I go back to the question of: What leverage did the MEC and the NC have in negotiating an LOA for something the company can do without one ? Remember the Postal LOA ? The Company did it without one because once again the crew force fell all over themselves selling back vacation for almost 3 years to make it happen for the Company. What if the crew force would have said, no LOA = no selling vacation, flying MU etc.. I bet the Company would have been back at the table quickly.
The FDA LOA is NOT what we deserve for saving the Company money, but if we pass this thing we can still send a message to the Company by not bidding it if it does not fit your lifestyle. The Scope and RLA ramifications included in this letter are significant in my opinion. Why not take a net increase in our current CBA FDA language ? It passes, the Company puts out a seat bid, and no one bids HKG. Will they use new hires ? Or will they start the outsourcing game and contract those well paid Cathay HKG guys to ride the van to China to fly our Airbus Aircraft ? I hope not. Bottom line, we can't keep from flying disputed pairings, do you expect this thing to fail and no one bid it, even with NO LOA ? We will have guys bid CDG for a cut in pay, HKG may be a different animal but can you see a new guy turning down A300 Captain. Why do you think we even have a 1 year Captain payscale ?
The way the MEC handled age 60 was a mistake, if you think the NC could have negotiated a better LOA then I guess you better vote no, no one will bid it and the Company will sweeten the pot, right ?!? if you think the substandard LOA is a result of the past performance of the troops not standing behind the NC, then we should be prepared for the results of turning this down !
One last thing, getting back to the quote from skypine27, I will wear my lanyard regardless of what the MEC does, FDX ALPA is not the MEC, it is the crewforce. Instead of turning your back on ALPA, get involved and change the MEC if that is what you perceive the problem to be.
BTW, I have NO interest in bidding either base, turning it down will only hurt me if we do not stay together on whatever the outcome. If the Company still bids it after the LOA fails then do we treat those on the current seniority list that bid it as traitors ? We better, because we will have takers. No question !
Voting no and no one bids it is a stronger message then voting yes and no one bids it.
What happens if we vote no, my guess the company will handle it like a cross between SIBA and STV. I could handle that.
Voting no and no one bids it is a stronger message then voting yes and no one bids it.
What happens if we vote no, my guess the company will handle it like a cross between SIBA and STV. I could handle that.
If we vote YES, then we have few options and are backpeddling asking for more later...Much later.
If we vote NO, we don't know what the company will do. Do you guys really believe they would outsource the flying? Voting yes won't change any secret company plans for outsourcing. They still have to put the 757s somewhere. Airbus are still on order. DC10s are still being converted to MD11s.
The company could do SIBA. They would rather do a domicile and are licking their chops at how much they could save if they low-ball the offer.
Worst that is going to happen is the issue goes unresolved for longer.
Voting no and no one bids it is a stronger message then voting yes and no one bids it.
What happens if we vote no, my guess the company will handle it like a cross between SIBA and STV. I could handle that.
I agree that would be a good outcome, but the Company is trying this to lower costs. I am sure some MBO has already been banked on the amount of money saved by FDA's vs. SIBA. If I was reasonably assured that they would operate CDG as SIBA I would vote NO regardless of the money because SIBA is a better deal for all of us, including the ones living in Europe already.
One thing not mentioned yet, the flying in the FDA's WILL be scheduled to domestic parameters (read section 25). If people think they are going to move to Paris and have 36 hour layovers they can and should think again. Can you say out and backs followed by a drive home in Paris traffic. I would not wish that on my worst enemy.
__________________
I am trying to expedite, not drag out, our exit from 4.A.2.B, how about you?
Anyone understand the reverse seniority part if the STV goes unfilled? I thought under the current contract that filling FDA's had to be voluntary? Be interesting with a guy in the Guard.
Seems to me that if we vote this down, which I think we should, and the company opens the FDAs without it. Then, the folks that bid it could live wherever they want. Just like SFS, now.
That would certainly make up the difference between what the company is offering and the lower costs of living somewhere else and commuting.
Seems like a no brainer to me. If you don't think it's adequate, then don't vote for it.
Anyone understand the reverse seniority part if the STV goes unfilled? I thought under the current contract that filling FDA's had to be voluntary? Be interesting with a guy in the Guard.
No expert but STV would be assigned reverse senority with no one forced to do more then one in a defined time frame. STV is not the same as filling FDA.
It would be nice if the STVs could be bid on like SIBA. That should follow money as the priority for the next LOA.
"During negotiations management made it clear that they did not intend to open the next aircraft bid until after the ratification process is completed. The LOA is contingent on the approval by Hong Kong authorities of residency visas and work permits."
Does a no vote count as ratification process completed? I'm ready to change seats but not at the cost of passing this POS.
Well then, unity blah, blah, blah just went out the door for me. I think I will go use this LOA as a paper product substitute for my morning ritual on the throne.
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
