New FedEx LOA
06-28-2007, 05:18 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 293
Originally Posted by matty
You have to have a login to access this page.....
06-28-2007, 05:56 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by Albief15
Option 1--support my union MEC and vote for this thing. The benefit to me is the bid gets here sooner and perhaps I can upgrade or get more senior in my seat. I show "unity" and support for the guys who worked this out.
Honestly--I think the MEC's input is pretty much useless to my opinion at this point. I don't see anyone from that crowd going over there, so I don't think they are going to go to mat on this unless we throw it back. So--the 40k question--sign this thing or risk getting nothing on a better deal?
Realize with our current CBA the company doesn't have to offer anything anyway, so take what we can get.
An honest breakdown of the dilemma. Support it to get the bid out, upgrade and make more money sooner....Or throw it back so we get something more fair (for junior folks or new hires) Sure there is a danger the company gives us worse, but not likely.
Got a lot of respect for you Albie. So don't take this the wrong way.
This is a classic choice at FedEx for the MEC--Nothing in this to help the senior 30-40%, so it's not worth going to the mat for more. Otherwise, it would have been addressed during contract negotiations (like VEBA) or given more attention now.
Albie--Are you really going to be like the senior guys and vote for this thing just so you can upgrade sooner? Regardless of how this sets a precedent or affects the junior dudes?
Let's not sellout now. Vote no.
Last edited by Gunter; 06-28-2007 at 06:03 AM.
06-28-2007, 05:57 AM
#26
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 61
A line in the sand
Will there ever come a time when this Union (FedEx ALPA) will ever draw a line in sand and just say No! This LOA falls so far from being adequate, that IMHO, it does not merit serious discussion. Give me an offer commensurate with our contributions over the years and I will vote yes...until then, let's just once stand up for whats right and fair and vote no.
And another thing: Age 60
So the official line goes something like this.....iunless we (ALPA) submit to the idea of this change, we will be essentially locked out of the process?....and please,..... please do not go through the long story again, it's not that I don't understand it,.....it's that I just don't believe it.
I see it as simply as this, we have sold out our younger members and now it will be virtually impossible to argue against that long standing accusation that ALPA is a Captains Union. In addition to that, we have now agreed to place in jeopardy, everything we have worked so hard to attain over the years, insofar as it applies to retirement.
Look, even if this nonsense were true, I would expect that the leadership of what can now be argued to be the most influential union ever to exist, one that now, with the inclusion of its Cargo constituents, has it's hand directly in global commerce, ......like I said, I would expect that leadership to look it's detractors directly in the eye and issue this stern warning. "You have attacked this profession long enough, you have attempted to decimate our industry at every turn, you have pushed us long enough, I strongly recommend you don't push any further, or else you will feel our resolve!"
Maybe it's me, but haven't we essentially just gone hat in hand and said to the very people who have beaten us down over the years....."thank you sir, may I have another"? Isn't this a policy of appeasement?
Who are these Congressman and Senators and Bureaucrats who threatened to exclude us? What are there names. Where is ALPA PAC? Legislation Dept? Legal? Or, more believably, .........wasn't the fix in all along? Think about it, the only way to argue against a sell out of our younger members would be to come up with some story......some spin. Hell, even the folks walking around my property with the "Ask Me" tags are scratching their heads on this one.
I am not mad, just disappointed. Now tell me again how agreeing to this will help me negotiate a better deal?
And another thing: Age 60
So the official line goes something like this.....iunless we (ALPA) submit to the idea of this change, we will be essentially locked out of the process?....and please,..... please do not go through the long story again, it's not that I don't understand it,.....it's that I just don't believe it.
I see it as simply as this, we have sold out our younger members and now it will be virtually impossible to argue against that long standing accusation that ALPA is a Captains Union. In addition to that, we have now agreed to place in jeopardy, everything we have worked so hard to attain over the years, insofar as it applies to retirement.
Look, even if this nonsense were true, I would expect that the leadership of what can now be argued to be the most influential union ever to exist, one that now, with the inclusion of its Cargo constituents, has it's hand directly in global commerce, ......like I said, I would expect that leadership to look it's detractors directly in the eye and issue this stern warning. "You have attacked this profession long enough, you have attempted to decimate our industry at every turn, you have pushed us long enough, I strongly recommend you don't push any further, or else you will feel our resolve!"
Maybe it's me, but haven't we essentially just gone hat in hand and said to the very people who have beaten us down over the years....."thank you sir, may I have another"? Isn't this a policy of appeasement?
Who are these Congressman and Senators and Bureaucrats who threatened to exclude us? What are there names. Where is ALPA PAC? Legislation Dept? Legal? Or, more believably, .........wasn't the fix in all along? Think about it, the only way to argue against a sell out of our younger members would be to come up with some story......some spin. Hell, even the folks walking around my property with the "Ask Me" tags are scratching their heads on this one.
I am not mad, just disappointed. Now tell me again how agreeing to this will help me negotiate a better deal?
06-28-2007, 06:04 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Originally Posted by skypine27
I can not BELIEVE that this was voted in favor of 11-1 by our Union. Between this and DW's stand on the retro age 60 fiasco, I don't wear an ALPA pin or Lanyard anymore.
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 !
Last edited by 2cylinderdriver; 06-28-2007 at 06:14 AM.
06-28-2007, 06:16 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Well...the MEC went 11/1. At least one guy said "no".
I think this is a chance to show the company--and our MEC--our resolve. The downside risk is pretty big--the junior guys could end up with "NOTHING". On the other hand--what they are being offered is pretty close to that--the chance to live in sub-standard conditions making a heck of a lot less than the other ex-pats over there. I'm sure the 40 guys in the pool and another 100 or so off the street might actually appreciate us voting this down--because it would get them on the property sooner. They'd take the lower pay if it meant joining the company this fall or spring instead of a year or two down the road.
I did Europe for a while with a comissary, a COLA, and gas coupons. It still wasn't "cheap" and my Q of life was higher in the states. I think some guys are going to be very disappointed if they try to make Paris or HK work on the current plan.
Devil's advocate question--what are the ramifications if a guy goes over there now under the current CBA and skips accepting the move package? Can he live where he wants? Bid back when he wants? Might be better for him/her than selling out for this discounted deal...
I think this is a chance to show the company--and our MEC--our resolve. The downside risk is pretty big--the junior guys could end up with "NOTHING". On the other hand--what they are being offered is pretty close to that--the chance to live in sub-standard conditions making a heck of a lot less than the other ex-pats over there. I'm sure the 40 guys in the pool and another 100 or so off the street might actually appreciate us voting this down--because it would get them on the property sooner. They'd take the lower pay if it meant joining the company this fall or spring instead of a year or two down the road.
I did Europe for a while with a comissary, a COLA, and gas coupons. It still wasn't "cheap" and my Q of life was higher in the states. I think some guys are going to be very disappointed if they try to make Paris or HK work on the current plan.
Devil's advocate question--what are the ramifications if a guy goes over there now under the current CBA and skips accepting the move package? Can he live where he wants? Bid back when he wants? Might be better for him/her than selling out for this discounted deal...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
