Probably some smart a$$e$ with no Dogs in the fight, no pun intended. The same NFOs that post flame just to see the hackles on our necks stand up, again, no pun intended.

TSD

P.S. and that doesn't mean Naval Flight Officers or whatever they call them. Who am I to say, I was too dumb to come in out of the rain.

Thats too bad. At least if they were Naval Flight Officers that would explain a lot. :D

Voting "No" will accomplish nothing, in fact it will probably hurt us in the next round of negotiations. This "LOA" recognizes FDA's as part of our contract, something Subic has never had since its inception. No one is disputing that the $2700.00 is "chump change"; but if anyone has any plausible ideas on how to "force" the company to increase their offer I'm sure the union would be most interested. The most salient point is to "not bid the FDA"; if new hires are going as Captains the company may see fit to increase their offer. Remember this LOA has cost the Union/Pilot group nothing, this is an out and out gain; sure the Housing money is abhorrant, but a "No" vote won't get us any nearer to what we want, not bidding will if everyone stays together.

Voting no will accomplish nothing? I would have to disagree. Voting no would, in no uncertain terms, tell the company and our MEC that their proposal is inadequate.

Would you vote for it if it was a $2000/ month allowance? How about a $1000/month allowance? Where would you draw the line? My personal line is much higher than this proposal. And, FDX can afford it!

I'm done voting for inadequate TAs. They can afford and we deserve better.

By the way, don't you find it curious that the only MEC dissenter was the SFS block rep?

I think we should keep this simple: if the LOA is not good enough, vote NO. I think we spend way too much time and effort trying to out think management in order to send signals when time and again the simple, direct way is usually the best.

Why not just vote yes and not bid it?

If we vote no--the company can hire into those positions, or outsource the flying.

Scope? We may lose on that one since we were offered the flying and said no thanks.

I think the STV is a scarier prospect. Sounds like the company can "deploy" you three out of 18 months. Hmmm that sounds familiar to my previous life.

Would you vote for it if it were $3000, $4000 OR $10000. If it's just about the money, how will voting "No" make the company increase the amount? I'm pretty sure that the MEC or NC has no leverage to get your demands.

Unfortunately I predict that even if the amount was $1.00 the company will have no problem getting pilots to fill the FDA slots. We don't need to vote "No" on the LOA we need everyone to not bid the FDA.

Hey. If you think its a good deal. Then by all means, you have every right to vote for it. But don't fool yourself into thinking that we can pass this and then have no one bid the FDAs. Not going to happen. And, I can guarantee you that if it passes, it will not give our NC more leverage.

How many times did the company flaunt the 87% passage of the original contract in our face?

This LOA is a pitiful proposal that I will not sanction with my vote. Nor, will I bid the FDA under this LOA.

Vote for it on it's own merits. Not on possible outcomes from "sending a message" by not bidding the FDAs. That's a fantasy, anyway.

For those that fear the hiring of "foreigners" to fly our freight. Read the contract. We do have a scope section. We paid for it in the last contract.

From CBA Sec 1.B.3:
All Domestic and International revenue flights conducted with aircraft that are owned, leased, or operated by the Company, having a MTOGW of greater than 60,000 lbs., and operated pursuant to the Company’s Airline Operating Certificate or any additional Part 121 Airline Operating Certificate obtained by the Company, shall be operated by pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

Maybe internet trolls not at fdx. Honestly...not yanking anyone's chain--if you WANT one of these FDAs tell me what you think. If you are for the LOA explain why. I'm not again voting yes if it makes sense. So far still on the "no" side....

Sleepy...can you explain the "why yes" side?

.....................