It's become personal with the leadership. The "team" that visited the FDAs consisted of only one block Rep. The other members were DW, BC, and a union lawyer.
This was copied from another Post:
"2. The Company further recognizes that included in the craft or class
Represented by the Association in conformity with the RLA are
Those crewmembers on Foreign Duty Assignment (“FDA”), Special
International Bid Award (“SIBA”) and/or any other international
assignment, domicile or location manned by pilots on the Federal
Express Master Seniority List."
Our current contract acknowledges FDAs already falling under the RLA. How can the company currently contend the RLA does not apply to FDAs and the LOA will? How will an LOA that says very little about scope improve upon the above paragraph taken directly from our current agreement? What your proposing the LOA gives us is already written in black and white in our current scope section. Rereading the LOA, the only thing I see it does is "reinforce" our current scope section. Why is this being sold as an improvement to our current scope section when all it does is "reinforce" what we already have?
So I'm guessing the ALPA lawyer did not realize we were already covered. To me his, DW, and BC's advise is like this: You are getting ready to jump off of a bridge. We have attached a bungee cord to your ankle. (CBA) But, as an added measure, we are attaching a kite string to your other ankle. (LOA).
This seems to be the cornerstone of what they are selling. The rest of the LOA was as the Company offered.
Some MEC members have admitted this LOA is inadequate in a lot of ways, but are hanging there hat on the fictitious Scope that is already in the CBA and not listed anywhere in the LOA.
The only one involved in the process other than the three mentioned above, voted against this POS. What am I missing?
Last edited by Lipout1; 08-07-2007 at 04:21 PM.