this easy!

It would generate a lot of "I told you so" but at least we could move on and go into section 6 with the full support of the membership - something I see lacking right now!

Pep talks do not produce support - results do! If the interim talks got somewhere - show us.

purple speed

This is the BOAB (Baby of all Bids)!

Unknown Rider

Wow, way to avoid the question! You plan to run for Congress next?

Busboy

I would not have agreed to opening the CGN domicile without first negotiating a complete CBA. Like the one we just entered Sec 6 negotiations for. And, will most likely take at least another year to complete. That is, if we petition the NMB for mediation in the next couple months.