Huck

1986, 1997, 2007 and 2019 called.

They want their irrational trust in the continued stability of the pax airlines back.

Huck

He said that where?

BrianH

All,

Our airline is a good place to work. Let's look at the past 24 years. ALPA, FPA, ALPA. I call that growing pains. When tigers failed, and FS bought them it did several things good for the company. It also gave the pilots from both airlines a chance to grow. Sadly a lot of that opportunity was not fully realized. So we got the "parking lot" deal. Yes most don't know the background or the truth, but that is for another day. What it did do was give us language (CBA). Some of that language haunts us to this day. Some of that language is very beneficial to this day.

Then we got contract '06. Some improvements to be sure, and some steps backwards (BKO for example). We also got A380 pay rates.

ASAP was talked about, but we did not get ASAP until contract '11. Along with better fatigue protection measures. Still at the same time the rest of the industry lost their pensions (except Brown), saw furloughs and wild swings. All through the problem years, We, the FX pilots, kept the ALPA lights on with our dues money. Being here was the stable, "good" place to be. We had "Purple pilots" for sure. They were very beholding to company. Some would tell you about the gas they bought for the aircraft in the very early days to keep the company afloat. Still we all watched the rest of the industry fade some.

Then came contract '15. Touted as the highest valued contract in ALPA's history. it was also one of the largest trades of QOL for money every. An oh yeah, it was a six year deal not four like the rest of the industry. Yet there where gains but the pillar of improving our pension was not realized. Some say the MEC and NC got tired of the process after spending $14.1 million.

The lack of improvements to our pension took us into the process which educated the MEC about the real costs of a pension and PSPP. Those efforts where ridiculed by a lot of people, but the truth is the MEC matured for a time. it was worth the money spent.

So that brings us to the current effort to gain improvements. Like it or not these are emotional times for many.

IF we unify, we stand the best chance since Orville and Wilber tossed a coin to see who would go first, to gain real improvements across our contract and improve our pension bringing it back in line with the '99 value.

If we don't we will again have missed out on golden opportunity.

So why the remorse? Some of it is emotional uncertainty. Some of it is the technology improvements that are on the horizon. (Hint: the FAA does not have the NAS ready for the technology of today, yet alone the future). Some of it is Greener grass on the other side of the fence. And some of it is the lack of leadership from our elected reps. "Trust the process" is not leadership, its a copout.

Ask you rep why only now are they trying to get everyone's contact information updated in the ALPA system? Why not start that process in earnest when we passed openers, the amendable date, or any anniversary of any of those dates? Why now?

I could go on, but what you are feeling is angst because you see the lack of leadership and the level of uncertainty is too high. Sure the other unions have their issues, that is life. But our issues are self inflicted. And we are not willing to hold our leaders accountable, so now people are considering leaving because of the issues.

How much effort is it to change airlines? How much effort is it to hold your rep accountable? Which is easier? This place has always been a great place to work. Demand professional treatment and fair compensation and when you retire, you will have a great career to look back on. But if you settle for good enough, you will have left a lot on the table.


Remorse, maybe, I would have to say I am seeing frustration. That can be fixed with accountability. Hold your reps accountable, it is far easier than changing airlines.

WearyEyed

Agreed. He said it was critically important to get it but it wasn’t his job to do because it wasn’t part of our contract openers. He said it’s for the next contract negotiations. The only way I MIGHT accept it not being included in scope is if there is a financial penalty so high for the company in our compensation that it wouldnt be worth reducing the number of crew members. Any single pilot ops pays 3 times the highest widebody Captain rates and any pilots furloughed due to reduced staffing created by single pilot ops are compensated at the same level as our A plan until either recalled or until eligible to collect their pension.

Corned Beef

2023 called, it’s asking FedEx management to operate their company in current times, not like it’s 1990.

Jman85

Would you still feel the same if hiring was going crazy like it was?

My concern being new is that is everyone just money hungry or do people realize the work rules are severely lacking. Talked to senior people and they want work rules changed as well. Obviously don’t know if that will change but it’s nice to know that I think there’s more unity than people seem to think. Might be just me trying to be positive…

zmoney

Lots of legitimate gripes in this thread. However, with regard to the quote below, first year pay is quite low—I agree. However, I think describing subsequent years as “so little” as overly dramatic.

Yes, I think we should be paid more.
Yes, you might be able to have a higher W2 elsewhere. Yes, you should leave if that’s what you want and you don’t want to wait for it here.

But, no I don’t think earning $150K-$180K can be described as “so little.”

Corned Beef

Got it, the slowdown is exasperating the issue for sure. I appreciate the positivity and certainly can see your point. I can say I noticed a lot of the QOL issues even during our ‘boom’ times, but if I brought these gripes up it often fell on deaf ears. I’m in it for the long haul and am happy to see some honest conversations about what life is like here and look forward to some cultural and positive QOL shifts in the future. Hopefully these convos can help folks make more educated decisions on whether or not to make a move after gaining seniority at other airlines.

FDX1

a
That’s a blatant lie. I was there and that’s not what was said. The NC and the new EVP spoke in depth about the issue.

The EVP who is also the Legislative Affairs Chairman said it’s a two pronged attack. Legislative is priority one and that there is big money behind the R&D side. That effort is ongoing and National is spending time and money to defend against it. The other side is regulatory and there is currently zero language to place in a contract that helps because it’s not defined in 121 or 117.
They explained that every aircraft on our ramp and every other carrier is CERTIFIED for a MINIMUM two pilot crew.

The NC explained that they took significant time to evaluate various items in Scope and that have new language which is more effective based on they current threats to pilot jobs.

They also said it was a significant issue that should be viewed from the two fronts for challenges and we should continue to invest in building those arguments. They said it didn’t survey high at all (basically at. The bottom of pilot priorities) this time around and there has been no shift in that through all of the surveys.

JackStraw

Then that negotiation with the company wouldn’t take very long would it? If it weren’t a viable threat they’d say “Fine. Sure..” to the union’s requesting something along the lines of no less than 2 pilots on the Flight Deck required during any phase of flight
on current aircraft. But to not even attempt it? They are aware that Collins has and is currently marketing a multi-core processor that can retrofit older aircraft eliminating the need for a co-pilot and that regulations and certifications can change rapidly right? DC10 to MD10 anyone??

At the very least bring it up in negotiations and see where the company stands on the issue for the record. Fail.