TonyC

I said 1st revision, he said first version ... there are so many broken quotes (misattributed quotes) and confusing descriptions I've lost track of who said what.

The original FDA LOA says The Company can use during the first 2 years when the base is opening and for a period of 540 days during a base closure, Special Temporary Vacancies of 1 to 3 months. If they are assigned to a junior pilot in reverse seniority order, they can only be assigned once in a period of six times the length of the STV. So, 1 month STV, only once in six months. So, for month 2, The Company would have to work their way further up the seniority list.

A number of pilots raised concerns that they might be involuntarily sent to an FDA for 90 days. Our System Chief Pilot assured us he would only use 30-day STVs if he had to inverse pilots. AlbieF15 told me he could not support the FDA LOA with the threat of 90-day "junior man" STVS, but if it were changed to 30 days, he could support it.

DW, Vice President, Labor Relations Law, addressed the concern and sent us a letter assuring us that they would limit themselves to one month for pilots who were inversely assigned to an STV, and if we agreed, they would consider the FDA LOA language modified accordingly.

The MEC met, considered it, and accepted it, and THAT version (what I prefer to call 1.1) is what was originally ratified by membership vote.

The next version, what I call 2.0, came a year later. In it, The Company agreed to pay for visa fees, bumped the moving allowance from 500# to 1,000#, provided deposit assistance for beginning a lease, as well as a few other things.

It also included the "Ongoing Implementation Measures" feature that allows the MEC Chairman to codify changes without getting membership vote.



I feel so refreshed after digging through all that -- so, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah -- the Block 11 Rep.


Webb's not on the ballot. I haven't heard a whole lot of bragging about the incumbent, and really not much negative about Arcamuzi, other than he served when Webb was serving.

Maybe it would be helpful to discuss what the incumbent has done, why his track record to date makes him more qualified to lead us to the successful conclusion of CBA negotiations.






.

The Walrus

I think that if a pilot can't figure use out how to use the quote function correctly, then they shouldn't be allowed to post an f'ed up quote attributed to someone else.

TonyC

The only thing that changed between the original FDA LOA and the one that was voted on was the length of an inverse STV. As I stated above, that was by agreement between The Company and The Association, first agreed to by your elected representatives, the MEC, and then ratified by membership vote.

That is not direct dealing.


I bid Hong Kong. I commuted. I did not lease an apartment. Do you think I should have gotten the Rental Allowance?



Apparently you aren't too familiar with the actual workings of a Ponzi scheme. That's certainly NOT what the Health Reimbursement Account was. The HRA was funded by a VEBA with a $25,000 cash payment per pilot by The Company. The pilot gets the money, with accrued interest, on his 59th birthday. Having that money to offset medical costs until the pilot qualifies for Medicare removes an impediment to retiring.



Well, here's a problem. Instead of finding the definition of a generic VEBA, you've pulled one off of Investopedia, and it's not what we have. The HSA (Pre-Medicare) VEBA is not funded with unused sick leave -- it was funded by a $25,000 cash payment by The Company, per pilot.

Then ...


That's because, A) you're using a bad definition, and B) you have your VEBAs confused. The $0.50 per credit hour goes into a different VEBA, also not funded by unused sick leave, to be used by EVERY pilot once he reaches Medicare eligibility, to supplement his "post-Medicare" health care costs.

AS many times as we've gone over this, it still amazes me that college-educated pilots can't figure out we have 2 separate VEBAs for 2 different purposes.


Good for CAL. We're not CAL. The rest of this conversation is pointless.


90-day Inverse STVs were dinosaurs before the membership voted. How many STVs has The Company ever used? Zero. You were afraid you'd get drafted, and Dave Webb was certain you wouldn't. Who was right?




Well, I was there, I have originals, markups, meeting minutes, resolutions ... I'm just telling you what happened.


Like I said. Webb said junior guys wouldn't have to worry about being inversed to an STV. It looks like he was right after all.






.

HIFLYR

[QUOTE=TonyC;1752651]Really? Did you really just ask 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.

Semantics and you know it.

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?

Then it is age discrimination that this VEBA was for 53 and older. The money could have been put in the VEBA trust and paid out when a person retired if he went at 60 the full 25k plus interest if at 63 10k with interest and if at 65 nothing. It could have been broken down in monthly amounts or daily for example. Any left over funds would be seed money for the discriminated people under 53 to have the same options. This could have simply been the restrictions applied to the plan much like the 53 old cutoff.


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.

Respectfully with SIBA you do not have to say in theater for the whole bid month you are deadheaded home. Allowing anyone to forced to leave commitments to friends and family at home for even a full month is wrong. Also the same guys said the domicile would go senior and the junior guys would not be able to hold it.


I'm focused on right now, what's being done and hat'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.

I personally think the big difference is you are on the outside now and not privy to all the secret discussions like you were while you are a block rep. I have only always been on the outside and this administration not any different, except comm is better. Then and now many discussions and decisions are made in secret that the rest of the crewforce are not privy too.

I think you are a good guy and really want what is best for us as I do we just see many things differently.

TonyC

I wish it were that simple. It is, really, until you start talking to the ERISA attorney.



Look in the CBA for an animal called "Temporary Vacancy". The Company can send a Memphis MD-11 guy to Anchorage or Los Angeles for 3 months, or a Memphis B-767 to Indy for 3 months ... anybody to any non-FDA base. The provisions are remarkably similar, yet there was no outcry about TVs during any CBA ratification vote.

I don't know how many times I've heard this, and I don't know how many times I've tried to correct it, but I'll try once more. Nobody said the VACANCIES in the FDA would go senior. I expected them to be filled primarily by guys already in Subic Bay. What was said was that the STVs would go senior. Since we've never had an STV, I guess we can't prove or disprove that prediction, can we?



I think we can both live with that. It makes for more lively discussion over cold drinks.






.

iarapilot

Not true. DW said exactly that thru emails to more than one person. For the record.

FDXLAG

One can commute to Alaska, California, even Indiana. My objection to the STV concept is the company wanted pilots on a short lease sitting around begging to pick up open time. It was not a smart move by the union because it allowed the company to do more flying with less pilots at straight pay. Much like the reason behind the company's harassment of current FDA pilots. They want them sitting around their 600 sq foot closet hawking open time. I wanted to be an airline pilot, particularly a FDX airline pilot, to do what I wanted where I wanted to do it on my days off.

There was a reason that Subic was not included on your list of Temporary Vacancy locations. And as I recall the people they sent over to Subic to augment got very lucrative SIBA trips. The company was punished for not manning the base appropriately not rewarded.

TonyC

One can commute to Hong Kong. I did, several did, several are.


It's not my list, but of course there's a reason. Subic was an FDA. Temporary Vacancies are for non-FDA bases.






.

Doorknob

And yet we wonder why the Company always wins on "plain language" in arbitration.

Jetjok

What is a "short lease" anyway? A lease of less than a year, or a month to month lease of only Februarys? I just don't get it.