Aquasport

https://aerocrewnews.com/uncategoriz...ential-new-ta/



Otterbox

$hitty back pay alone should be motivation enough for 90% of the pilot group to vote “No” to the FedEx TA.

Freight

AA runs on razor thin margins, not to mention an insane amount of debt. If they can afford those pay rates and back pay, FDX certainly can.

Flying Boxes

If AA is to big to fail, so is FedEx.

Laughing_Jakal

It's easy to promise anything in an agreement if you can abrogate it with Force Majeure.....I was hired by United after the "summer of love" contract.....and the contract was astounding from an industry perspective. I was also hired by FedEx at the same time. I was told I was a liar, that there was no way I would be a FedEx if I was hired by United....I was told that I was "F'n Stupid and that I 'deserved' to be with F'n losers at FedEx" from other FedEx pilots when the mantra was "Delta + a nickel".....I was 35 years old and the average age of new hire was 33 for the last three years before I got out of the military....they were merging with US Airways....In retrospect I was a frikin genius......That contract disappeared.

You can promise anything in a contract if you don't think you'll have to see it through due to Force Majeure.....These pax carriers have proven that they will furlough and renegotiate many times at the drop of a hat. They cabbaged retirement programs and bought little airplanes for subsidiaries....

I'm not sure I share your enthusiasm for the future economy....I believe we have a better chance of us seeing our TA payrates in 2027 then they have of seeing theirs.

A friend reminded me I told him years ago "Pigs get fat....Hogs get slaughtered".....different context, different time, but it feels relevant today. For those who complain that FedEx doesn't know how many to hire...hire too little (good thing), then hire too much, then explain to me how we haven't had any furloughs in our history....worst that happened was 4A2B and I took a brunt of that. FedEx has a different business model and paradigm than the passenger carriers....with the exception of "Zap Mail", there have been very few large blunders......

There is a grass is greener syndrome so strong among some that they are might be best served by leaving....this may be a golden moment in time. For whatever reason, you feel like you got to the "Party", late at Fedex....you were at the wrong end of a business cycle, or wanted to secure that sweet mil retirement job before applying (because, you know...FedEx is always a gimme), or you weren't brave enough to make the leap, or you were such a jerk you couldn't get an endorsement, or you were working your tail off and not like any of those guys, and timing just sucked. This is a turbulent business and anyone that tries to tell you it isn't doesn't know what he or she is talking about. The ability to move to more comfortable waters is a valuable skill, whether it is a seat, airframe, domicile or carrier. Largely you won't be able to control contracts....at least individually....evidenced by the fact there seems to be a strident group opposing my viewpoint who says I'm going to lose. The nasty ugly remarks about seniority could have been written by me during the Age 65 thing....I get it....but remember that Seniority is always relative to someone else, and your biggest effect on your personal seniority is your decision....Just because your new hire classmate bought the mini-mansion and upgraded to Captain at the two year point does not mean its the right decision for you.....and anyone that says "in Unity" and we want to "Improve the profession" is virtue signaling.......the ones who want to improve the profession volunteer a heck of a lot of time (I don't agree with his assessment, but TonyC is someone who I believe is wrong....but puts a tremendous amount of time, energy, and good will into his efforts to improve the profession).

You only have to be junior once.....you guys are complaining about stagnation, but you are deriding people for wanting to take an increase in retirement before going out the door...they spent five or more years on the panel of the 727 doing exclusively night hub turns building the company and the contract into a place you thought you wanted to be at for ever.....I am surprised when I see immature and childish statements like "its time for you to leave"....as if you had a say in anyone's longevity on property.

If you think you need to leave, I would advise against it....but I won't write you a check if my advise is wrong....sorry. If you think you need to stay....then I think you'll be ahead in the long run. If you are going to be angry and miserable if this TA passes, and can't let go...then for your own mental health, perhaps you should have gone to the Pax carrier to begin with. FDX does not suit everyone, Pax work does not suit everyone.......don't try to squeeze into something because of the money.....money comes and goes.

In the end, you'll never know if you made the right decision regarding the TA or leaving or staying with FDX until you can view it in retrospect. If you are wrong, no one will "make you whole"....no one will write a check to compensate you for "what should have happened" based on the rightness of your decision regarding the TA or Carrier choice. No matter 'how many likes" you got on your pithy social media post, we all have to live with the impact of our decisions. I trust my track record of assessing what's right for me a heck of a lot better than I do Pax carriers promise to fulfill a contract with its pilots. I am fully ok with my "YES" vote no matter how many of you deride my motivations and publicly defame Pat May.

gasnhaul

So apparently you get paid by the word…

I’d bother to point out your errors but Tony C already did a great job of that.

gasnhaul

Matter of fact I’ll see your BS and raise you a Tony C

CAPT. TONY CUTLER Council 22 Chair Block 2 Status Rep
Members of Council 22,
As you are certainly aware by now, your FDX MEC voted on June 11th to endorse the Tentative Agreement with FedEx and to forward it to you for your consideration and ratification. As many of you are aware, I voted in opposition to that endorsement, and I believe I am obligated to offer you an explanation for my vote.
Before I give you that explanation, I believe I would be remiss to not thank the Negotiating Committee, the other members of the MEC, our committee volunteers and especially our professional staff and subject matter experts for their hard work, professional dedication, and tireless efforts to serve the pilots of FedEx. You deserve their best efforts, and I know they gave their best efforts.
Shortly before I began my term as Seniority Block 2 Representative, I was given access to the sections of the TA which had already been agreed to by both parties, with the exception of §28. Retirement. The MEC received final copies of §3. Compensation and §31. Effect on Prior Agreements, Effective Date and Duration a few days before our Special MEC Meeting, and we received §28. Retirement for our review the afternoon before our weekend meetings began. Beginning on Saturday morning, we were briefed on the TA section by section, and we were allowed to ask questions as we went along. On Sunday, we continued the briefing, and then engaged in deliberation to decide further MEC actions. I have read every section many times over and have studied them all with an eye for how The Company can subvert or abuse the language to their advantage.
The TA contains a number of improvements or enhancements, and some are not small. I’m sure you will hear about them from other sources, but my intent here is to explain why I voted in opposition to endorsement, so I will focus on those reasons. As I explained to my fellow MEC Members, I would like for us all to be able to enjoy the improvements in the TA, but NOBODY will enjoy ANY of the improvements unless the TA is ratified. In making my decision, I tried to put myself in your shoes as you read the TA and represent the choice I believe you will make in the end.
SCOPE
The first section of the TA is §1. Recognition, Scope, and Successorship. Scope has drawn a great deal of attention lately, and given the communications we have recently received from the highest level of management, it is understandable that many of us are fearful for our future jobs. Our Negotiating Committee Chair addressed scope at length during our April Joint Council Briefing and we can view that address in a YouTube video. While you might have been prepared then for no improvements in our scope language, I doubt you were prepared for a degradation. With more flexibility to wet lease and lower monetary penalties, our scope protection has actually been significantly weakened.
In exchange for that concession, we have what I consider to be symbolic improvements for wet leasing during §4.A.2.c. and during furloughs. While The Company cannot enter into any new wet lease agreements or extend or renew wet lease agreements during §4.A.2.c., they can enter into any number of long-term wet lease agreements on one day and invoke §4.A.2.c. the next day, and continue those wet lease agreements.
Additionally, there is no limit on wet lease agreements while under §4.A.2.c. during the “true” peak weeks of the year. Of grave concern is the price we have established for wet leasing while any pilot is on furlough – as low as ½ of the cost of a Captain and two First Officers for the same block hours.
It is my belief that most FedEx pilots will find the combination of weaker scope protections offset only by symbolic improvements unacceptable, and many will not need to read any further to determine their vote. Pay rates, retirement benefits, and work rules are irrelevant if jobs are lost.
PAY
The first bullet point in our Section 6 Opener document is “Establish industry leading Hourly Rates of Pay (3.C. (p.28)).” Given that Delta’s top hourly rate of pay starts with a “4”, you might have expected our “industry leading” hourly rate of pay to start with a “4” also. Instead, our top hourly rate of pay is about $35 lower.
Several reasons will be given why that discrepancy exists. One reason will be that Delta has fewer airplanes than FedEx in that category, and that it takes Delta pilots longer to achieve that rate. Since we have no control over how many B-777s FedEx chooses to operate, I submit that we should not be required to operate them at a discount. Given that our B-777s generate far more revenue for our employer than does a Delta pilot’s B-787 for their employer, if there is a difference in hourly pay rates, ours should be more.
You may hear that it would be unfair for our hourly pay rates to match Delta’s highest pay rate because that would make our B-767 and A300 pilots the highest paid in the industry. When FedEx brought the B-777 on the property, we used our CBA procedure to lobby for a higher pay rate than our Widebody rate. The Company argued that it should be paid at the Widebody rate. We lost that arbitration, but now we seem to want to use The Company’s argument against ourselves to justify B-777 payrates that compare to Delta’s B-767-300 rates. I would argue that when The Company chose to lump the B-777 in with our other widebody aircraft in a single pay rate, they chose to pay the A300 and B-767 at B-777 rates, not the other way around.
Industry comparisons aside, the 14% initial pay rate increase does not even make up for inflation since our last pay raise in November of 2020. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator, our hourly pay rate then has the same buying power as an amount 16.9% higher today. (BLS CPI Calculator)Our 14% hourly pay rate increase, then, amounts to a 2.9% PAY CUT. This comes nowhere close to satisfying your expectations as expressed in surveys.
The annual increases in subsequent years also fall quite short.
RETROACTIVITY OF PAY RATES
The third bullet point in our Section 6 Openers begins with “Retroactivity of pay rates … from the amendable date.” This is important because we cannot allow The Company to enjoy a financial incentive and advantage for delaying the consummation of negotiations. When there is no cost, or little cost, of delaying, there is no incentive for The Company to negotiate with the intent to reach a deal. The amounts of our Amendable Period Recovery Payments – $1,450 per bid period for a maximum of $30,450 for Captains, $950 per bid period for a maximum of $19,950 for First Officers – is frankly insulting. It is far less than the income we have lost due to delayed pay rate increases, and therefore constitutes an incentive for The Company to delay negotiations next time yet again.
RETROACTIVITY OF BENEFITS
The third bullet point in our Section 6 Openers continues with “Retroactivity of … benefits from the amendable date.” In the past 21 months, 299 pilots have retired with a pension that has not been improved in 24 years. The savings The Company has enjoyed rewards their delays. That’s 299 pilots who will not receive the same $2,708.33 in their monthly retirement checks as a pilot who would retire under this TA. “Nobody left behind” rings hollow.
ENHANCE COMPANY FUNDED RETIREMENT BENEFITS
The MEC tasked the Negotiating Committee to “[i]mprove the total retirement income replacement ratio”, to “[o]btain an industry leading retirement package using both Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution plans”, and to “[c]reate a sustainable balance between Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution plans.” The Company told us in 1999 that we should have a Defined Benefit pension to replace 50% of our active pilot income, and a Defined Contribution account to replace another 20% for a total of 70% of our active pilot income. That has been lauded for years as an ideal balance of risks and potential benefits of both types of retirement arrangements. Many of you expected to keep that same balance and are likely surprised at a new type of account that is called a Defined Benefit plan but has most of the same characteristics of a Defined Contribution plan as our “B” fund. The contributions to the new plan are defined as a percentage of income up to the IRS limit, but the amount of the benefit will depend on how much the pilot works, how long the pilot works, and how well the market performs.
Compare what a first-year pilot will earn toward their retirement under what I will refer to as the legacy “A” plan and what they will earn under the MBCBP scheme. The pilot under the legacy “A” plan will earn 2% of their final average earnings, regardless of how much money they earn that year. In fact, they’ll earn 2% EVERY year, regardless of how much money they earn that year. After 25 years, they will have earned a pension of 50% of their high five average, limited by the FAE cap.
The same pilot in their first year would earn a “Compensation credit” to their MBCBP of 11% of their income up to the IRS Defined Contribution limit. If they spend just 2 months on new hire pay (which has been substantially improved) and 10 months on first year pay at MBPG, their contribution to the Market Based Cash Balance Plan (MBCBP) would be 11% of roughly $80,600. To increase the value of their pension, they could work more than MBPG in pursuit of the $330,000 IRS Defined Contribution limit. This incentive to work more would result in a productivity gain for The Company, which ultimately results in fewer jobs for us. Every year thereafter, the pilot could continue to increase the size of their “compensation credits” by working more, and they could further increase the total of their “compensation credits” by working longer. Working harder and working longer is a win for The Company, but not for a pilot.
The problem we have endured for the last 17 years is that The Company has refused to raise the FAE cap. In 1999, when the fund was created, the FAE cap was twice the IRS Defined Benefit Limit, and therefore resulted in the maximum Defined Benefit allowed by the IRS. Today, the IRS Defined Benefit Limit is $265,000, and a corresponding FAE cap would be $530,000. When Negotiating Committee communications began conveying that all we were working on was the FAE Cap, many of us had expectations that it was our legacy “A” plan that was being improved, not replaced.
The FAE cap, or rather caps, negotiated in the TA are without a doubt improvements over what we have today. The Company has established that they are willing to raise the FAE cap, just not for everyone, and not enough. By setting one FAE cap for those who choose to participate in the MBCBP and 3 others for those who choose to remain in the legacy “A” plan, they have created 4 groups of pilots whose “A” plan benefits are different. Sadly, none of them will provide the pilot with a 50% pension, even at the low hourly pay rates proposed.
Furthermore, by creating a new plan and freezing another, The Company has created 3 groups of pilots who have different retirement benefits. There will be one group that will have only the legacy “A” plan with a slightly improved FAE cap, another group with a frozen legacy “A” plan with a less improved FAE cap and an MBCBP, and then a third group without a choice – they’ll only have an MBCBP. Who believes this will not create any friction when the next round of RLA Section 6 negotiations begins for the next CBA? Have we not learned from history that dividing pilots into haves and have-nots benefits nobody but the employer?
Even at the distant end of the legacy “A” plan and no MBCBP, the FAE cap provides a Defined Benefit pension far below the expectations of the membership. I’m sure that many will find the MBCBP an attractive option. Certainly, you’ll be told it adds incredible value to this TA. I doubt you’ll hear how much The Company will be saving in pension obligations by driving a spike through the heart of the legacy “A” plan. You’ll probably also hear how much it would cost to raise the FAE cap for everyone to get a 50% pension benefit, but you probably won’t hear how much The Company has saved by waiting 24 years to improve it. Again, The Company has demonstrated that they are willing to raise the FAE cap, even though many people insist that they never would. Our only dispute is how much and for whom.
Compared to the TA numbers for FAE cap, a pilot would earn more money on The Company’s Long Term Disability plan than in retirement from their “A” Plan. Let that sink in.
QUALITY OF LIFE CONCESSIONS – VACATION
Under the TA, pilots who elect to and are selected to sell back their vacation will only receive their 24CH bonus for doing so if they work their entire MBPG. You’ll hear that this affects a tiny number of pilots who have sold back their vacation and then arranged their schedules to work zero hours. If that was the whole story, it would still be wrong to concede a benefit that is only enjoyed by a few pilots. But it won’t be the same few forever, and it may be something we all want to do when we can. Most importantly, when we decide it’s ethical to sacrifice the benefits of anyone, we show that we’re willing to sacrifice the benefits of everyone.
But it’s not just the few who sell back vacation and still work zero hours. It’s about everyone who sells back vacation and works anything less than MBPG. Even a minute less. Sell back your vacation and drop a PM Out & Back and you lose 24CH.
Many pilots over the past several months have been asked about rumored concessions in this TA, including this work rule change. You’ve been told this is not a concessionary TA, and that arguably is true. (If you consider sub-inflation pay rate increases as pay cuts, it is arguably false.) But that does not mean there are no concessions. This is one. And in a time when we have just saved the world through our COVID-19 pandemic efforts, we are in no mood to consider concessions. ANY concessions.
The Company calls these productivity gains. We call them quality of life degradations. These degradations will be what The Company will be talking about in their next annual report to shareholders when they say, “Pay increases for pilots were offset by productivity gains.” They result in pilots working harder and longer, and that means fewer pilots are required to do the same amount of work. The end result: fewer jobs. If fewer pilots are required, guess whose jobs go away first
STUDENT LINES
40% of LCA lines will be designated as Student Lines, and those First Officers assigned to those lines will be removed without pay. Those pilots will then receive Student Make-Up (SMU) credit and can try to find trips in the View/Add window to get a paycheck. While they get a 25% pay premium to work, their seniority will have been effectively butchered by having to choose from whatever happens to be in Open Time at that time. But while all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than others. 60% of LCA lines will NOT be designated as Student Lines, and First Officers bumped from those lines will be able to sit at home and collect 100% of their pay like they always have. We’ll create two classes of bumped for training.
This will not only affect the First Officers who are bumped for training. Some who would have bid those lines previously will instead drop down to their next choice of lines, maybe that sweet line that the pilot junior to them would have had. So the junior pilot gets bumped down a line, and so on, and so on. Every pilot junior to the FO bumped for training will effectively lose a seniority number in line bidding due to the trickle down effect. Think it won’t affect you because you’re not senior enough to bid those LCA lines anyway? Think again.
Another secondary effect of adding First Officers with SMU to the View/Add mix will be more pilots competing for the same trips in the View/Add window. Another attack on quality of life. Another benefit lost. Another productivity gain. Another quality-of-life degradation. Another loss of jobs.
ADVANCE VOLUNTEER
Another division of pilots into 3 classes. Some may receive 100% for an AVA trip. Some will receive 150%. Some will receive 175%. Requiring a pilot to work MBPG before being able to earn a premium is another attack on our quality-of-life work rules. When you require the pilot to work more, that’s an obvious productivity gain, and therefore a loss of pilot jobs.
Additionally, a new eligibility requirement for AVA has been created. A pilot may not be assigned an AVA trip on a day covered by a trip for which that pilot was scheduled and subsequently removed via bid line adjustment, regardless of how much they may work in the remainder of the month. Drop a week-long trip because you need that Friday off for an important family event, but you’re willing to help out on Monday and Tuesday with an AVA trip? Sorry, no can do. Benefit lost. Concession.
R-24 to R-16
Some will claim this is not a concession but rather a trade-off for Base Hotel Standbys. While it may be more difficult to assign a Base Hotel Standby to an R-16 pilot, it is still possible, and if it’s possible, you can count on The Company to do it. They’ll only have to take one more step of building the Base Hotel Standby earlier in the process.
Once again, the pilot who could have held R-24 and sat reserve at home will either have to sit R-16 in base, and pay for their own hotel or crash pad, or they could choose another line, maybe the line that the pilot junior to them would have chosen. Once again, everyone junior to the pilot who would have selected an R-24 line effectively loses a seniority number in the line bidding process.
MY JOB
My job is to represent the pilots of Block 2, the pilots of Local Council 22, and the pilots of FedEx Express. There are several good things in this TA that I would like to have, for myself and for everyone else. I am well aware that many pilots in my block would be happy to take the retirement improvements and won’t care about anything else. But nobody will get any of the improvements if the TA fails membership ratification.
THE MEC’S JOB
The MEC is tasked with bringing you the TA that you have earned and that you deserve. I believe that we should bring you a TA that will be widely supported and enthusiastically ratified by an overwhelming majority of the membership. In fact, that was one of the MEC’s Strategic Negotiations Goals. On the heels of a historic Strike Authorization vote and record numbers of picketers, it is clear to me that the membership is ready and willing to go the distance to get the contract that we deserve. But the MEC has not used all the tools available under the RLA process.
The final task of the MEC during our weekend Special Meeting was to consider and adopt Resolution 23-20, “MEC approval of TA to pilots.” (FDX MEC Resolutions) One proposed sentence originally contained the word “cornerstone,” but there was disagreement as to whether that was the appropriate word to describe the Negotiating Committee’s accomplishment. I held up the FedEx MEC Section 6 Opener document and suggested that it would be appropriate to say, “WHEREAS, the Negotiating Committee has achieved the MEC Negotiating Goal of an industry leading contract that meets our members’ focused priorities of enhanced retirement benefits and pay rates with targeted quality of life improvements” IF the MEC believed that. My suggestion was rejected, and the sentence instead reads, “WHEREAS, the tentative agreement makes substantial improvements to our collective bargaining agreement.” It is my view that “substantial improvements” falls well short of achieving the goal you are willing to strike for, and that you stood proudly on the picket lines for.
YOUR JOB
I am not writing this to try to convince or persuade anyone how to vote – I am only explaining the thought process of my opposition to endorsement. This by no means constitutes a comprehensive list of concessions and other shortcomings of the TA that pilots will find objectionable. I’ve only listed a few of the things I believe most pilots will find that do not serve our needs.
I know you will educate yourself without a sales pitch or threats of terrible consequences. I hope you will have an opportunity to attend a roadshow and ask questions. I trust you will cast an informed vote.
MY COMMITMENT
I opposed the endorsement of this TA because I believe the membership will not ratify it. As messy as it would have been for the MEC to send the TA back to the Negotiating Committee, membership rejection will be more messy. And if you reject this TA, I believe we will have let you down.
Had I endorsed this TA, and the membership decided not to ratify it by an overwhelming majority, I would have to acknowledge that I am out of touch with the membership, and I would feel obligated to step aside and allow a better representative to take my place.
On the other hand, since I opposed endorsement, if the membership ratifies this TA by an overwhelming majority, I will acknowledge that I am out of touch with the membership and will do the honorable thing: I will step aside and allow you to choose someone who better represents you.
It is an honor to represent you. I appreciate your support.
In Solidarity,
Capt. Tony Cutler

CloudSailor

Laughing_Jakal, once again promoting your same cowardly view full of fear of the consequences of voting down this POS.

Do you tell guys you fly with that you helped get that shyte 2015TA to pass?

You are so afraid of us voting this down and not being able to do better than this concessionary, divisive TA. You don't believe we can. That's so weak. That weakness is what got us to where we are, ready to vote in a TA that doesn't meet but 1 (and barely) of our openers.

We have earned more for our company than any pax carrier, we need to be properly compensated for it. Yet you are happy to earn less with a fraction of the "bonus" we are owed since 2021, while ceding to the company in scope.

All of it is fine with you, as long as you get that shiny new payrate NOW right? Oh, and your A plan bump as you head out the door and leave our airline a worse place to work than what you got to enjoy.

Temocil27

Laughing_Jakal what a word salad that turned out to be. Long story short, things change and the fact that you got most affected by 4a2b and sat sideways in the 727 decades ago has absolutely no bearing on the fact that we are an airline that employs pilots of the same qualification as Delta, AA, United, and UPS. I made $19h/hr flying B1900s for a long time but does that mean I’m okay with the “industry leading compensation package” available to me now? No. Because it’s not industry leading and we have IN FACT earned an industry leading TA. I’m sorry you are afraid of the consequences, but this TA needs to be voted down for the future of FedEx pilots, not just for the folks that serve to benefit at the apex of their careers.

Coffeepilot1

No concessions.