Tuck

There is no good answer to this LOA. If we had a strong union, which we don't as evidenced by the guys flying DPs, draft while in negotiations, etc. this wouldn't be that difficult - vote it down, let the company struggle with SIBA and new hires to fill the positions or be faced with a better LOA. Unfortunately what will probably happen is regardless of how this LOA goes, there will be a TON of guys that bid the new FDAs regardless of what the Union or other people "encourage". As I understand it, this is exactly what happened when SFS originally opened - tons of people bid it even though the Union recommended against. So regardless of how we vote, the FDAs will most likely be filled with tons of volunteers in which case it might, begrudgingly, be best to vote it in.

Albief15

No. You say we have a weak union--but the answer you suggest is "roll over and give milk", as they'll do this anyway.

When you you want to get tough? On the NEXT issue? Will you say "no--that's not enough..." tomorrow? If you will--then why not start growing that spine today. Vote on the LOA on its own merits--not on fear of the company or cajoling by the union. What I hear is "if thats the best we can do--then we need some new folks negotiating....", not "oh gee...we better take what we can get..."

Again...this SVT thing has the potential to ruin your life. Just watch...

DiamondZ

Another nice concession, with current STV language, is the company's responsibilty for DH class of service (8.A.4.c). No more First Class only Business Class.

Tuck

The SVT is a non-starter for the LOA and I would love to vote it down - but I fear it will pass and maybe it should. Point is it's only worth fighting if everyone fights - if 10% of the crew force doesn't then it's worthless. We've proven time and time again that we don't have what it takes to stick together. Heck the ONLY reason we got a contract when we did was because a)UPS got one the week prior and B) the MD-11 FOs refused to fly extra. That's it. If you left it up to the rest of the crew force we'd still be flying DPs, draft, open time in negotiations, etc. There's no doubt in my mind about that.

I'm not going to bid the FDA regardless - I may very well be affected by the STV program though. That being said it's in my best interest to vote it down but I think regardless, we will have pilots bidding both seats in the new FDAs and they can either go over with the current contract - really nothing, or with this LOA.

What do you guys really think will happen if it fails? Do you think the company will first try and open the FDAs and see if they can fill the spots? Do you really think the crew force will not bid the seats? Heck if we had any nuts at all we'd be hammering the folks flying DPs on a daily basis - no jumpseats, no talking on layovers, no talking when airborne, etc. etc. Why are they any different than scabs? Either we're unionized or we're not - putting a sticker on your flight bag that says "My negotiating committee speaks for me" and then doing business as usual is WORTHLESS. Prove me wrong - I'd like to see some sort of evidence where the Union stuck together on an important point that might have even lost some guys some $$. Examples please.

Huck

Problem is... we are not in negotiations on this LOA. Negotiations are over. Our union has brought us a deal to vote on - the end of the process, not the beginning.

You ask what's going to happen if we vote it down. There's a lot I worry about here, but it's safe to say they won't be calling us back to the table to redraw this thing. They'll move on to Plan B, whatever that is.

That's why I called for the vote to be called off about a week ago. Nothing casts a deal in cement like, "We showed this to the MEC and they signed off on it."

Check 6

Ahh,

The devil is in the details... The LOA allows the CO to put any airplane in any of the FDA's.

So will we see the Bus in CDG and the MD in HKG??? Ask the CO...I'm sure they will let us know...when they are ready!

Jake Speed

RUMOR HAS IT: The Bid is already in the hands of the union. It's either the LOA or nothing/zilch/notta. The company has "specified" what they intend to do. Hence the union rhetoric. I'm against the LOA but this is from a GOOD, albeit GREAT, source, FWIW. Still a capital NO for me....

2cylinderdriver

I keep hearing there is more info on the Company plans known by the MEC. If this is true and they are withholding it or the Company will not let them distribute said details then you can't blame the membership for turning down something that is not adequate, we can only vote on what we read. The word of the MEC is not what it was prior to Age 60. In the end, they might turn out to have had the right choice to pass this low ball offer, but I refuse to vote yes just because they say it is as good as we can get.

Albief15

Meas has a contract to bring American pilots over to China to fly CRJs. Cathay hires expats from all over the world to come to HKG and work--and gives them a great deal. Yet our company wants a "concessonary" LOA to get guys to go over? Forget it. They are bluffing. If they wanted Chinese pilots they'd have them already.

This RLA thing seems to be what the union wants. It seems to be worth whatever price the company asks. I disagree.

I had a long talk with the block 3 rep yesterday. Kudos to him and the MEC guys for being around to take spears and attempt to answer questions. While I respect his effort, his answers in my opinion are woefully short.
Specfically--he pointed out that STVs are only 3 months--and we already get sent non-vol'd to TRAINING for 3 months. I told him I didn' think those two points related at all. First of all--being in MEM, DAL, MCO or MIA for 3 months means I'm a jumpseat await from home--not on another continent. Also--I BID for that. SVT is not voluntary! Scott indicated he might bid over just for the adventure of it. I commend him and his spirit. His family situation is different. However--he's got a choice. They guy who gets sent non-vol'd may not be able to get home to visit due to trip arrangements in the bidpack, and his family may not be able to join him (after flying coach around the world) due to school, work, or other family obligations.

Again--and I may be wrong but here goes.... If SCOPE is such a scary issue, and losing this to foreign pilots, why do I make so much money helping American pilots get jobs for countries overseas? IMHO--10 years from now a Chinese airline might be a threat--but not today--and its not worth sacrificing our family lives or working for a very substandard deal to mitigate a threat that isn't there. When that threat does arrive--if they can fly cheaper and more effectively than we can it will take more than our LOA to stop FedEx from using them. Why hasn't Cathay hired up all those local pilots? They'd save a TON in domicile costs.

Tuck--if guys want to bid overseas now the current CBA isn't that terrible. If they get inversed, they fly SIBA type lines and get home every month--first class--and get a hotel provided. Tax equalization is NOT a benefit--its a break even proposition--and $2700 won't pay the rent. Voting NO will send a message--like you and your -11 FOs did last year--that we aren't going to take crap deals and throw outselves under a bus because we are scared of the "unknowns".

Your MEC is fighting hard for this because they know THEIR credibility is at stake. How much do you think they are working to help the junior guys out? What is their track record on that?

Another point that came up in our discussion was "trust". As Check 6 pointed out, the company CAN use ANY plane in the FDA they see fit. Scott's answer was it comes down to trust--we have to believe the company will do what they say they will do for meaningful dialog to take place. His point is valid--but here is some food for thought.

What happened when an ACP and forum regular went to the mat for some 'acceptable fares" issues?

What happened to our new A300 ACP--the former grievance rep who's appointment "sent a signal" that we could all work together now professionally? (Hint: He's not in the AOC ACP offices...)

Who recently was selected as the MEM CP even though he has a reputation for being one of the "least pilot friendly" ACPs when it comes to sick leave, mil leave, etc?

In other words--what kind of handwriting is on the wall right now about the culture and climate our management wants to create the next couple years? They are steamrolling our MEC, optimizing schedules, and asking for the ability to send you AGAINST YOU WILL overseas for months at a time away from our families.

Our MEC says "yeah...but if you don't sign it will be worse".

Dudes--vote your own heart. But I'll take my chances. I dont' want to be negotiating with RT, DM, OR, or any other flight manager over what will happen if I don't accept this 3 month separation from my family. If you really believe that will never happen, and that somehow those folks will allow you to stay home and send someone else senior to you--I wish you luck. If you think your union--which signed off the LOA--will grieve you going for family reasons and they accept sending some SENIOR TO YOU abroad against their will because of your particular hardship--again--I wish you luck.

I don't want to trust my luck. I want to be able to control my schedule under the current CBA. I want to bid what I want to fly and not be forced to live in squalor in an overseas location halfway around the world from my family.

I do not trust the company. I do not trust this MEC. So I am voting no. I hope you vote no too.

Jake Speed

For lack of better words..... "2"