MaydayMark

Here's the way I remember it (pretty clearly actually!) ...

Dave Webb and Bob Chimenti thought that they (BOTH OF THEM!) deserved "special" A380 pay! If that meant that 757 pilots got narrow body pay, well, that was just fine with them!*?

And I vividly remember Bob Chimenti standing up at more than one Union meeting and saying that he would retire under the current contract and that he intended to fix his (OWN!) retirement ... he did that!

I'll have to thank them both the next time I see them.

Now back to regularly scheduled programming. Anyone that has the "Dave Webb stench" on them I will personally work to NOT GET ELECTED!

Busboy

Just curious...Were you at FDX in 1989?

TonyC

Really? Did you really just ask that?

A pilot cannot simply ask for and receive every kind of special pay in the CBA. If he wants Instructor overerride, he has to qualify by being an Instructor. If he wants to get paid for a move, he has to certify that he actually moved. The CBA says The Company may ask for, and the pilot must produce, documents verifying that he really moved. Sales contract, purchase contract, vehicle registration, voter registration, all are some examples of the types of documents The Company may ask for or accept. That's the same paragraph referenced in the FDA LOA. The pilot was asked to produce Lease Agreement, utility bills, or other documents to prove he had established his residence, and the Assistant Chief Pilot looked at them and started the pay. Simple as that.



First, it wasn't a retirement incentive. It was intended to remove an impediment to retiring. You may think it's a subtle difference, but it's significant. We don't pay people to retire.

Second, Google VEBA. Sure, I agree that the guys who chose to not retire didn't really need the money for its intended purpose. But much like you lose control over money when you place it in a trust, if you try to place conditions on the use of money held in a VEBA trust, you'd run into Age discrimination issues.

I would be in favor of a vehicle to remove the impediment to retirement that only goes to the pilot when he retires. Do you know a legal way to do that?



What would you call a B-757? The choices under our CBA were Wide-Body, Narrow-Body, or other. Can you make a convincing argument that the B-757 is anything other than a narrow-body?


I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking. In the first place, the way the STV is structured so a pilot can take his family on The Company's dime, including round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, I doubt junior guys would be able to hold them. But for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and nobody wants to do them. That's where your "working up the list until starting over" objection doesn't make sense.

In the original and the first revision of the FDA LOA (the one we voted on), a junior pilot could not be inversed to an STV more than once in 6 times the duration of the STV. In other words, not more than 1 month out of 6 months. Since the window of opportunity for STVs is so narrow (only 24 months when opening or 540 days when closing the FDA base), the most junior pilot wouldn't see very many months of STV. The same pilot, however, might find himself inversely awarded a SIBA slot over and over and over and find himself in the same country flying with fewer benefits that the STV.

In other words, STV does work up the list for 6 months before starting over. SIBA never has to work up the list.





Do you count future hires to be in his special group? He protected them by refusing to engage in discussions about a Defined Contribution plan for all future pilots. Do you count Over-60 Flight Engineers in his "special group"? He protected them by ensuring that they would have ALL their seniority rights when the Regulated Change occurred. So, what do you mean by how he treated those not in his group?

I'm focused on right now, what's being done and what's not being done. Are you happy with the way Contract Negotiations are going? Does it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that we can't even have a mature discussion about work rules because The Company has refused to take PIBS off the table?

I'm not satisfied with that. I think we can do better, and we deserve it.






.

FXDX

[QUOTE=TonyC;1752651]

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're asking. In the first place, the way the STV is structured so a pilot can take his family on The Company's dime, including round-trip airfare and hotel accommodations, I doubt junior guys would be able to hold them. But for the sake of argument, let's say I'm wrong and nobody wants to do them. That's where your "working up the list until starting over" objection doesn't make sense.

In the original and the first revision of the FDA LOA (the one we voted on), a junior pilot could not be inversed to an STV more than once in 6 times the duration of the STV. In other words, not more than 1 month out of 6 months. Since the window of opportunity for STVs is so narrow (only 24 months when opening or 540 days when closing the FDA base), the most junior pilot wouldn't see very many months of STV. The same pilot, however, might find himself inversely awarded a SIBA slot over and over and over and find himself in the same country flying with fewer benefits that the STV.

In other words, STV does work up the list for 6 months before starting over. SIBA never has to work up the list.


I'll bet you still wonder why you got recalled.

FDXLAG

[QUOTE=FXDX;1752680] Actually in the original and 1st version of the loa it was 90 day STVs. We voted on LOA service pak 3.

TonyC

No, we voted on v. 2. I have pretty detailed records, being the new guy on the MEC trying to keep up.






.

Busboy

Wouldn't the original and the 1st version be the same thing?


So, LAG's service pak 3 would be version 2. I think.

FDXLAG

[QUOTE=Busboy;1752820]Don't ask me I paraphrasing off the guy in front of me. Actually the LOA's were changed daily, it would be very hard for even tony to define what made loa versions 1 - 10. But the good news is I think you can still change your vote.

Zero13

Of those who are eligible to vote you will be quite relieved to discover that Stratton, Webb, and Chimenti are not on the ballot. Shocking to me is that no one seems to support Arco's opposition. In fact his support is akin to his representation.

No one has e.mailed or called Arcamuzi and asked about the LOA...but if you did you might be surprised what he has to say. You are looking for answers that no one on here can give you.

What I do know is that his passion, enthusiasm, and effort these past four years in the school house has earned him an active and involved support group of over twenty pilots. The group spans all three blocks, all fleet types, FOs and CAs, and many former opponents. Why? Because he is capable and willing to do the job and we need a good rep! So in fact you can change your vote. You can also talk to Airbus instructors, training managers, and members of the curriculum re-write group all who will speak clearly to his character, enthusiasm, commitment to pilots, and already active representation of the membership while not in an elected role.

Flying Boxes

Well, if my reading comprehension is any good. Yes, yes I did! Thank you for asking!

Remember this started with HKFlyr insinuated that DW and his administration had no responsibility for the HK4. Not a personal attack on you HKFlyer, or you TonyC. Just stating an opinion. I agree, that the HK4 were not treated the way any of us hoped, but DW was part of setting the trap. Not really worth arguing who is "more" responsible. Just think the whole situation was bad, and wish things were done better so the situation did not occur.

And if the crew force did not "want" to move there, they didn't have too! Management wanted to reduce costs by eliminating SIBA, and increase crew availability (saving even more money). DW negotiated the LOA v1. Then management started direct dealing with the crew force while it was out for a vote, fearing it would fail based on the extremely negative response it received. The paltry allowance was a tremendous concession considering the cost savings, increased availability of the crew force, and at the cost of unity within the union ranks. The direct dealing demonstrates that DW did not put 100% thought and effort into it, and why he shares responsibility for the HK4. So, yes I think if you bid HK you should get the housing allowance. If the company doesn't care if my spouse lives with me while domiciled in MEM, it shouldn't matter if I'm domiciled in HK either. There should be nothing to "qualify" except you are domiciled out of HK, PERIOD. The housing allowance should be to make the FDA cost of living equivalent to living in the US, just like the company tax equalization program makes our taxes the same as if we are in the states! Why did DW & you endorse this discrimination? I guess that train truly "left the station".


The issues is the with how DW diverted the scope penalty that is distributed to all union members according to the CBA to fund the $25K that was "an incentive to retire." You skipped past this part in your reply by accident? I was at the hub meeting when DW & BC discussed it using those terms. And there is no loss of control with a trust, actually it is required to be used exactly for the purpose it was created for. Companies provide retirement incentives all the time without any legal issues. Delta allowed pilots to retire early, was that discrimination? If you are FORCED to retire before the regulated age while others are not, you are a victim of age discrimination. Volunteering to take an incentive that "removes an impediment" is not. Remember the money is not being "paid to retire", it is to offset the cost of health care. Just like the DW administration wanted. DW didn't pay people to retire, he paid those over age 53 money to "remove an impediment to retiring" with money obligated by the CBA to be paid to all members in good standing. When someone asked about those younger than 53 on the signing date, DW said that age 53 was used to provide the union enough time for them to negotiate a similar deal in the next contract. That is a Ponzi scheme! How did that work out for Bernie? This Ponzi scheme is very unpalatable. Perhaps the qualification of "over 53" was age discrimination.

Perfect segway, this should educational for many here and make them even more disappointed in the DW administration and better prepared to judge the TA when it eventually is presented. (BOLD added to emphasis what you & DW omitted in the discussion of VEBA)

Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association Plan (VEBA) Definition | Investopedia

"DEFINITION OF 'VOLUNTARY EMPLOYEES BENEFICIARY ASSOCIATION PLAN - VEBA'
A tax-free post-retirement medical expense account used by retirees and their eligible dependents to pay for any eligible medical expenses. The plan is funded by the amount of unused sick leave that an employee has at the time of retirement, which is contributed by the employer into the plan. The benefit of this plan is the amount of sick leave left at retirement is paid out in full to the plan and is not subject to tax, which would reduce the amount one would receive."


So, the $0.50 per credit hour could have been one source of funding VEBA with the other from your unused sick leave? INTERESTING! And perhaps the scope penalty on top of that! something we all benefit from! Wow, that…might…lead...to…unity!

I guess you, DW, & BC missed that part of the definition.

I can't claim to be as snarky of a poster as you are Tony, but here is my feeble attempt!

FIXED IT FOR YOU!

At the time of C2006, CAL had different pay scales for different sizes of similar narrow bodies. The bigger version of the B-737 paid more than the smaller versions. Same for the B-757. Guess FedEx couldn't emulate that. Who would have guessed that an airplane with a tremendous increase in volume at greatly reduced operating cost would not end up a significant portion of the fleet? DW and his cronies thats who. The B-777 increases efficiency as well, but guess the junior do not need to benefit from the increased efficiency they way the senior pilots needed to benefit from the "senior" aircraft. A good tide raises all boats, not just the senior ones.

The CBA references Narrow-Body and Wide-Body. Why was it difficult to follow the same philosophy with an Ultra-Long Range category. The lack critical thinking cost the union big $ in the CBA and the grievance filed afterward. For the junior, we lost an opportunity to be paid more to fly a bigger airplane for both the B-757 & B-777.


Again, speeding past the reality of life. Pilots do not "bid to take his family on The Company's dime" on their monthly schedules, except when they want too. 90 days is a very long "bid to take his family on the Company's dime." So to the senior it "may" be a good deal for those dreaming of a Parisian vacation, but you get the choice. But DW forced this 90 day "good deal" to HK during the winter on the junior, regardless of their own schedule. Most pilots have obligations where they live, which is why they live there. Whether it is kids in school, spouses that work, doesn't really matter. If you were worried about the junior pilots having more "family time", negotiate to shorten the years of service to accrue vacation!

I addressed this earlier, please see above about how v. 2 came about. If you have pretty detailed records, use them the first time. Otherwise someone might get the impression you putting a spin on past actions.

DW negotiated v. 1, which was for 90 days! Way to long of a "good deal" to force on anyone.

Well, it is obvious you did not understand what I was saying. Sorry I didn't communicate it better. Why should it start over at the bottom after any amount of time, instead of continuing up the list? What is the thought for forcing the junior pilots to endure an involuntary assignment more than once, when others are not sharing in the pain of protecting the FDA freight? Protecting the freight from foreign pilots is everyone's responsibility, not just the junior. Just like everyone should not volunteerily fly DPs, not just the junior! Learning form the quote "a good tide raises all boats". "When the tide is low all boats should become beached". That builds unity, while still respecting seniority. Guess this is too radical of an idea.