FDX - Posting 09-04 Cnx
07-29-2009, 08:39 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: ANC-Based MD-11 FO
Posts: 328
Buffalosoldier,
You indicate that since the LOA was ratified, bidding the FDA was okay. Yet you argue the opposite position that volunteering and accepting draft during contract negotiation is not okay despite the fact that doing so is not prohibited by our contract. I think my position is consistent: Not volunteering and not accepting draft during contract negotiations, while not prohibited by our contract, is a tool that can be used effectively to manipulate the formal negotiation process. And not bidding an FDA despite it being supported by an LOA, is a tool we all should have used to manipulate development and refinement of the LOA. Just as those who volunteer and accept draft during contract negotiations are working against the best interest of the membership as a whole, so are those who bid the FDA.
It seems clear now in retrospect that most who voted for the LOA never read it and didn’t take a deep interest in it because they were never going to bid the FDA. They voted for it simply because the union leadership recommended it and because there was a belief that the company was going to send pilots to the FDA with or without an LOA and to not ratify it might adversely impact those who go to the FDA. The FDA was ratified by a disinterested and ill-informed membership and to use that to support your argument deeply weakens it.
You indicate that since the LOA was ratified, bidding the FDA was okay. Yet you argue the opposite position that volunteering and accepting draft during contract negotiation is not okay despite the fact that doing so is not prohibited by our contract. I think my position is consistent: Not volunteering and not accepting draft during contract negotiations, while not prohibited by our contract, is a tool that can be used effectively to manipulate the formal negotiation process. And not bidding an FDA despite it being supported by an LOA, is a tool we all should have used to manipulate development and refinement of the LOA. Just as those who volunteer and accept draft during contract negotiations are working against the best interest of the membership as a whole, so are those who bid the FDA.
It seems clear now in retrospect that most who voted for the LOA never read it and didn’t take a deep interest in it because they were never going to bid the FDA. They voted for it simply because the union leadership recommended it and because there was a belief that the company was going to send pilots to the FDA with or without an LOA and to not ratify it might adversely impact those who go to the FDA. The FDA was ratified by a disinterested and ill-informed membership and to use that to support your argument deeply weakens it.
07-30-2009, 04:09 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
fdxflyr,
I don't see what the problem is with bidding an FDA. We took a vote and the majority agreed upon it. I didn't vote on the LOA, I didn't think it was adequate, but the majority ruled. It is now a part of our contract. We can argue about the union and it's tireless attempts to get this thing through, but in the end, we voted for it.
I really don't see the comparison between flying draft during contract negotiations and bidding an FDA. Our contract doesn't say that we shouldn't shat in the Captain's crew meal, although it does seem bad form. Although there a few times I have considered it!
If the LOA is adequate to someone, they should bid it. But that said, the only way to sweeten the deal is for it to go unmanned. This isn't going to happen and I wouldn't say they aren't team players for bidding them.
If you think it is good for you, then bid it. If not, don't. If you think this is a high priority item for the next negotiations, email your rep or John G.
I don't see what the problem is with bidding an FDA. We took a vote and the majority agreed upon it. I didn't vote on the LOA, I didn't think it was adequate, but the majority ruled. It is now a part of our contract. We can argue about the union and it's tireless attempts to get this thing through, but in the end, we voted for it.
I really don't see the comparison between flying draft during contract negotiations and bidding an FDA. Our contract doesn't say that we shouldn't shat in the Captain's crew meal, although it does seem bad form. Although there a few times I have considered it!
If the LOA is adequate to someone, they should bid it. But that said, the only way to sweeten the deal is for it to go unmanned. This isn't going to happen and I wouldn't say they aren't team players for bidding them.
If you think it is good for you, then bid it. If not, don't. If you think this is a high priority item for the next negotiations, email your rep or John G.
07-30-2009, 04:43 AM
#63
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: WB-FO
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by FDXFLYR
Buffalosoldier,
You indicate that since the LOA was ratified, bidding the FDA was okay. Yet you argue the opposite position that volunteering and accepting draft during contract negotiation is not okay despite the fact that doing so is not prohibited by our contract. I think my position is consistent: Not volunteering and not accepting draft during contract negotiations, while not prohibited by our contract, is a tool that can be used effectively to manipulate the formal negotiation process. And not bidding an FDA despite it being supported by an LOA, is a tool we all should have used to manipulate development and refinement of the LOA. Just as those who volunteer and accept draft during contract negotiations are working against the best interest of the membership as a whole, so are those who bid the FDA.
It seems clear now in retrospect that most who voted for the LOA never read it and didn’t take a deep interest in it because they were never going to bid the FDA. They voted for it simply because the union leadership recommended it and because there was a belief that the company was going to send pilots to the FDA with or without an LOA and to not ratify it might adversely impact those who go to the FDA. The FDA was ratified by a disinterested and ill-informed membership and to use that to support your argument deeply weakens it.
You indicate that since the LOA was ratified, bidding the FDA was okay. Yet you argue the opposite position that volunteering and accepting draft during contract negotiation is not okay despite the fact that doing so is not prohibited by our contract. I think my position is consistent: Not volunteering and not accepting draft during contract negotiations, while not prohibited by our contract, is a tool that can be used effectively to manipulate the formal negotiation process. And not bidding an FDA despite it being supported by an LOA, is a tool we all should have used to manipulate development and refinement of the LOA. Just as those who volunteer and accept draft during contract negotiations are working against the best interest of the membership as a whole, so are those who bid the FDA.
It seems clear now in retrospect that most who voted for the LOA never read it and didn’t take a deep interest in it because they were never going to bid the FDA. They voted for it simply because the union leadership recommended it and because there was a belief that the company was going to send pilots to the FDA with or without an LOA and to not ratify it might adversely impact those who go to the FDA. The FDA was ratified by a disinterested and ill-informed membership and to use that to support your argument deeply weakens it.
07-30-2009, 05:43 AM
#64
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
I disagree .. these details should have been finalized before an FDA-LOA was ever negotiated or ratified or an FDA bid ever published. This wreaks of a huge failure to staff this project properly (professionally?). Someone should be fired over this fiasco ...
Seriously, have you learned anything new that wasn't predicted on these pages?
07-30-2009, 06:51 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 331
I Don't Get it?
Originally Posted by golfandfly
fdxflyr,
I don't see what the problem is with bidding an FDA. We took a vote and the majority agreed upon it. I didn't vote on the LOA, I didn't think it was adequate, but the majority ruled.
I don't see what the problem is with bidding an FDA. We took a vote and the majority agreed upon it. I didn't vote on the LOA, I didn't think it was adequate, but the majority ruled.
If you think it is good for you, then bid it. If not, don't. If you think this is a high priority item for the next negotiations, email your rep or John G.
07-30-2009, 07:17 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Quick google search for "French Labour law and airline" reveals this tidbit.
Ryanair and Easyjet are forced to apply French labour laws for local crew Airline world
Published July 16, 2007
According to Reuters, France’s top administrative court has told EasyJet and Ryanair to apply French labour laws for staff operating out of the country, dismissing a bid by the airlines to bypass local working norms.
The two low-cost carriers had appealed against a decree introduced last year that obliged foreign airlines to apply French labour laws for crews of aircraft based here.
Irish-based Ryanair said the decree contravened European laws on the free movement of labour and services.
But France’s Conseil d’Etat threw out the complaint and ordered both airlines to pay 2,500 euros in judicial costs, the court said in a statement on Friday.
Should we cut the company some slack because we can't get our LOA to apply in France? No. This labor law issue was decided 2 years ago. If it was a key to the puzzle, we should never have had even the first bid.
But should we feel betrayed by those that said "it's a done deal"? Depends on your point of view. I never trust those folks who pipe in sunshine to try and fill the domiciles to have my best interests at heart. They are salesman and are following their marching orders. If you thought they were your trusted agent, you may have had your feelings hurt and may not "trust" them anymore. Good luck with that.
So here we are feeling fooled again and some think it was French labor law that is responsible? If you think that, you're being fooled again. It was the culmination of some sort of food fight in management. Some office didn't get the go ahead to spend the money. Don't know why. Could be the load forecasts are looking a little weaker for a little longer. The often quoted savings over SIBA just didn't outweigh some other factor.
I think they just want to delay a little longer for the economic turnaround and came up with the most convenient excuses to keep us from distrusting them entirely. They know that is the danger from whipping us around with virtually no information. They'd rather fib than offer more.
Perhaps we might get enough 757s on the new "timeline" to make those work. The cost savings of using 757s, if the loads fit, will probably outweigh the costs of SIBA until we have a real CDG award.
Ryanair and Easyjet are forced to apply French labour laws for local crew Airline world
Published July 16, 2007
According to Reuters, France’s top administrative court has told EasyJet and Ryanair to apply French labour laws for staff operating out of the country, dismissing a bid by the airlines to bypass local working norms.
The two low-cost carriers had appealed against a decree introduced last year that obliged foreign airlines to apply French labour laws for crews of aircraft based here.
Irish-based Ryanair said the decree contravened European laws on the free movement of labour and services.
But France’s Conseil d’Etat threw out the complaint and ordered both airlines to pay 2,500 euros in judicial costs, the court said in a statement on Friday.
Should we cut the company some slack because we can't get our LOA to apply in France? No. This labor law issue was decided 2 years ago. If it was a key to the puzzle, we should never have had even the first bid.
But should we feel betrayed by those that said "it's a done deal"? Depends on your point of view. I never trust those folks who pipe in sunshine to try and fill the domiciles to have my best interests at heart. They are salesman and are following their marching orders. If you thought they were your trusted agent, you may have had your feelings hurt and may not "trust" them anymore. Good luck with that.
So here we are feeling fooled again and some think it was French labor law that is responsible? If you think that, you're being fooled again. It was the culmination of some sort of food fight in management. Some office didn't get the go ahead to spend the money. Don't know why. Could be the load forecasts are looking a little weaker for a little longer. The often quoted savings over SIBA just didn't outweigh some other factor.
I think they just want to delay a little longer for the economic turnaround and came up with the most convenient excuses to keep us from distrusting them entirely. They know that is the danger from whipping us around with virtually no information. They'd rather fib than offer more.
Perhaps we might get enough 757s on the new "timeline" to make those work. The cost savings of using 757s, if the loads fit, will probably outweigh the costs of SIBA until we have a real CDG award.
Last edited by Gunter; 07-30-2009 at 07:33 AM.
07-30-2009, 07:27 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Sure and they had no idea they were going to cancel the A-380.
Ok BC, I talked to the boss. He said 3 pay rates max. Do you want a seperate rate for the 380 or the 75?
Ok BC, I talked to the boss. He said you can take your wife/girlfriend/domestice partner to Paris on an STV. But you have to give us something on the China income tax.
Ok BC, I talked to the boss. He said 3 pay rates max. Do you want a seperate rate for the 380 or the 75?
Ok BC, I talked to the boss. He said you can take your wife/girlfriend/domestice partner to Paris on an STV. But you have to give us something on the China income tax.
07-30-2009, 08:10 AM
#68
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
Sure and they had no idea they were going to cancel the A-380.
Ok BC, I talked to the boss. He said 3 pay rates max. Do you want a separate rate for the 380 or the 75?
Ok BC, I talked to the boss. He said 3 pay rates max. Do you want a separate rate for the 380 or the 75?
Actually ... if I remember correctly, we traded A380 pay rates for agreeing to make the 757 "Narrowbody" pay rates. I'd say we got hood-winked?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
