Albief15

I was ankle deep in horse $hit today cleaning some stalls at 1730 after starting the day with a backend DH from MSP at 0645. Its good to be home--but I am finding out going to work is the easiest part of my routine these days..

There is a certain amount of mental clarity that comes with manual labor, and as I shoveled and pitched I thought of two questions. I'll pose them for TonyC, Sleepy, the MEC, the "pro LOA" crowd, and anyone else on the peanut gallery that has a comment.

First--if we DO sign this LOA, and as BC indicated go for improvements later...what possible incentives does the company have since they can now INVERSE guy into domicile? Granted...there's a 24 month opening FDA period and an 18 month closing FDA period, but as discussed--they can open/close/open/close at will ping ponging between airframes. Why would the company care about improving the process if they can send junior guys at will? Why would they even consider upping the ante?

Second--why would the union work harder in 2-3 years for improvements than they have done right now? If we have NO leverage now, why should I believe that anyone in the MEC will burn green stamps to make it better for us in 2-3 years? Is it because BC will be gone and DW thinks he'll be at ALPA national by then?

Two more random points: Someone pointed out that after BC spoke things got "quieter" at the MEC meeting last Monday after a junior guy walked out frustrated--some took that as BC "won" the crowd. I disagree. I was still talking--trying to keep a cool head--but the reason I did not "badger" BC or try to raise my tone had nothing to do with being "convinced" the LOA was a good idea. Rather--I thought BC did a fine job himself of illustrating to the crowd the tone and texture of his point of reference and how he felt about his role as negotiator. I didn't think a room full of intelligent guys would miss the fact this is a very "personal" thing with him. Losing my cool or beating a dead horse doesn't do anyone any good. Instead--I approached some of the MEC members present and asked them to A) consider finding a way to work with company and putting a line through the STV clause PRIOR to the voting and B) consider doing an inexpensive informal survey of their blocks to see if anyone really DOES plan on bidding Paris and Hong Kong so that we can get a realistic view of the chances of someone being involuntarily sent overseas. Yelling "@sshole" and "bull$hit" are not conducive seeking a way for all of us to win--or at least break even--on this deal. I've said it before--our contract has some good SCOPE protections and we already have the RLA precedent at Subic...the "reach" for scope at the meeting is just trying to put lipstick on a pig. Calling BC names wont' fix this LOA. I was (and am...) hoping that guys like Sleepy and Tony can find a way to modify a few things so maybe there can be a win/win outcome. As it is--my vote is "no" as long as there is an STV. I'll deal with a scope issue down the road before I watch guys get boned over this spring. It’s a very bad precedent and we open ourselves up to being damaged further down the road...

Finally...got a CIGNA statement today. I've been insured against two back surgeries the last 2 years that probably would have cost our family over $60,000 if I didn't have our insurance plan. Our plan comes from a union that was willing to fight for it, and a company strong enough to fund it. I am grateful to both parties...and I want all of us to continue this incredible winning streak for years to come. I am not "mad" at anyone--but rather trying to support our union and allow our company to continue to do what they do best. However--I simply cannot accept the idea that in a non-military organization being sent away from your family for up to 3 months at a time is somehow acceptable--especially with our record profits and revenues. We don't need to be so scared of a dynamic future that we sell ourselves out into indentured servitude for 90+ days at a pop. We know that FedEx will continue to seek "efficiencies" in the system--and if accounting can prove its cheaper to inverse guys over than to improve the working conditions you KNOW what is going to happen next. Voting "NO" on this LOA does not mean you hate your union or want your company to fail. It simply means that there are some sacrifices that are not worth making.

PurpleTail

Good post as always Albie. There are a lot of catch 22's in this LOA but most of them are more negitive than positive. You have to look at the LOA for what it is...a really bad deal. Remember the Union slogan..."No one left behind, all seniority groups interests represented, blah, blah, blah..." Lets face it, this LOA targets a very specific demographic group at FedEx.

And just because your not on the Airbus does not excuse you from getting involved because you never know which airplane will be flying the freight next year. Read the LOA, ask questions and get good info. It is your job as a dues paying union member.

A300_Driver

Great post.
It's not just the SVT for me though.
It is the whole thing...
-The weak housing allowance and housing assistance.
-The potential loopholes in the verbage in the housing allowance.
-The lack of paid travel "home" until the end of the third year away.
-The SVT.
and more...

CaptainMark

if we are going to revisit SVT (single visit training) then let's do it...but i would rather talk about STV

chuck h

[QUOTE=Albief15;195236]
First--if we DO sign this LOA, and as BC indicated go for improvements later...what possible incentives does the company have since they can now INVERSE guy into domicile? Granted...there's a 24 month opening FDA period and an 18 month closing FDA period, but as discussed--they can open/close/open/close at will ping ponging between airframes. Why would the company care about improving the process if they can send junior guys at will? Why would they even consider upping the ante?

QUOTE]

If this letter gets added as part of your current CBA the incentive is that the pilot group now has the power to negotiate this as a part of the whole contract whenever your current one expires. You could chose not to ratify the entire package and strike if you don't get major improvements to this section. Obviously doing that now would be an illegal job action. The real power would ultimately depend on how profitable these FDA's are for FedEx. The better they are for the company, "theoretically", the more lucrative it should become for you guys in the future. I'm not a FedEx pilot, been trying to get on there for almost 9 years, so I have been following this. If this deal is bad for the pilot group, vote it down. From what I have read of the LOA, what was posted hear, I would vote no. But I will say this, it will be easier for you guys to improve a section of your contract that already exists than to start from scratch at your next negotiations.

fdx727pilot

I mentioned that a while back, but no one listened. Now that I think back, SVT wasn't that good a deal, either.

Get your terminology straight, guys.

Albief15

Fixed it but cannot edit thread name...

v1 uh-oh

This LOA affects everyone on FDX property, no matter what A/C you fly. I'm halfway up the MEM MD-11 FO list and I was thinking of bidding CA on the Airbus or 75( who knows if I would be able to hold them). But I can't do it now for fear of being the junior guy shipped halfway around the world for 3 months. VOTE NO, it's the absolute, only way of getting the company to sweeten the deal, as they won't do it out of good will.

Canyonman

My question is if STV is implemented in HKG and the bid is put out for it, will any one bid it? If bid or inversed will one stay in a 5 star hotel or be put out in "Queens" HKG? As a junior airbus captain I agree this LOA is swiss cheese.

On a side note. Read your SIG letter for August. They have really cranked up the optimizer in the bus and it will spread to other a/c. I'm afraid our contract is starting to look like swiss cheese as well.

Huck

It'll be a cold day in Hades before we see another membership survey......