FR8,

Not sure what bothers you. If the TA is rejected, what will the company do? Send newhires to fill the slots not filled by volunteers? I don't see anything wrong with that. I know I wouldn't consider working in CDG for that money (wouldn't be interested in HKG no matter what). There needs to be a sizeable bump in pay (maybe 4k instead of 2.7k) AND school money for the kids. Without these incentives, I vote no.

I believe these are the real possibilities if the TA is rejected:

1. Company fills slots with newhires.

2. Company improves the offer.

3. Company uses a SIBA operation in either or both locations.

All three are fine with me. I don't care if we have a bid now or in 5 years. I don't plan on bidding anything different for awhile anyway....

 

So that would make CDG bad on both counts. The exchange rate stinks and things are not cheap. In SFS you could get a maid for 200 a month. In memphis its 100 a day. In Paris my wife might have to work as a maid. I looked online at housing in Paris and it seemed the smallest two bedroom I could house wife and kids (thank god we cant take the cat) would be 3500 dollars. That place was pretty small also. A lot of the two bedrooms were lofts with the upstairs having maybe 5 ft of headspace for the bedrooms.

 

For most americans the majority of their wealth is the equity in their homes. Most americans that aren't home owners work hard to get their foot in the door and become home owners. Now with this package you would go backwards. Many would have to sell their home in the US and become renters. Now you lose out on market gains and tax advantages of home ownership and go back to p!$$ing your money into the hands of a landlord. So while you are sipping on your $12 draft beers in Paris you aren't accumulating any equity in a home and you've dropped the biggest tax writeoff most americans have. That alone is a huge step backwards. Count me out. I am voting NO.

 

In 1997 I was one of the AF captains sent to talk to USAFE CC Ryan on retention issues. Even with solid COLAs, etc, I pointed out that moving every 3 years cost (some) folks a lot of chance to build equity (unless they do the long distance landlord thing--sometimes an option but not in a BRAC town). I also pointed out another flaw--the working wife who has a solid career of her own is often forced to give up working or accept a less attractive position. There are some real costs to moving a lot, and especially to moving overseas. One man's trash in another's treasure--but I think for a family with school kids or a wife with a profession--this move isn't going to attractive at all. I had "adventures" when I was in my 20s and 30s...in my 40s I crave family time, income potential, and stability. To each his own...

 

You may be right but I don't think so. Does eveybody really believe our MEC is out to screw us? What happened to all the loyalty crap that we were talking a year ago? Granted the age 60 and now this LOA have not been handled well, but at least hear them out before you just vote this down. I don't really care either way because I am not going to bid it. Something is better than nothing and nothing is what those who bid this are going to get with no LOA. The company will probably throw in equalization without a LOA but I would not count on it.

 

Exactly! As others have said, the company put new hires in the MD-11. They'll put them in FDA's.

We all know the captain spots will be gobbled up. Why not give them something?

By voting this down we are not helping ourselves in the least. The MEC should have never brought this to us. By voting it down, we only hurt ourselves because we will be left with nothing. If the MEC is willing to bring this LOA for a vote, they probably aren't going to be able or even want to fight the battle for a better one.

We need to vote for this one and continue the process of replacing these guys. Specifically DW. When it comes time to negotiate our next contract, we can improve on this LOA. If we vote it down, we get nothing. Imagine trying to negotiate improvements in FDA's in 3 years when we are starting from scratch.

 

Worth reading if you have kids and are considering the LOA.
Hong Kong's schools

The $1m question
Jun 14th 2007 | HONG KONG
From The Economist print edition

What is the price of a good education?


AMONG the most commercial of cities, Hong Kong follows many markets; but none more intently than the trade in debentures tied to admissions to the city's international primary and secondary schools. These non-interest-bearing bonds are typically issued to pay for construction or other costs. Bought by parents anxious to do the best by their children, or by employers anxious to attract the best staff, they are then traded at prices set by the city's volatile economic fluctuations.

Recently, slots in international schools have become precious. The economy is booming in China's tailwind, attracting well-paid expatriates. Prosperous local residents, meanwhile, are deserting local schools because of what is seen as deterioration in English-language teaching since the reversion to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. It is not just the very rich who are worried: early this month a small group of not very well-off South Asian residents marched through central Hong Kong, demanding more schooling in English, arguing their children were suffering from having to attend classes conducted in Chinese.

Demand is high, supply is limited, and the results, at the top end of the market, are predictable: soaring prices. In 2004, the price of a debenture at the Chinese International School, possibly the most sought-after institution, sold for HK$600,000 ($77,000). On June 9th the South China Morning Post splashed on its front page a report that a family had paid HK $1m for a debenture, and then entered its child in the school's first grade. Similar, if less dramatic, price increases were reported at other international schools.

The schools all treat the debentures differently. The Chinese International School stresses that theirs does not guarantee a school place. Applicants sit a merit-based test, and some debenture-holders are rejected and some non-holders accepted. Still, holders must feel their children gain some advantage. Hong Kong International School, popular among Americans, gives debenture-holders more rights. If an applicant meets the school's standards, a debenture places him at the head of the queue. Most schools lie somewhere in between these two approaches.

All the international schools have lengthy waiting lists for all ages. So companies scoop up debentures for their staff—some expatriates are refusing jobs in Hong Kong because they cannot find schools for their children. Resale rights exist, with schools in some cases sharing the profits. Alternatively, two years ago Hong Kong International School bought back all its debentures and then reissued them at a higher price—much as a company might when business is good.

Even so, the debenture systems are opaque—the ratio between debenture-holders and accepted students is unknown. Schools are understandably sensitive about acknowledging the embarrassing tie between money and admittance. Raising money for education is a challenge everywhere and Hong Kong's system compares favourably with, say, British private schools, where prices are stratospheric, or American ones, where parents' “contributions” often can carry the same benefits as debentures, but have no market-signalling value. Hong Kong's school-debenture prices are sending two messages: there is a market for good education; and some people have the money to pay for it.

++++++++

RV

 

Why did we not try to negotiate better a FDA package in the first place. Probably for the same reason we still dispute the same types of trips under the new contract as we did under the old contract. Just wish I knew what that reason was.

Keep telling yourself "I will take crap now so I can get a little better than crap next time", seems to be the motto of our MEC.

 

Matty --

This type of argument could be made of any bad agreement with meager improvements. As with any vote (other than concessionary), you are asked to decide if the improvement is adequate to the current contract. Our contracts do not expire - they have amendable dates. Throughout your career, you will be asked to vote on TA's that amend the current contract - will you always apply this logic of something is better than nothing even though it is not what we want or deem acceptable?

 

Well I don't know who's still reading at page 22, but as someone who has 1 more month of associate status, meaning can't vote, someone who is undecided, please vote no on my behalf.

Here are my reasons....

1. I, believe it or not, would be interested in a CDG FO slot. But not wanting to totally commit to relocation at first, perhaps as a commuter. Either from the u.s. (between AA, UA, US, & FX, much more options than an ANC commute,) or from somewhere else in Europe. As my understanding with the current LOA, unless you live within 100 miles of CDG, you get no monthly bonus.

2. Our current contract states that no one, against their will, will be assigned to an FDA. If this LOA passes, that little bit at the end will enable the company to do just that. I'm the junior guy. Will be for a while. Loving it. However, I really don't want to be they guy that is a new shiny MD-11 FO who gets told, "Sorry, you're heading to HKG for 3 months!" You get a hotel room, and 24 hour per diem, but no say so as to the timing. So you get forced from the fiancee (not yet a spouse, so no passes) for 3 months.

I know, rejecting this LOA will allow either new hires being put in FO positions around the world, which would totally suck at $54/hour, but hey, a FedEx career. Or FedEx could just say, hey let's just start FedEx Europe and FedEx Asia using foreign pilots. (As far as my reading of the contract, ANY and ALL flying that doesn't touch US soil can be outsoursed.) That's our current scope. Both of these options stink as well, but I still would rather see a cost of living bump to ANYONE who bids the FDA, or not be FORCED into a FDA.

So again, as a new guy who can't vote, but will be affected, would an undecided voter please vote no on my behalf?