busdriver12

For sure.

COLA to the A plan
Variable plan
Increased B fund
Profit sharing
Cash over cap

MEMA300

I think u guys have us confused with another pilot group. We get crumbs after we give back half the loaf. If the new guys could see our schedules back b4 ALPA started negotiating contracts you would be shocked at how good they were then compared to now.

FDX1

First off, "ALPA" is your fellow pilots, its you and me and 4700 other FedEx pilots. But I agree that there was a lesson in that lawsuit. Our idiotic pilots will sue there own Union for any reason. So sure, let's try this one on for no good reason. I'm sure you can engage the services of the law firm that assisted on the last one. They seem eager to empty pilots of their bank account.

Start off the conversation like this: "Mr. Attorney, I was ****ed off about our last contract and thought we should have made improvements to MY Retirement!. Now those ba*@#$ds are trying to fix it...they are actually doing it!! They actually want to start a new DB plan that fixes that old one that I thought we should improve. I'm going to get a lot of my pilot buddies to help me give you some more money so you can take this to court. Are you in?"

Ok, of the 14 Block reps on the MEC, I believe 3 have 25 years, the other 11 don't. The NC has three guys, two don't have 25, well below that. On the R&I committee of the 4 guys, none had close to 25.

These are the folks that authorized this work and the SME's that have done the work. This statement has no reference for fact. Nothing communicated at this point would cause me to believe this. In fact the communication addresses the specific fact that this plan addresses new-higher replacement ratios in particular. Seems they are going to have much less compared to the 25 Year guys going out now. Looks they want to fix that. Guess you may actually need to read/listen to what is being communicated.


Yes there were some horse trades, but this was a 1.5Billion- Yes with a "B" contract. Not saying there weren't any gives, but at the end of the day this was the most valuable contract that has ever been negotiated on this property. Don't let the facts stand in the way of a good argument though. But more to the point, this is possibly the exact reason they are doing this now rather than wait until 2021, when the Company will be coming after more "perks".

I couldn't agree more! How anyone could pass a judgement on this before you hear all the details is beyond "stupidity" and beyond stupid, for that matter!

But hey, maybe we should accept the contract you clearly don't like, maybe they will allow you to cut yourself out of the deal, assuming at some point there is.

How about we let them do their job and see what they bring to the table. Imagine actually letting that process work, or is it something you would rather just kill out of your biased opinion before it has time to develop?

Lets not be our own worst enemies AGAIN!!

pinseeker

I've read and listened to everything that the union has put out about this. How exactly does this plan address new-higher replacement ratios? I couldn't find any specifics, only general statements.

ClutchCargo

The A plan COLA was gone (unilaterally taken by the company) before I got here in 1990...

My recollection of the profit sharing was that it was minuscule.

When we gave up profit sharing the rest (non-union) of the company still had it. Do they still have it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

155mm

There is no way the company will go for this unless it is absolutely, positively concessionary! All this dialogue and fretting is a waste of time. They will simply humor the Union with a nod and a laugh as they watch the wheels spin.

Adlerdriver

So the total value of the contract is the measuring stick in your world?

Don't you think that 1.5B had just a little to do with the fact that the contract is LONGER than any contract negotiated on this property? Heck, if that's your main measure of success, we could have gotten it up to 2.5B if we made it a round 10 year contract.

Considering the negotiating power we held and the company's economic strength, for what I see that we got, that 1.5B is incredibly cheap. The fact that it took "gives" and "horse trading" to get ourselves what the company gleefully admitted was a cost neutral contract before the ink was barely dry isn't something to be proud of, IMO.

Aside from a basic COLA type raise over the life of the contract (quickly eclipsed by our pax brethren) and 1% more in the B-fund (2 more years to go for the other 1%), what EXACTLY do you see on a regular basis flying the line that makes you happy with our current contract?
I see lower travel banks on long haul international deadheads.
Our FDA bros getting hosed on hotel in lieu of.
A significant number of scheduling improvements that have yet to be put into practice 2 years after signing.
Bidding for training still hasn't happened.
A new interpretation of jury duty pay that's worse.
Age dependent bonuses
A retirement bonus that effectively incentivizes not taking sick leave and working a maximum schedule for the last 2 years.
I could go on........

So, we get sold this contract and it passes by a margin that easily falls into the apathetic, "If the MEC recommends it, it must be ok" group. Perhaps you can understand why those of us who voted "no" on the contract might feel reluctant to place our trust in this process again, concerned we'll get a repeat performance by another sales group. Never mind that simple reality that the company has ZERO incentive to do anything unless it's in their favor. Pardon me if that fact right there makes me extremely leery of anything that comes out of this process considering our history of being "out-everythinged" by the company. If I felt like I could trust the MEC to educate us, accurately show us the pros and cons with no spin or sales pitch and most importantly LET US KEEP WHAT WE HAVE if we want, then I'd feel a lot better about them "doing their job." Fool me once.....

dckozak

I know blowing hot air on APC beats time spent in the gym, but can we wait until there is a target to shoot at before expending all our ammunition?
I was against this contract for this very reason. I was in the minority on the vote. OUR union is seeking a solution, outside of section 6 negotiations. I get it, long shot for real improvements, risk for something worse. Let's wait till there is something to aim at before blasting a hole in our foot!!

dspilot

It just blows my mind that we would even consider doing anything about retirement outside of section 6. We will lose a tremendous bargaining chip for future negotiations if we agree to make changes now.

Adlerdriver

I'm sure the counter to your very sound logic will be something like:
"If we can get an improvement outside section 6, then we won't have to "pay" for it later during future negotiations."

Something tells me we'll pay dearly for whatever comes out of this if the company goes for it and we're collectively stupid enough to vote for it.