fedupbusdriver

From page one of the current CBA

1. In accordance with the National Mediation Board’s certification in case number R-6450 dated October 29, 1996, as transferred from the Fedex Pilots Association to the Air Line Pilots Association (“the Association”) in File No. C-6762/Case No. R-6450, 29 NMB 320 dated May 29, 2002, the Company recognizes the Association as the duly authorized representative for the specific craft or class of flight deck crew members (hereinafter referred to as “pilots”) of the Company covered by the Railway Labor Act (“the RLA”).

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.


How does this LOA afford us more RLA protection than we have already achieved?

When we were voting on our current CBA, the union stated that this covered us... Why do we need this LOA to cover us more?

Seems to me like the union requested the company to reiterate what was already agreed on in order to give them another selling point for this POS.

Albief15

I hear we get mini-snacks on this LOA. And we get to bid for our training...

But we don't get to bid out of being inversed to China.

Remember the hippies of the 60's? "Hell NO! We won't go! Hell no! We won't go!" I need a few of those stickers.

FlybyKnite

From listening to one block rep, it has something to do with precedence and jurisdiction (can you say "lawyer fodder").

Anyway, the layman explanation was we can take Section 1 to a judge who will just say "Yes, it says that; but I have no jurisdiction in (__city, foreign country__) to enforce that". [apparently has happened before at other airlines] And the recommended best legal defense is: a repeated pattern of specific language/behavior, i.e. RLA in Subic via LOA, RLA in HKG/CDG via LOA.

The MEC appears to be very focused on at least one point.
But the MEC can't seem to grasp the fact that no one wants to catch the Special Temp Vancancies (STVs) disease. Yes, the LOA says it's only for the first two years and then only one to three bid months (and for FDA closures too). But who (besides the MEC) thinks the company isn't going to exercise that clause at all; and then just limit its use to just a one month deployment? Yeah, right!

I appreciate the fiduciary responsibility of the RLA clause, but I don't want anyone subjected to involuntary deployments. It's just like life insurance: yes, I probably do need it for the future, but the price is just too damn high and I can't afford to pay that much right now.

I'm with Albie, jerk the STV clause and resubmit for a vote, otherwise it's still - NO!!

.

AerisArmis

Just a thought here. IF the company pulls the trigger on this STV, I would think they would look for volunteers before sticking it to non-vols. Although a great many of our pilots would suffer from this, there are also many who would say "why not". Sadly, CDG is out for me but if I asked the wife to come over to HKG for 1, 2 or 3 months to hang out, I'm sure she would jump at it, just not sure of the duration. 90 days @ int'l per diem X 24 hours a day ought to cover the ticket(s). On days off, side trips to Thailand, Beijing, Shanghai, Sydney, Bali.....you get the picture. Depending on how many pilots they need, this may not need any non-vols to cover any of the 3 month periods. Besides, after 15 months on the ROK in the AF, 3 months in Hong Kong, YGTBSM. Suspect it will be better than 6 months on a CV as well. This is only a counter opinion to the STV portion of the LOA and is not intended as support for the whole enchilada.

angry tanker

so you are assuming you will have days off...

MD11Fr8Dog

Work 30 days/month? Hmmm, 'splain!

AerisArmis

Ah...guess I need to reread the LOA.

Daniel Larusso

They are correct on this point, just like the saying 'a contract isn't a contract until it survives the grievance process.'

nightfreight

I'm all for a VOLUNTARY SVT situation. If someone WANTs to go for one to three months, they should be able to bid it. And if they still can't fill the slot, they could fill trips via Xpairings or reserves (only on their R days).

If the SVT clause wasn't there, I might change my mind. I would not go to either location, but if people chose to bid the FDA's for the small cash override, so be it. It might not be good enough for me, but maybe others might think it would be worth it. The bottomline is that if people didn't think it was a good enough deal, then no one would bid it. My guess is that the Captain's seat would fill, but F/Os would be primarily new hires.

MaxKts

If you read the LOA, STV is voluntary - you can bid it. If the slots are not filled then they will be assigned. Even if most of the slots are filled by volunteers, is it worth giving this to the company (ie - what do we get for it)?

Also what extra RLA protections are we getting from the LOA that are not already in the CBA? It appears to me the only gains go to the company.

All-in-all this LOA is a give to the company for nothing in return!

My vote is NO