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

 

[MsFan]

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.


A captain in my systems class told me he made $2000 a month too when he was in initial training . . . 23 years ago! Anybody else think the cost of living has increased a little over the last 23 years? I know, it's only for a couple months, but $2000 is barely a mortgage payment these days.

(Hoping I'm not sounding like a whiney beeotch).

 

[Ninerfan]

New Cornerstone Issues for 2010

So..let me get this right...according to this thread our next cornerstone issues need to be:

1) S/O Flex Retro Pay
2) Training Pay
3) Anything that UPS got and we didn't
4) A change to the IRS code that allows tax free commuting

Ok, got it.

 

[Purpled]

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.

Not trying to be arguementative(sp?) and too lazy to go back and read every post, but I haven't seen too many people complain who are, in fact, getting more than they deserve. I upgraded withing the amendable window, and am getting more than I 'should', so I'm not complaining about how much I get.

However, folks who have been sitting in the seat for the past 2.5 years are not getting what they should, on the low side, and that is a shame.

 

[PurpleTail]

The retro pay/signing bonus is a joke. I know pay was not a cornerstone issue but come on! What happen to "Make Them Pay For The Delay" motto YGTBSM!

Simple math for my seat shows my signing bonus equates to 1 yr 8 months of backpay instead of the 2 yrs 4 months. THATS AN ADDITIONAL 8 MONTHS OF PAY THE COMPANY IS GETTING AWAY WITH.

For the revenue we are generating for this company I haven't seen ANYTHING in the new contract that we haven't already earned or wasn't expected. This isn't even a homerun in a little league park. We DID make some concessions and I don't see any HUGE gains.

Sad, very sad.

I'm going to the roadshow Thurs in LA, will keep any open mind and weigh the whole contract but was expecting a little better.

 

[Brian a300]

The retro pay/signing bonus is a joke. I know pay was not a cornerstone issue but come on! What happen to "Make Them Pay For The Delay" motto YGTBSM!

Simple math for my seat shows my signing bonus equates to 1 yr 8 months of backpay instead of the 2 yrs 4 months. THATS AN ADDITIONAL 8 MONTHS OF PAY THE COMPANY IS GETTING AWAY WITH.

For the revenue we are generating for this company I haven't seen ANYTHING in the new contract that we haven't already earned or wasn't expected. This isn't even a homerun in a little league park. We DID make some concessions and I don't see any HUGE gains.

Sad, very sad.


I'm going to the roadshow Thurs in LA, will keep any open mind and weigh the whole contract but was expecting a little better.

Since this is pensionable, you will also get 6% toward your PMPP, B fund,, therefore for the lowly S/O will get an additional $450 and the wide body guy get $1800.

 

[Brian a300]

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.

All or most of us have been engineers, I was 1 for 4.5 yrs, I don't think it is the hardest job, probably the easiest.
If you don't like the rates, you can upgrade as soon as possible or quit your LCA job. Stop complaining!
We all pay our dues in some way, shape or form. If you don't like the TA vote no.

 

[Falconjet]

Brian: I guess I forgot that expressing an opinion on here would be construed as complaining. Thanks for reminding of me of where I am posting.

You see I am just trying to discuss the TA with others on the board to see what they think of various issues. I can see that you disagree with me on one. That lowly bonus doesn't affect me and I am not an LCA.

Why don't you take a crack at my question about the grandfather clause?

If you read my posts you will see that I am not advocating one way or the other. I plan on attending the road show(s), reading the TA and voting according to my needs. I hope you do the same.

Thanks for the encouragement.

FJ

 

[Purpled]

Why don't you take a crack at my question about the grandfather clause?
FJ

If you're referring to the non-members being exempted--

Making them pay would be a change in the conditions of their employment and subject to legal action which would be too expensive and a longshot to win.

In the end, is Agency shop worth it? Sure, since we didn't have to give up anything to get it...the company saw it as a no-cost item to make us 'happy.' If we had done some hard negotiation to get here, then that would be a total waste.

BTW, these questions are being addressed with much more 'meaty' discussions on other BBs. OK, only slightly more meaty.

 

[FDXer]

So..let me get this right...according to this thread our next cornerstone issues need to be:

1) S/O Flex Retro Pay
2) Training Pay
3) Anything that UPS got and we didn't
4) A change to the IRS code that allows tax free commuting

Ok, got it.

Now that's funny! That's the same thing I was thinking...

 

[Falconjet]

Went to the union meeting today in Memphis to hear the latest on the TA. Its technically not a roadshow I guess because they haven't had enough time to put togther a real road show yet. Some very interesting info though, and I urge everyone to get to one of these meetings/road shows if you can. There is nothing like getting the details on the negotiations right from the horses mouth.

Dave Webb said that there would be no job aide in the first couple of weeks to explain the changes and no plain language explanations. This was a conscientious decision because they want us to read the contract. Evidently the contract enforcement folks get several calls a day with questions that a simple reading of the contract would answer. They want us to read the actual contract because that is what we are voting on, not a bunch of bullets or explanations.

Bob C went over some good info. Overall, he seemed amazed that we were able to get the gains that we did. The union estimates that the value of the deal offered by the company to the Commercial Appeal on Apr 29 was worth about $443M for the 4 year deal (CY 2004 dollars). They also estimate that the TA has about $1B (CY 2007 dollars, a slight apples to oranges but still worth noting) in improvements over the 4 years.

Biggest changes are in the work rules, the new rig and the over 8 hour block provisions will really multiply real earnings improvements for the international folks.

Bonus was worth 90 Mil, but the company wanted to only pay half up front. Union said add interest then, and boom it went up to 95. Union also wanted it to be pensionable, boom it went up to 103M. Apparently the union decided how it would be divided up. They gave up a little on the A380 rates and the international override and included 737 and 757 in the narrow body pay scales to get the bonus done.

Retirement: he estimated 40 M in improvements. The B plan hike occured on the last day of negotiations.

Medical: we got what we were asking for, est $30 Mil improvement. HRAs for those 53 and older, a 43M trust fund for post medicare retirement folks. Rates fixed for the life of the contract, total lifetime benefit cap raised to 3 Mil per pilot.

Scope: Huge deal, cornerstone issue. He said be sure to really read Section 1. We did well there.

Training: ALPA training standard.

Life Ins: increase in amount of company funded life insurance with a opt out option to reduce tax implications if so inclined.

Anyway, not to steal too much of their thunder, but I was very impressed with the presentation. There were a lot of questions about the grid penalties and all that but they don't have too many answers on that yet, we have to wait and see how it pans out. Basically the company will have to pay for the numerous revisions on the international trips.

Oh yeah, on the agency shop, they did mention that not including the grandfather clause could open up the company and union to lawsuits about changing the conditions of employment (just as you said Purpled), so that answered my biggest question.

FJ