CloudSailor

Remember, we had to expend negotiating capital to get ASAP on property.

I am pretty sure (please correct me if I am wrong) we are the ONLY property on which ASAP (with all its benefits to us and the company), was used to get something from us during negotiations.

iarapilot

We my not be able to strike. The threat of one in the media might be of benefit. Only time would tell.

What it boils down to is; does the TA represent what we want, or not. And, if it doesnt, what is an individual willing to fight for to get what they want. Being a simpleton, I would say that that is what it comes down to.

Rock

I truly believe you should vote the way you want. I just think that when you vote for what you want, it should be based on the best the most realistic expectations of what is actually possible. If you haven't already, take a look at the impact of UPS's strike vote. Nobody really cares.

The Walrus

It hasn't happened yet. It closes a few days after our TA vote is final.

MaydayMark

At one point we might have had the highest accident rate in the industry and we didn't have industry recognized safety programs ...

Coincidence?

During NTSB Accident Investigations the NTSB asked ALPA if they could even use data recorder information as we didn't have safety programs protection from Management discipline!*? Wow!

What were they thinking?

TonyC

Reading comprehension, attention to details.

He's not the LEC 11 chairman, and he didn't say he "thinks we will be allowed to strike."


Try again.


Is this how you've read the TA?






.

FDX1

Tony,
That is all a great 6th grade math review but please show me where exactly the NC or anyone other than the Block 1 Rep said we were guaranteed a 3% Y.O.Y. pay raise?

I know you have this but for the rest of the folks, this from FDX ALPA Openers: (Highlights in red are mine to show what was achieved)
"Section 3
Compensation

* Meaningful increase in the hourly rates of pay
* Explore new hire improvements
* Enhance the longevity scale
* Increase in international override
* Provide for retroactivity of pay rates and benefits from the amenable date
* Create increase in pay rates on subsequent amendable dates"

I've read numerous posts, and seen a large and interesting variety of math calculations that include, CPI-U, CPI, FedEx Pilot figured CPI, COLA rates and a variety of percentage based reasons we did or didn't make a set pay rate.

Either you think the pay rate adequately compensates you for this job or you don't. Establishing ANY pay rates to measure this TA is a completely personal and subjective, but has nothing to do with our established "Openers" set by the MEC.

iarapilot

Dang, I better go change my vote then.

TonyC

First show me where I or the Block 1 Rep said we were guaranteed anything. We established a pattern years ago of annual pay rate increases of 3%, and I have simply shown how this TA falls short of that pattern by almost a full year's worth of annual pattern rate increases.


Define "meaningful." This should be fun. I think meaningful would be AT LEAST as much as the pattern of 3% annual rate increases. It might include a comparison with our peers in the industry. 4,000 pilots will probably have 5,000 opinions, but I predict that many will not characterize rate increases that fall below the 3% pattern as meaningful.



Oops. Missed that one.

Umm, you put this in red. Where did we achieve this?


Oops, missed that one, too. But I suppose we can live with a few misses since we got that meaningful increases in the hourly rates of pay.


But ... you just quoted the Openers, the bullet point about pay rates, and apparently claim that we achieved that goal. Why would you herald that accomplishment if it has nothing to do with our established "Openers" set by the MEC -- with a gargantuan amount of input from line pilots, I might add.






.

FDX1

Tony,

My real question for you is how do you do that multi-quote thing?

OK, I'll go with your input that you didn't guarantee anything, you haven't been in a position to do that. But why back away from all the math that you and others have been so aggressive at pushing. My only point was that 3%, is arbitrary but is being discussed as it was some sort of established minimum threshold for pay. In fact as you know, there have been poster boards and lengthy opinion pieces published that do just that and excoriate the NC for not hitting that specific target. It's just a false argument to pick that number and say we didn't meet some goal based on it. IMHO.

"Meaningful". Yep, not going to go there. (At least after this.) Personally, I believe a move from $260.61 to $286.67 is meaningful. Most people I am friends with would say that an increase of about $25,000/year meets that definition. In fact they would describe it much more glowingly than meaningful, and for some, would describe it as life changing. But I hang out with humble people of ordinary means and appreciate those folks opinions. New hire pay $2,000 to $4,000...again, meaningful (albeit, very much overdue). FDA NH pay...$100/hr., Yep.

Provide for retroactivity of pay rates: Thought that was the bonus pay and 10% initial bump. Guess we may have a different idea about this?

Sorry, didn't really grasp your issue with my last sentence other than trying to be a bit argumentative on your statement. I really am not trying to go tit-for-tat, just trying to look at what has been discussed here and on other forums as a huge talking point-a talking point that is meant to be persuasive with a goal that was not ever established.

Have a good night Tony!