FDXLAG

So now rather than say that the yes voters are spineless ball less cowards, we will call them emotional wrecks in need of estrogen therapy? Reading these posts, I have got to tell you, it is the no votes that are sounding a little like an out take from Mean Girls 3. Say what you want, it is a completely logical, rational choice to see the gains in this TA balanced against the hint and hope of doing better next time. There are pros and cons with either vote; one choice is not more rational than the other.

If you hire a guy to fix your basement from flooding, and he recommends going with a sump pump, it is completely logical to say no thanks I'm going to get a second opinion. Just don't be surprised when your basement floods and the next guy also recommends a sump pump and now new dry wall.

Raptor

I absolutely didn't mean it that way. Sorry if it came across that way. I was simply trying to point out that reasoned positions on each side probably wouldn't be swayed.

Then, if the Go-Around article was No--trying to sway by emotion, then it was targeted to those voting yes out of emotion.

Like argument to counter like argument. That was all.

BlackKnight

Wow. Nice. UFB.

FDXLAG

I probably over reacted, too emotional I guess . For the most part I like reading the no positions, Tony's tend to be a little long winded but rational. There are plenty of reasons not to be happy with this TA, but in the end, I do not see anyway to get anything but marginal gains on the improvements already in the TA,

CloudSailor

Wow. I had to exit out of my original reply to make sure I had read it correctly. You ARE a captain here . This is a new depth for the lowest post I have read on APC, coming from one of our own. Absolutely embarrassing. I hope your sponsor, recommendations, and all those who came before you (you know, when you were once a new hire FO?), who helped make this place what it is today, did not have a chance to associate that post to who you really are behind your screen name.

For the new-hire wannabe's out there looking to get in, the predominant attitude towards new-hires, from 99.7% of our crew members is: you are one of us the second you step on property, and we will protect your interests like they are our own, because they are our own. We are in this together, as a group. That is why we find ourselves with an A-plan for those on property, and those yet to be on property, even in this controversial TA. And a majority of us (as per polling) will continue to protect all benefits to be equal to all pilots, or even the possible choice to be made between benefits (in regards to retirement) - by the pilot.

Rum Runner

[QUOTE=ClutchCargo;1981256]Tony:

A- New hires. Not my problem....


It makes me sad that we have people who think this way.

Adlerdriver

I voted NO.

I was leaning that way from early on, but I did the best I could to consider the complete package and various viewpoints before coming to a final decision.

I guess one of the biggest things that pushed me over the edge was the recent Motley Fool article in which management basically admitted our contract was a zero-sum deal. 5 Things FedEx Management Wants You to Know -- The Motley Fool

They were able to manipulate the playing field to the point that we will effectively pay for the increases in the contract with higher productivity. It makes their claims of "no money" for the A-plan ring even more hollow than they already were.

The other factor is that I'm okay with leaving some money out of my bank account in order to eventually secure a real, tangible raise as opposed to taking from the company with our right hand and giving it back with our left.

It seems like many "yes" voters are standing behind the concept of the time value of money and the increases we will forgo as negotiations resume. While I don't discount that, if that's really the only reason anyone can come up with to vote for this, then isn't a yes vote always going to be the outcome? Assuming there are raises and increases in various areas of most non-bankrupt, non-concessionary TAs we might see at FedEx, then voting it down always carries the burden of either temporary loss or possibly permanent loss of income. So, if you can't deal with that possibility, then once you saw raises in section 4 and some extra $ for signing, no need to look any further. Your decision was made.

Personally, I don't see real value in voting for a moderate increase in income for which we will eventually reimburse the company with increased productivity over the life of the contract. To me, there is just as much value in that time spent on increased productivity long term as there is in the short term extra dollars I may see in my pay stub.

busdriver12

You put an awful lot of stock in what unnamed management was quoted saying in a magazine article. Did you consider that the increased productivity was not from the TA, but from other areas in the company? When I read that, it initially enraged me, too, as it was intended to. Then when I thought about it, it really seemed illogical, with the pay raises, bonus and B fund increase (meager as it is) that they could squeeze that level of additional productivity out of us. Not really sure where that could come from. Don't like the 8 in 24 giveback on the dayside, but I sure don't see any way this contract actually pays for itself. Do you?

Raptor

Wasn't it the CFO who was quoted? Since companies always tout cost neutral contracts (else they would say "it costs us an extra $1.67 billion, but we have it covered via increased revenue, profits, and efficiencies company-wide.") you could most certainly read it both ways, but it's just as likely it is neutral as they want to reassure investors there will not be a material impact on the company.

Does anyone know when the next required SEC disclosure takes place as they have to lay it out there?

Adlerdriver

I'm not sure what difference having the person's name would make. I'm more likely to believe someone in management actually said that than believe the MF made up the quote.

I don't know. Based on past experience, I think some changes may seem like they have little potential to pay off until we see how the company actually exploits them. Others pay off as a result of either unintended or unnoticed consequences.

Last major rewrite of the contract we changed the trip rig to 3.75:1. That was advertised as a QOL improvement when in reality it was just a pay raise. Trips paid more, but without a cap on monthly CH, we worked the same number of days. Trip rig bump only affects QOL (in terms of work days) if a higher paying trip exceeds the max CH limit requiring a shorter trip to stay under the limit. No limit - no change to QOL.

Sick days and vacation were still valued at 6CH/day, which was based on the old trip rig. So we all use more vacation and more sick leave to knock out the same X-day trip. For TAFB trips (which is almost all the long haul bidpacks), how much $$/productivity has the company saved at .4 CH per vacation/sick day over the last 9 years?

Besides the obvious 8 in 24 change, I don't know what real value some of the company "efficiencies" really represent to either side in terms of $$ savings or extra work. Sleep rooms, deadlines on pay changes for downgrades, passover pay, no bid-to-relieve, limits on laterals and down-bids, business class instead of first are all going to add up.

I predict the 20% of R-days in open time is going to be a big windfall in productivity. There will be plenty of locals that will roll the dice and rebuild their lines by picking up blocks of R-days during the view/add. That will leave more flying in open time to get shoe-horned into the secondary lines ( PBS?). Less reserves needed and more secondary's tailored to the company's needs just prior to the bid month starting. Then there's the guy on reserve who knocks out his entire month by just touching a day with recurrent and then picks up a month's worth of flying. He's probably pretty happy. I'll bet the company is more happy. One less trip to fill and one less guy sitting at home getting paid on reserve. How much is pairing down the number of guys on reserve or at least putting them to work worth? See how many airport standby pairings go to line holders once scheduling is allowed to assign them to reserves ahead of general makeup requests. Why pay someone 6 CH when a reserve already getting RLG will do the same thing.

So, I can't really give you a definitive answer about how the company will truly benefit from this. I'm pretty confident they will based on my inner cynic and past observations. The "asks" they put into this TA were calculated and targeted. Maybe those won't "pay" for our gains completely - but I think it's a lot closer than you might think. JMO.