FDX 2003 hiring

[AlbieF15]

F18FDX,

I will do as you recommended...our MEC has been asking us to do this for some time.

My question to all you smart guys...why is arbitration so bad? I'm new to this whole gig...but it seems like some at FDX are afraid the company will try to take us "backwards" on the next contract.

Since our company has been so profitable, and other industry contracts (DAL, UAL, and likely soon UPS) are higher than ours, why are we so afraid an arbitrator will find with the company? If we were to ask for current work rules, tweak a few rules here and there, and then tag on an X percentage raise across the board (to either come close to matching/matching/blowing away the UAL/DAL numbers (circle one as appropriate)).

With the tremendous financial success of our business, especially verses the tumultuous pax business, I cannot believe the company could "poor mouth" its way into any significant concessions. Unless the artbitrator was crooked, he'd have to just roll his eyes and say "YGTBSM!" if FDX tried to take back wages/benefits after the continued growth and US Mail contract recently awarded.

As for losing the ability to strike...well....I heard a captain say once that once off the property, we can't do anything to affect profitablity. However...other airlines have shown what slowdowns, etc can do to a bottom line, and in a time critical arena like ours I'm sure there are legal labor actions that can still flex labor's muscle a bit. I'm not advocating anything against the railway act here, just wanting some input some from more senior guys on why this is such a bad piece of prosposed law. Maybe one of you more experienced types (UAL78, Profile?) can start a new thread with some insight.

 

[F18-FDX]

Albie,

I just started a new thread, so hopefully it will generate some discussion. Arbitration in and of itself isn't bad, but this new legislation's “last offer” binding arbitration on contract negotiations is. I'm fairly new to the whole arbitration thing myself, so I'm obviously not an authority, but my feeble mind does see a few significant problems with this legislation:

1) If it comes to the point where an arbitrator makes the decision, with this new legislation it becomes an "all or nothing" decision. The way I understand it, he can either he choose management's offer, or ours, no more "mixing & matching" of good points from both sides. Therefore, if he chose management's offer, that's it, period, end of discussion. We are stuck with whatever works rules, rigs, etc. appear in their offer. And we can't strike! This could have terrible consequences at any airline.

2) Here's the real problem for us at FedEx, and the reason Fred is so high on this new legislation. Our pay would have to be averaged with those of "like" companies, i.e. we could obligated to get the average of companies like Airborne, Atlas, Gemini, etc. NOT UAL, DAL, AAL. Obviously, in many ways we are more similar to the PAX carriers than some of the cargo guys, but this legislation would obligate our pay discussions into the "cargo realm" and could be used to effectively "bring us backwards", or at the very most, not much forward - give up any hope of an industry leading or even equaling contract. This could really screw UPS as well; in the same way it would screw us.

I may be AFU, but I think this could crush any pilot group at any company. As you mentioned, hopefully some senior guys will chime in on the new thread.

 

[Gumbydammit]

Once again Albie makes a good point...
I am by no means experienced in this area, but it would seem to me that FDX is in a much better position than many of the pilot groups if and when arbitration does pass. The work rules and retirement seem to be really good at FDX...the only weak point seems to be pay. Now that UAL and DAL have raised the bar, FDX just needs to get parity on that front...very hard for management to argue against parity when FDX is outstripping all the airlines for profit/growth and their pilots are flying on the backside of the clock. Also, when you're carrying US mail, it would be hard for a republican to NOT step in and end any FDX strike...so losing the ability to strike is not a huge loss since you may not really be able to do that now at FDX for very long anyway.
HOWEVER, long-term, i think F18FDX is right...this is disastrous for pay growth since we are all working together contract to contract. I mean would DAL have anything close to what they got without UAL first raising the bar?

 

[F18-FDX]

Gumby,

You are right in that our work rules, retirement and vacation are good and that FDX is in a great position because we are making money, bigtime, while the PAX guys are doing just the opposite. But my point is that won't help us at all if we can't compare ourselves to UAL and DAL for compensation, but per the legislation get stuck with an average of the cargo folks above.

The current Railway Labor Act allows us to negotiate, the new legislation will destroy ANY pilot group's ability to negotiate a fair contract:

1) We'll get screwed by not being able to negotiate higher compensation, and
2) The PAX guys will get screwed by not being able to negotiate work rules, retirement, etc.

 

[active_herk]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but one of the stipulations I heard regarding the binding arbitration is that when the arbitartor looks over the two contracts, if it is deemed that the one the union offers would cause the company to lose money, that offer would automatically not be chosen. In other words, the company must still be able to post a profit under the union's proposed contract in order for it to be considered by the arbitrator.

Now I don't have a problem with the company making money, I would hope that they would. My problem is that a company can almost ALWAYS show (on paper at least) that they are not making money. If this is so, the union would lose every time. As a case in point, isn't it interesting how the profit sharing program for employees at FedEx has been suspended for over a year and a half now (fortunatley pilots aren't part of this program), but at the same time all the senior managers at FedEx got fairly substantial bonuses last year. Kind of makes you think doesn't it?

 

[CCDiscoB]

MD-11

Question for PurpleinMem who wrote:

...newhires should be sentenced to the MD-11....

Out of curiosity, why do you think the MD-11 would be a sentence for a new hire?

Fed Ex determines assigments by last four of SSN, correct? Is it from higher to lower?

 

[NightFlyer]

Yes, it's from highest to lowest.


NightFlyer

 

[VaB]

Re: MD-11

[[/B]
Out of curiosity, why do you think the MD-11 would be a sentence for a new hire?

[/B]

Some people think that MD-11 training is hard, and that it would even be harder for a new hire. I guess in the beginning of the MD11 program here at FedEx, some folks had a hard time and it wasn't has user friendly as it is now. Alot of the older guys here don't even think that a guy who has been here 2 years should be on the Maddog yet. Granted 2 years isn't a long time to be here, but if you can fly one plane you can fly another. The 727 FE training was alot harder than the 11 training.

Oh yeah, and to you guys that are senior to me that want to come over to the 11, it is really hard training and the flying stinks. You should probably go to the Airbus.

 

[profile]

Just to address the MD-11 training. There is zero chance that the company will put new hires in the airplane at this time, in fact, if they could find a way to do it, they'd like to limit who could bid it even more (i.e. can't bid it straight from an FE seat). Personally, if you were to go to it straight without some serious previous "front seat" experience, you'd be taking a chance. Going to a large widebody that has the fastest approach speed of any commercial jet in the world (sans Concorde), that has the highest automation possible, full glass, all the FMS stuff and hybrid FBW controls, and that operates literally world wide without limitations is a lot to bite off all at once.

 

[banned username 2]

Going to a large widebody that has the fastest approach speed of any commercial jet in the world (sans Concorde)

This just begs the questions...

How fast is the approach speed?

Is it so high because of the higher weights vs. the DC-10 or wing design?

Just curious...

 

[profile]

High due to the weights with essentially the DC-10-30 wing. Vapp flaps 35 at max landing weight (for us 481.5, it can be increased to 491.5) is 167kts. That is the slowest we can get and only gets higher if we have gust or strong wind additives. Flaps 50 can reduce that by 5 kts but the margin for the flap limit speed is so small that it isn't useful in gusty or windy conditions.

Incidentally, our clean min maneuver speed at max TOGW is 289 kts, so that is our speed from 3000 AGL until we reach 10,000 on climbout, where we accelerate to 355 kts IAS on our normal climb profile.

 

[VaB]

Like I said earlier:

Alot of the older guys here don't even think that a guy who has been here 2 years should be on the Maddog yet.

or maybe it's the old guys THINK the younger guys should have problems, because they did 8 or 9 years ago when the training wasn't that great. I was in the backseat for a year and went straight to the right seat of the MD11, and I didn't think the training was that hard and didn't have much problem. I know of several guys around my seniority that did the exact same thing, and they all did well and had no problem. It seems like it's the older guys ("Can't teach an old dog new tricks" syndrome) that have the problems.

That being said, I agree that there is ZERO chance of putting new hires in the the airplane. However, spending just a few months in the backseat and seeing the operations goes a long way to making the front seat transition smoother. What'll happen when we don't have plumbers in a few years, who knows.

Profile:

I mean no disrespect at all to your post, because I think everything you said is exactly right, and I'm not even remotely implying that you had trouble learning the airplane, it was just a generalizationof the attitude of alot of the captains that I've run into. Not all, but alot. "You've only been here at FedEx how long? and you're already in the right seat of the 11? humph"


Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens when we hire 1000 pilots next year, where we put them all. Now that we've wandered off the original topic sufficiently...

VaB

 

[md8pilot]

TWA

We went through this a few years ago at TWA when we retired the 3 man airplanes (727, 747, L1011). We hired directly into the MD80 and 717 (717 cockpit is nearly identical to MD11)...many who were still in new-hire training received 767 bids. Interestingly, the new hires had little trouble...it was the pilots who had spent a couple of years on the panel that had the most trouble. Of course, unlike the MD11 and 717, the MD80 and 767 are only partial glass.

 

[Huck]

Many moons ago, when ASA started getting RJ's, it was the first FMS any of us had ever seen. Most captains were coming off the ATR or BAe-146.

The word was, go home and look at your VCR. If it's blinking "12:00", don't bid the RJ....

 

[profile]

I agree that the older pilots had more problems. I found it fairly easy to transition, but it depends a lot on what your previous experience was. Many of those coming from back seats have had a lot of trouble. I'm glad you didn't. Personally, I love to hear about people in the right seat with less than a year with the company and I enjoy flying with new hires in general.

As to the post about the 717, the difference is that the MD-11 is a fairly touchy and fairly heavy widebody (about 150% the weights of the 767), with the international route system being extremely challenging, which is a big part of the problem.