TonyC

With entire re-writes of some sections and denial of access to ALPA National data, it's hard to put solid numbers on work rule changes.

If you'll recall, the biggest obstacle to furloughing during §4.A.2.b. was not that we were under or over-manned, but we were wrong-manned. The junior pilots were in the wrong seats, and the Executive Vice-President lamented that we didn't have a bump-and-flush excess system so he could man the airline "properly." Had we been manned properly, we would have seen furloughs.

That's an efficiency that The Company gains with this new convoluted system of bidding for vacancies. It will result in pilots being in the seats where The Company wants them, and when they want to implement §4.A.2.b. again, and then furlough, and then continue with the lower BLGs of §4.A.2.b., they will. (Yes, I know it's a different paragraph number in the TA, but it will forever be remembered by that awful name, and I'm hoping the TA will not become the CBA anyway. )


Anita didn't say that pilots WILL be A, B, or C -- she wondered aloud how many MIGHT be A, B, or C. Knowing that the rules are vastly different but having no experience with how they are supposed to work or how The Company will abuse them, I think that's a fair question to ask. Even the Negotiating Committee calls them Company gained efficiencies. When we are more efficient, they need fewer of us. The 3 possibilities she raises are more than reasonable.






.

ClutchCargo

Tony:

A- New hires. Not my problem. In fact, I read a lot of anti-T/A pilots on here mad that we spent money on people not on the property.

B- Down Bid. That's pretty frightening. I mean, what would happen if we started parking MD's or A's? Or reducing manning in any particular base? It's not like we've had any down bidding (excess) under the current CBA...

C- Furlough. Were we short of pilots in December 2007? Did the age just change from 60-65? Did we just park ALL of the DC-10s? Did a posting get cancelled and re-posted so all of the over 60 S/Os could get their Captain seats back? I guess that the best thing is to make sure that pilots are in all the "wrong" seats so the company can't furlough. I would posit that a furlough is about the farthest thing from a reasonable question to ask under our current CBA or the T/A. Unless you want to invoke a sense of fear in junior pilots' minds.

TonyC

I'm confused. Are you saying those 3 are NOT frightening (rationale above) or that they ARE frightening (Anita trying to scare us)?

A - It's sad that you care so little about your future brothers and sisters. (And maybe you could post a link to one of those posts you're talking about.)

B - Yeah, we've had excesses before, and I don't know anyone who enjoyed it. I've been through 2, including one down-bid. At least I didn't have to suffer an automatic pay-rate decrease for using sick leave like we'll have to do with this TA.

C - I guess you don't remember how low the BLGs were on the B-727. Had the most junior pilots been manning the back and right seats, I would bet many of them would have experienced what few FedEx pilots before them have experienced, but only worse. Instead of getting to throw boxes in the hub, they would have been on the street with a furlough to add to their resume. But the junior guys weren't there. They were in Anchorage and Hong Kong and the B-777. The wrong seats saved their jobs; §4.A.2.b. just made sure they got paid less.






.

HKFlyr

I thought the SS fan club was gone? I guess not. Vote yes - accept mediocrity, but hey, Semper I is the name of the game for many.

Don't let the facts confuse you...and yes, someone needs a vacation.

Another one of the crowd that knows more than everyone else and is smarter than the rest of us. He posted this all over the Jetflyer too.

kronan

This is my prediction of what will occur after we furlough pilots

BLGs will stay reduced. We will grieve it. FedEx will argue that the reduced BLGs are needed to reduce or delay additional furloughs.

After considering it for 17 months, the "neutral" (company selected) dude will deny our grievance

Viper446

[QUOTE=ClutchCargo;1981256]Tony:

A- New hires. Not my problem. In fact, I read a lot of anti-T/A pilots on here mad that we spent money on people not on the property.

Clutch, Are you really saying you don't care about anyone new getting hired here?

I've been under the assumption that regardless of 4,200 pilots being separate people, we still have a common goal. Our wages, pay and benefits are what we have because of the pilots and Unions that have preceded us. No one would be making what we make if it wasn't for collective bargaining.

So if its the pull up the ladder and I got mine attitude, I guess I'll just start flying every DP. And when my seniority will be in the double digits, that's two not three numbers, I'll just bid carryover, protect it and fly my ass off. I'll sell back vacation, save all my sick and on the next contract, if I'm here, vote,"Yes" because I'll benefit going out the door.

ClutchCargo

[QUOTE=Viper446;1981416]That's not really what I meant. I just find the block rep who wrote the piece posing questions about hiring, down-bids, and even furloughs to be utterly ridiculous. Vote this T/A in and you might get furloughed? Come on.

I've read a lot of opinions on why this T/A is not acceptable. Many, very well thought out and supported with research and facts. The block 6 reps arguments do not come close to that level in my opinion. TC's defense of her notwithstanding.

Raptor

Her initial post wasn't that good. But, her Go-Around post was. I say that because it counters the emotional yes vote with reasoning that could sway. It won't do anything towards a reasoned yes vote.

The emotional yes vote is the one that worries about the future if this is voted down. If you don't like it now, you really won't like it over the next 10 years! FedEx has show us even in soft or poor economies that 3% is a raise we will get (reference the two bridge contracts recently). The NC chairman references 3% as the norm in his videos too.

If this TA is turned down, expect 3% to be preserved as a typical raise amount. The money that will be lost is the new, higher bonus which won't quite reflect 3%--just like this one didn't. If someone is voting yes just because they will lose some money if they vote no, I guess nothing will sway them.

My Die Trying, work rules given up, and QOL given up are much more important to me than some $$s. I'm living fine now and am not so bad off that I'm willing to trade QOL for $$. I don't know what the economy will do, I don't know if the next TA will be one I like either, but I KNOW this is a TA I don't like.

ClutchCargo

[QUOTE=Raptor;1981451]Just so we are all on the same page: that post you quoted was from me, not Viper.

Raptor

I know, the quote tag is getting messed up. Must be the tubes and wires getting crossed?

Fixed it.