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.

 

[hoya saxa]

Grids?

Am I the only one baffled by the grids? My BA brain was unable to determine whether these are good, bad or neutral. Has anyone been able to decipher (or had explained to them) exactly what the implications of these are?

hoya

 

[Falconjet]

Purpled: There are new hires from Oct/Nov of last year still waiting for training in the right seat of the Boeing who didn't hold a widebody FO slot in the last bid. Not everybody on the property today can hold widebody FO. Yes, anybody who was here during the entire ammendable period could probably have held widebody right seat if they had wanted to.

The number of SOs who could hold it but chose to stay in the back for whatever reason is likely pretty small but I think they still deserve more than a measly $7400 in my opinion. I am not one of those guys, so I am not complaining for myself. They work harder than anybody and should have been thrown more of a bone.

Anybody have any ideas on the grandfather clause?

FJ

 

[stonewall]

I read the section about the retro/bonus pay. Anyone have any idea about tax implications? Does the amount count towards taxable income for the year in which you receive the check? The amounts are pre-tax, I assume?

 

[jdec141]

I read the section about the retro/bonus pay. Anyone have any idea about tax implications? Does the amount count towards taxable income for the year in which you receive the check? The amounts are pre-tax, I assume?

taxed the year you receive them and yes pre-tax.

 

[Purpled]

Purpled: There are new hires from Oct/Nov of last year still waiting for training in the right seat of the Boeing who didn't hold a widebody FO slot in the last bid. Not everybody on the property today can hold widebody FO. Yes, anybody who was here during the entire ammendable period could probably have held widebody right seat if they had wanted to.

The number of SOs who could hold it but chose to stay in the back for whatever reason is likely pretty small but I think they still deserve more than a measly $7400 in my opinion. I am not one of those guys, so I am not complaining for myself. They work harder than anybody and should have been thrown more of a bone.

Anybody have any ideas on the grandfather clause?

FJ

FJ,

I agree that the amount isn't enough, but the junior pilot at the company is getting passover pay for WB F/O from post 06-02. Anybody senior to him has no right to complain that they aren't getting passover(and the retro implications) since they could have bid his slot. It's a bummer that those waiting for MEM, LAX, A300 and 727 FO slots aren't getting the higher rate, but it's within the language of the contract. Again, those from 05-03 who got moved later really got screwed, but will get nowhere with it since it too adhears to the CBA.

The 'they work harder than an FO' claim doesn't hold water with me, since the payrates have always been gradient to seat position, not how hard you work.

What we really need to do is divide the retro amount by 29(months), then 79(avg BLG), then by your current pay rate to see what the real retro % is. For me it is about 6.5.(see my first sentence)

Don't get me wrong, I want us all to get more. In fact, I'd like to see retro/signing bonus be based on your current awarded seat position, but that's a pipe dream. I just don't see how folks who passed up a slot for one reason or another have a beef with getting paid for their current slot.

Am I missing something? (besides half a brain)

 

[Falconjet]

Magnum:

The bonus will be treated as pensionable wages for the year they are paid. So about half in Nov 06 and half in Jun 07 if the TA is approved. That means they count towards A and B funds and will be taxible in that year.

FJ

 

[Echopapa]

What I am ashamed of is that initial training pay remains at $2k a month. We should have spent a little money for those guys.

As far as passover for the new guys....not really a factor since the money is all about the same the first year.

 

[Falconjet]

Purpled: If the junior guy could hold ANC and is getting passover that is good for him. Anyone senior to him then could have bid it and been eligible then, but they couldn't all have gotten it, there were only 76 slots or so. Regardless, $7400 for 2.5 years for anybody on the property is too little in my opinion.

Apparently the senior guys on the NC and the MEC didn't feel that way, that is just something I need to get a handle on. A lesson learned for me.

Still no ideas on the grandfather clause? Anybody?

FJ

 

[active_herk]

Another thought concerning the retro pay/bonus. In my eyes, the retro pay is to compensate for wages lost due to not having a contract in place for the last 2+ years. That being the case, shouldn't someone who has been in a seat the entire time get more than someone who just upgraded in the last few months, or over the course of negotiations?

Now don't get me wrong, I think the way they are doing it is the fine, but I have to question someone who might be complaining about how much retro they get when they have only been in the new seat a few months.

 

[Falconjet]

Another thought concerning the retro pay/bonus. In my eyes, the retro pay is to compensate for wages lost due to not having a contract in place for the last 2+ years. That being the case, shouldn't someone who has been in a seat the entire time get more than someone who just upgraded in the last few months, or over the course of negotiations?

Now don't get me wrong, I think the way they are doing it is the fine, but I have to question someone who might be complaining about how much retro they get when they have only been in the new seat a few months.

I really like the fact that in that scenario they were able to get a higher bonus for more people. Maybe the low bonus for S/Os helped fund that, which could have been by design, rewarding those who were willing to upgrade. As Albie mentioned, I will make out fine if the TA is approved.

The only thing I am concerned about (not complaining) is that somebody has to fill the back seats and in my mind they deserve more than the bonus that has been offered.

I also agree with Echo that the pay during training could have been improved a bit without breaking the bank.

FJ