This bother's me
 

I have heard the same thing...also "hey, don't worry about it, a lot of Subic guys will go to Hong Kong...cause they "can't come back to the States anyway", implying some sort of legal complications.....

This is not the kind of "talking points" we should be in the business of distributing.

Who says the MD guys won't be affected by an STV? What happens if they change guage in Hong Kong, or they have a dual operation (MD-11/A300)? This may not affect you at the moment, but who's to say it won't in the future?

I believe it is foolish not to stand up now and JUST SAY NO!

The Euro/Dollar conversion rate on June 15th when the Commercial Appeal published the article "FedEx to base pilots overseas" was $1.33 to the Euro.

Today it's $1.365 to the Euro. If you were based in Paris, you'd be paying 3.4% more for that G.I. Joe with the Kung Fu grip for your kid. Just think of it like inflation.

As a Subic pilot, I find this kind of slur ridiculous, but not uncommon. If we had legal problems, it wouldn't be hard for a court to track us down every year we came to Memphis for training. Some guys have their heads so far up their a$$es that they need binoculars to see the overheard panel.

I predict you'll see over 90% of this base back in the US if this LOA is passed.

Fixes
 

How about a little bit of how to fix the LOA.

First, could we come up with a pay standard of COLA. Maybe an O-1 rate for the region.

Next nail down healthcare and medical/legal rights. Specifically spelled out how you would be cared for and by whom.

As for the STV, what if we made it a max of 30 days and it would be offered in the bid pack for the next month (ie a bid line). If anyone had to be non-vol'd then they would be payed at 200% for the month. Keep the 18 month restriction and I'd even say we'd give up the 2 year limit.

Anyone have more bright ideas??:confused:

kwri,

I agree. I think we are getting way off track here on the STV issue. The entire LOA needs to be fixed.

If the $$$ were not such an insult...STV would not be such an issue. And, would be that much easier to fix. Most, if not all, the slots would be filled. And the rest could be put out for re-bid? Say, by bidding on 30 day TDY's.

But, I think most of you are taking your eye off the ball here. This LOA is woefully short in many areas.

Pulling the STV does not make the package better. It just protects you from a crappy agreement. It would still be a major NO for me.

My take on the meeting last night is very similiar to Albie's.

I thought that they tried to ram this down our throats by using fear, ridicule, and sarcasm. I will forever remember that since I am junior and do not have 28 years on the property, my opinions are ignorant, uninformed, and unimportant. Whenever a pointed question was asked the responses were very elementary. A lot of "We think, we assume, I seriously doubt, you should pay around.....etc....

The MEC was touting the company's position that since they do not pay your housing and education costs here, why should they pay it for you there. It seemed to me that they were offended that we asked them to NEGOATIATE for better terms. They did not even entertain the thought of asking for a change in some of the terms of the LOA. Once again, who are they representing.

For the most part, IMHO, the MEC guys sounded more like company reps that union reps. To me, it did not seem like they were wanting to listen to the group in which they represent. And when questioned about them not listening to the pilot group the repsonse was, "well where you when all of this was being negoatiated?"

Submit Questions
 

I hope you guys are taking time to submit this via the company Q & A.

One might argue they'll ignore it.

I say they need to know what we are thinking. Obviously our unions reps were way out of touch with us on this.

If you don't put in the effort to let the company know your concerns, you don't have a right to gripe.

Does anyone remember the FPA T/A meeting at the Marriott? That's what this is sounding like to me. I remember walking out of there knowing I wasn't going to vote for it and thinking "What a bunch of arrogant plicks!"

to be sure Prez, I was not using this characterization, I am repeating what others who know better have said. I also believe it doesn't pass the "smell test" for the reasons you said. Even if it were true, it is not the kind of thing should be repeating, or used as a mitigating circumstance in negotiations.