Full FedEx TA now available at ALPA website.

[TheBaron]

I don't think it's the value of the transportation that is being taxed; it's the actual bank money that you are using for personal transportation that is being counted as income. It definitely takes away the incentive to use a company jumpseat so you can save your bank money to commute home if you need it.

 

[PastV1]

Babylon,

You think it's DW's job to come to mem and get us a contract? I don't like his pay but that's not the point. ALPA is us. You, me and many other people. We elected the leaders of FDX ALPA. We told them what we wanted. They went and did the best they could and I applaude their hours of dedication and work.

Do you have a better option? If not ALPA then who? Actually the name on the door doesn't matter. It's who we send in that door and how well we back them up that matters.

Past...

 

[FoxHunter]

Just took a quick look at the Tax Code and couldn't find an appropriate reference to the "transportation" being a taxable benefit. It didn't fit under the excluded / included fringe benefits that are taxable income. Anyone have a cite to the IRC that was utilized in this section of the contract? I know that there were changes, specifically for the use of the corporate jet for non-business purposes, but we do not fit under that category.

Just curious.

The cost of commuting to work has never been tax deductable. If the company pays for my airline ticket or train ticket it is taxable. Always has been, just we have never reported it.

 

[Falconjet]

Baron: I think you have mis-characterized my post. I am certainly not advocating an every man for himself attitude. Thank you for spending your free time with your family/friends etc. I did the same. We have to act collectively, I am all for it. Human nature, and capitalism, however, pretty much dictate that humans will act in THEIR best interests, not the best interests of the group.

The guys on the negotiating committee are no different. They have their own biases and concerns in their minds even as they attempt to negotiate a contract for the entire crew force. To balance the process and ensure that they are able to meet the majority's needs, we have a vote afterward to make sure.

The union has to represent the majority of the pilots, and the only way to determine if they have is to have a vote and see. If the majority of the pilots feel that the TA meets their needs it will pass. Pretty simple. Part of our duty is to THINK and VOTE, otherwise the process breaks down.

I'm not saying every man for himself, I'm saying every pilot has to do their part to make the process work. Right now that part is to read the new TA and DECIDE if they like it based on their needs. Hopefully each pilot will consider the big picture and not just their rice bowl. Then the collective majority will tell the committee that they have done their job or they need to go back to the table.

I'm not advocating against the TA or for it, I am advocating for the pilot group to continue to do their part to complete the negotiating process. That is why they constantly told us that we (the crew force) were the ones who were actually negotiating the contract, not just the committee.

Thanks again, by the way, for toeing the line with me!

FJ

 

[TheBaron]

Falconjet:
I understand your point. IMO, the only way to show the company we won on our cornerstone issues is to vote in the contract with a resounding majority. UPS management is surely thinking they were better than the IPA at the negotiating table and that will set the stage for their next round of contract talks.

Now for something completely different...
We got a check for the latest scope penalty but the two previous disbursements were/are being held in escrow as a bargaining tool. What section explains the disposition of that money. I probably read over it but after a few pages of legaleze and all the colored and strike-thru text I'm sure I missed it.

 

[kc10/c130]

Not only do I have to agree with TheBaron's avatar, I believe his last three post are right on. It is not perfect but it is what it is. Please actually READ the contract and not what is on this board. You owe it to yourself, your family, and your fellow crewmembers. So, log off, unplug, and read. Remember, Reading is Fundamental, plus my kindergarten teacher was hot.

 

[AlbieF15]

Falcon,

Are you a flex? The way I read the bonus letter you get paid at the rate you are paid....i.e. LCA and Flex S/Os will be paid the widebody FO rate...if they bid it anyway...

 

[Falconjet]

Albie: yes, and you are correct. I am thinking more of the hard working S/Os that don't happen to be flex types. It is a small group no doubt that haven't been able to hold widebody yet, but I still think that $7400 for the hardest working members of the crewforce is kind of weak.

That is just one small aspect of the contract, but it is telling to me. I don't think that a widebody CA deserves more than 4 times the bonus of a narrow body S/O, but that is just me. Not a deal breaker, just something that makes me go hmmmmmmmmmm.

Baron: At the local council meeting last month they mentioned the scope payments and they are still trying to decide what to do with them. That money already belongs to the union and isn't a factor in the TA. The union wants to put the money into those HSAs I think and they are still debating doing that or just giving it to the members.

We are all pretty much in violent agreement. Read the contract and vote your conscience.

FJ

 

[Falconjet]

Another thing about the flex issue: Although the override for the S/O peaks at 3 years and drops a hundred a month, it appears that the limitation on the passover has gone away. That will more than offset the decrease in the override.

In other words, a S/O flex that can hold Captain will make Captain pay instead of being limited to widebody FO pay. That is certainly an enhancement that should make a lot of the instructors happy.

Does anybody have any ideas on why there is a grandfather clause for Agency Shop? Any ideas? That just floors me and I am just wondering if there is an angle I'm missing.

Fire away!

FJ

 

[Purpled]

Albie: yes, and you are correct. I am thinking more of the hard working S/Os that don't happen to be flex types. It is a small group no doubt that haven't been able to hold widebody yet, but I still think that $7400 for the hardest working members of the crewforce is kind of weak.

FJ, perhaps I'm misreading your statement, but there is no pilot who is too junior to be a WB FO(or getting passover) unless they are 1)new-hires since the Purple Nugget program has started, or 2)they were the few MEM bidders(post 05-03) who got pushed back by the purple nuggets and aren't getting passover pay. That last group is really getting screwed; other than that, folks who have chosen to sit in the back for seniority ought to get a smaller check than those who have chosen to upgrade.

Now, whether or not the check is what you think it ought to be is up to each individual voter.