TheBaron Deux

Yes, I do understand that wasn't his point. But why bring it up at all? We all know taxes are going to reduce the value of any pay raise, just like they reduce the value of our current rates. Does anybody really not understand that?

I'm going to buy a new car since we're getting a pay raise. Currently I don't have a car payment, but I figure the new car will set me back about $900 a month. Crap! Now my raise has been cut in half! What an insult. I'm voting NO.

MaxKts

You have finally seen the light

Also, you have the option of not buying the new car

Raptor

We are reaching the point of diminishing returns in the TA conversation. I am finding new points that I like in the TA and I've found a couple of new ones I don't. I'm still going back over sections. I did the health care changes the past three days.

I'm sending about 15 questions to the Q&A that I think need clarified. No, they aren't negative questions, I simply need more info or "how does this work" type of question.

I do believe we should vote no and take whatever comes as that path is less fraught with risk IMHO than locking in some bad language in QOL. I would consider voting in favor if I received sufficient compensation for giving up QOL items. I don't think we're even close to my personal acceptable level. Of course, that's why we all vote as we each have a personal opinions on what matters. I do think the downside needs to be clear to people so they vote with due consideration. The nature of the process is that the union produced information will be geared towards the positives. We have to have succinct, accurate information to put out to those who will never read the TA or Q&A.

The thing that has spun me up this morning is the block 1 post. That's why my posts in some threads have been a bit grumpy today. The only thing I have been mad about so far is the lack of access the block 1 rep has had. It might have something to do with the NDAs many people had to sign. The NDAs poison the process. I'm sure much of what SL and the NC have been saying come from information protected under NDA. But, then I have no way of intelligently assessing their positions because of that stricture. I hope the block 1 rep can receive satisfactory information that he needs to present his argument.

CloudSailor

Well said Raptor.

I am in total agreement. We all have a price.

For me, the correct price was already set in the openers (which is why I believed my NC was speaking for me). Among others:

- Elimination of reduction of 'permissive' language (failed to eliminate, did reduce in some areas, while creating more 'grey' areas in the process)
- Meaningful increase to hourly rates of pay (failed, IMO, but it depends on what one considers meaningful. COLA is not meaningful to me. But this item alone is not at all a deal breaker for me)
- Enhance the longevity scale (failed)
- IMPROVE DB plan (big fail)
- IMPROVE DC plan (accomplished)
- Activate real time trip trading (big fail)
- Health plan improvements (fail, although ACA is partly to blame)

Section 6 Openers: https://fdx.alpa.org/LinkClick.aspx?...%3d&tabid=6568

MalteseX

Yes. You are "more" correct. I did exactly the same as you in methodology. The differences. I didn't include the bump in PerDiem. I used CA at 9.3 in state tax. But you forgot to subtract Union dues. But you are more correct because I made a math error. I used the total pay BEFORE deductions for current pay. In other words the wrong column. The pay raise is indeed closer to your result.

That's why I flunked out of engineering.

PS. The math error was not intentional. And I truly thank you for correcting it. I just wanted to see the effects of the added deductions to see how much better or worse off than we are now. If more people can find mistakes etc and do additional accurate math -- then we all can get truer picture of how good or bad the TA is

NoHaz

4.375 bump vs FDX: FedEx hiking U.S. shipping rates by an average of 4.9%
5:19 pm, Tue, Sep. 15, 2015