According to BC at the last hub-turn meeting, having the pilots based in HKG was a HUGE "win" for ALPA and was done at ALPA's request. FedEx has the option of basing crews at the hub in China which would totally do away with the long ground transportation issue (both duty time and cost). BC says to be careful what you ask for ...

He also says the other HUGE gain in the LOA is the company's stated (signed "contract") RLA recognition for "extra-territorial" flying.

Before I get "flamed", I'm not defending him (I'm still voting NO), just passing information along so that nobody can say we're not "fair and balanced."

Mark

From LOA:
G. Surface Transportation from Hong Kong to Guangzhou
Surface transportation from HKG to CAN is estimated to be slightly over three hours. The limitations contained within Section 8.B.1. of the basic Agreement are waived for purposes of this LOA.

From 8B1. of CBA

1. A pilot who is scheduled for surface transportation between two airports shall receive credit for pay toward the duty period calculation, for such deadhead, based on historical FedEx data as follows:
1. :30 CH for each 1 hour, or portion thereof, up to a maximum of 2:30 CH.
2. Surface transportation greater than 2 hours must be approved by the SIG.
2. The surface transportation shall be provided on a non-public commercial operator.
3. Surface transportation between an airport and a layover facility is not deadhead by surface transportation, provided that the flights immediately preceding and following the layover operate from the same airport.

With SIG approval they can.

My question would be that if the limitations described in 8.B.1. are waived by the LOA, does that include the limitation of not only 2hrs max, but 2.5 hrs pay, and that the surface transportation must be non-public?

Could be catching the public train sitting in coach with a nice elderly oriental lady with a live chicken sitting on her lap sitting next to you.

Mark,

Thanks for your input. Would you say the company would rather not base us in HK? I would be wondering now if the company would consider some plan B of having some shacks built near the China airport for housing the pilots...

Reminds me of the History Channel shows that feature the fine housing the New Deal provided to the workers at the Hoover Dam. I recall the government was a bit annoyed at the workers for questioning the quality of life they had there. Something to the effect of "Shut up and get back to work! Feel lucky you have a job in the middle of the Depression!"

The company does save on tax equalization big time 16% HK vs 50% China so I'm guessing it wasn't all altrueism on fred's part.

Without the LOA, do they have to provide tax equalization at all? Wasn't sure if that is in the CBA already.. I have read so many posts I am having a problem separating fact from fiction.

Only if they want people to work in CDG and China. My point was when they negotiated HK into the LOA someone must have noticed that the tax equalization burden in HK vs China would more then cover the 2700 a month.

Here's the gotcha. The LOA states that you will bear approx the same federal tax burden as if you lived in anytown, USA.

As an Expat working and living over seas you are entitiled to an $82,400/yr write off. If you are required to pay approx the same taxes who gets the benefit of this write off?

If you assume a 30% tax bracket that is approx $25K savings. If the company gets it you are effectively paying most of the $2700/mo or $32,400/yr the company gives you for housing. IT's ALREADY YOUR MONEY!

Anyong know the answer?

Past...

ps under the current contract the company gives you an Income Tax Gross Up to cover foreign taxes per the Personnel and Policy Manual.

Where are the WOODS???
 

I am surprised in all of this that the Woods (J&T) have not been mentioned. They could give some first hand knowledge on being based in CDG. Lets take a look at how they made this work.

OK...first 2 Chief Pilots of CDG that is not even a Base/Domicile/FDA
Both Captain salaries in the ballpark of $270,000 ($540,000)
Apartment leased BY FedEx...taken care of
Car leased BY FedEx...taken care of
School for the kids...taken care of

Sounds really similar to the deal the FedEx accountants get in HKG (non-Executive)
Adjusted Compensation...
Company sells your home or buys it if it does not sell in 2 months...(would hate to be stuck with a mortgage and a lease if it didn't sell by the time you got there)
Apartment to fit the entire family...Leased by FedEx and company Lawyers to take care of all the paper work with those savvy Hong Kong business men.
School for the kids...taken care of ($65,000 deposit + $15,000 each kid)
Car leased BY FedEx...taken care of


BWP...

I see, so it wouldn't necessarily be kept after voting down the LOA. Only if the company wanted the base to be bid by senior (if any) pilots. But as Past said, there will still be some tax correction without the LOA. I can't see where the company would have brought a scenario to the MEC that actually had pilots living in the Guangzhou area, but nobody is talking.

I have seen a lot of info on what WILL happen if the LOA is approved, at least what is in writing (FWIW). Granted there is a LOT of things that we don't know will happen with it. What we are not seeing is what WILL happen if it is not approved. I'm pretty sure the company has some contigency plan, and it would be nice to see an A or B choice.

This is kinda like the old standoff with the parents.. "You make your bed or ELSE!" Well, let me know what ELSE is, and I'll decide whether it's worth the effort to make the bed.

As a junior guy, I appreciate the more senior guys concerns about preventing the inverse STV for those of us that would not be able to avoid it. However, as a junior guy I am also concerned about the short term as well as long term future as far as upgrades and stability should the company go with plan B.

So here we are, having to choose between a turd and douchebag. Not a position I would have thought I was getting into when I signed up, but still an improvement to my previous company. Since I can't vote, I hope it turns out well for all of us.

Thanks for all the info

If you bid an FDA, you will receive relocation package #2. This will provide all the same benefits as a package #1 minus Section 6.C.9., 6.C.10, 6.C.11., 6.C.12., and 6.C.13., (that is C.9&10, Reimbursement of costs associated with sale and purchase of residence, C.11, third-party home purchase, C.12, plane tickets for housing searches and relocation to domicile, 7 round trips, and C.13, lease cancellation reimbursement.)

It would have been nice to change the language in the current contract to give the package #1 to those assigned to an FDA. I guess the NC didn't want to visit that for fear that it would only effect "80 guys".

Section 6.C.14 IS provided with an FDA relocation and it states:

14. Income tax gross up benefits as provided in the Personnel Policy and
Procedure Manual (3-86) dated October 2003.

This has not changed between contract 1999 and the new CBA.