Search

Notices
View Poll Results: How Will You Vote on the FedEx TA?
I'm a definite YES
65
16.93%
I'm a definite NO
170
44.27%
Don't know yet, but leaning towards YES
56
14.58%
Don't know yet, but leaning towards NO
75
19.53%
TA, what TA?
18
4.69%
Voters: 384. You may not vote on this poll

Informal TA Vote

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-07-2015, 11:09 AM
  #71  
Part Time Employee
 
MaxKts's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Default

Originally Posted by FDX1
Some good points worth considering G&F. So what exactly is the history of a pilot group voting down a T/A? Mixed to poor outcomes mostly with Billions lost. American, USAir, AirTran (SWA Merger) to name a few that left Millions of dollars on the table in "good" deals. They never recouped those losses and are just now, in American and USAir, just starting to claw their way back.

To your point of 6 years being too long and regrouping. For a suitable deal. Some say the size of the deal may improve, some say it shrinks, lets assume it's neither. So money gets moved around but the at the end of regrouping we are still looking at a 1.68B dollar deal. Even if it's a four year deal with the same money...well what if it takes another 2 years to get the deal?

We could be left looking at the same size deal 2 years from now, for the same money. We end up with the same duration due to the delay, but with less earnings and DC contributions over the same period.

WHY? Risk/Reward? I'd rather know the hand I was dealt than guess at one that may be dealt.
How much was the 2006 CBA supposed to be worth? Seems to me the company exploited contract language and 4a2b to recoup all of that plus some! You may be willing to hold the pair of 2's and pair of 5's you were dealt but I am not! Too much "fuzzy" language introduced in this TA and the scheduling abuse fixes - we added penalties for their abuse. All we have done is prostituted ourselves out. It won't stop the abuse it will only cost the company a couple extra pesos. They don't care about the little extra it will cost - we have just given them permission to do what they want whenever they want - to me that is a huge QOL issue!
MaxKts is offline  
Old 09-07-2015, 02:27 PM
  #72  
"blue collar thug"!
 
iarapilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Default

Originally Posted by FDX1
Some good points worth considering G&F. So what exactly is the history of a pilot group voting down a T/A? Mixed to poor outcomes mostly with Billions lost. American, USAir, AirTran (SWA Merger) to name a few that left Millions of dollars on the table in "good" deals. They never recouped those losses and are just now, in American and USAir, just starting to claw their way back.

To your point of 6 years being too long and regrouping. For a suitable deal. Some say the size of the deal may improve, some say it shrinks, lets assume it's neither. So money gets moved around but the at the end of regrouping we are still looking at a 1.68B dollar deal. Even if it's a four year deal with the same money...well what if it takes another 2 years to get the deal?

We could be left looking at the same size deal 2 years from now, for the same money. We end up with the same duration due to the delay, but with less earnings and DC contributions over the same period.

WHY? Risk/Reward? I'd rather know the hand I was dealt than guess at one that may be dealt.

You have a point. But I can see you never play poker.
iarapilot is offline  
Old 09-07-2015, 06:51 PM
  #73  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 107
Default Sounds like you would vote for the Iran Deal.

Originally Posted by FDX1
Some good points worth considering G&F. So what exactly is the history of a pilot group voting down a T/A? Mixed to poor outcomes mostly with Billions lost. American, USAir, AirTran (SWA Merger) to name a few that left Millions of dollars on the table in "good" deals. They never recouped those losses and are just now, in American and USAir, just starting to claw their way back.

To your point of 6 years being too long and regrouping. For a suitable deal. Some say the size of the deal may improve, some say it shrinks, lets assume it's neither. So money gets moved around but the at the end of regrouping we are still looking at a 1.68B dollar deal. Even if it's a four year deal with the same money...well what if it takes another 2 years to get the deal?

We could be left looking at the same size deal 2 years from now, for the same money. We end up with the same duration due to the delay, but with less earnings and DC contributions over the same period.

WHY? Risk/Reward? I'd rather know the hand I was dealt than guess at one that may be dealt.
I think No deal is better than a bad deal. The difference between us and most of the airlines who suffered after voting down a TA was they were in financial crisis and were going to be forced to take a bad deal anyway through the courts. We aren't in financial crisis we are making record profits so I am comfortable voting down what I see to be a mere cost of living raise with a lot of concessions.
FDXAV8R is offline  
Old 09-08-2015, 05:33 AM
  #74  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CAVOK84's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2008
Position: Bus
Posts: 109
Default

Originally Posted by FDX1
We could be left looking at the same size deal 2 years from now, for the same money. We end up with the same duration due to the delay, but with less earnings and DC contributions over the same period.
I'm sorry but that simply isn't a good enough reason for me to support a contract that falls well short of what most believe to be reasonable expectations. These hypotheticals ignore every stated goal in negotiations, justifications for improvements, and the fact that the long term consequences of signing apply well after the six years. We have to be willing to accept some risk...

There needs to be a continued incentive for the physical and psychological strain of night hub turn ops. This is particularly important as we all know how optimized the schedules have become. Simply joining the majors, or being slightly ahead doesn't satisfy that requirement (especially considering how profitable FDX is by comparison).

WHY? Risk/Reward? I'd rather know the hand I was dealt than guess at one that may be dealt.
That's the same situation we were in for the last couple of years. How is this different than any other time we negotiate? It's unavoidable.

The attitude of passing an extremely marginal TA due to some perceived fear of failing to make improvements is short sighted, and only serves to severely weaken our already weak bargaining position.

I understand where you are coming from, I hear it on trips from some guys... I will say that I don't believe this is a rational behavior, as most guys supporting this seem ignorant of the TA and simply are tired, ready for it to be over with, and fearful of delaying a marginal improvement; they've run out of gas, as have some of our leadership.

Originally Posted by MaxKts
Too much "fuzzy" language introduced in this TA and the scheduling abuse fixes - we added penalties for their abuse. All we have done is prostituted ourselves out. It won't stop the abuse it will only cost the company a couple extra pesos. They don't care about the little extra it will cost - we have just given them permission to do what they want whenever they want - to me that is a huge QOL issue!
This 'fuzzy' language and ineffectual penalties should be very concerning. The company always has a long game with that fuzzy language.
CAVOK84 is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 04:02 PM
  #75  
On Reserve
 
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 19
Default No Balls!

If you pussies vote for this crap contract I have NO respect for this crew force! Just because ***** Larsen says this is the best we are gonna get you trust FedEx. Are you kidding? Been here to long to see how FedEx likes to screw with us. Please vote NO. Fire the negotiating chairman and move on. MEC too.
yobob333 is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 04:24 PM
  #76  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Finally a rational winning argument.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 04:49 PM
  #77  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Patches's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 154
Default Rational has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Finally a rational winning argument.
The contract offer is insulting on too many levels. Voting the TA down is a gamble - but a pretty safe gamble. The company will not let this go long with the increasing healthcare costs (that need to be addressed soon) and a ****ed off pilot force unwilling to do extra.

I, for one, don't care if pilots go full blown emotional to get to their NO vote - as long as they get there eventually.

Insert rational for "Germans"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84DkwMA9FEs
Patches is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 05:06 PM
  #78  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

I don't know how the vote is going to go, if the yes vote wins half the pilots will ***** and moan and still collect their paycheck because the deal will be done, aint crapola the no votes can do about it. If the no vote wins half the pilots will ***** and moan and still collect their paycheck. The difference is we will need to be more unified with a no vote then a yes vote. Being insulting little panzies is not the way to get unified.

Last edited by FDXLAG; 09-10-2015 at 05:43 PM.
FDXLAG is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 07:33 PM
  #79  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2013
Posts: 2,756
Default

Originally Posted by FDXLAG
I don't know how the vote is going to go, if the yes vote wins half the pilots will ***** and moan and still collect their paycheck because the deal will be done, aint crapola the no votes can do about it. If the no vote wins half the pilots will ***** and moan and still collect their paycheck. The difference is we will need to be more unified with a no vote then a yes vote. Being insulting little panzies is not the way to get unified.
I'm not sure that all the "insulting little pansies" are even FedEx pilots, or if they are just people joining in for the fun of it.

Should I end up voting no for this TA, I guarantee you that I will still take my 30K annual raise and 35K bonus, and probably stick some of that into my retirement fund investments. I suspect that the issues I have with this TA are going to stick whether this TA passes, or if we wait for the next one. Whether this deal is exactly what I wanted or not (it's not), I still have to admit that working for FedEx has made me wealthy, and my pride will remain intact whether I get an A fund increase and another couple percent pay raise, or not.
busdriver12 is offline  
Old 09-10-2015, 07:46 PM
  #80  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

No argument, I will make my decision and be happy regardless of how the vote turns out. My point is, if we vote no, unity is more important than a yes vote.
FDXLAG is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MtEverest
Delta
64
06-30-2015 04:27 PM
tom11011
Regional
11
12-17-2014 04:56 AM
Freighter Captain
Major
2
05-12-2005 11:45 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices