….but unfortunately not from anyone’s postings on this web forum (yet.)

Long time lurker….first time poster….sorry for the lengthy post……I felt the need, and hope this helps put some perspective out there……bear with me…

A lot of you (like me) who have had questions and serious doubts and fears as to why the questions were going unanswered – fear no more!

I have finally gotten some answers to my questions both from ALPA and FedEx – unfortunately not from anything posted on this web forum - unbelievable, I know……but first a little background….

To quote a funny movie – “What we have here, gentlemen, is a failure to communicate” (I think that’s the quote, but don’t quote me – you get the idea)

“Hello, ALPA (via email of course because I don’t really want to actually have a personal conversation with someone I really don’t know all that well – let’s just keep it professional and email instead)…..uh…….dudes……I got a lot of serious questions on this LOA here……”

…..chirp……chirp…..(sound of crickets)…….no answers…….right?

OK…. I’m not even gonna call the Company boys with my questions – after all, they’re the enemy and probably out to screw me somehow – if I could just figure out how?? – but I know they won’t shoot straight with me. Probably shouldn’t even send in my questions on that form the Company set up either – ‘cause then they’ll know my personal thoughts and hold them against me some day some how (yes, I actually think/thought this) maybe even start a dossier on me to pull out during the hearing that will inevitably come some day. Besides, going to the Company for answers is like being a traitor to ALPA – after all, my negotiating committee speaks for me, don’t they?

So…..the web forums….surely THEY’LL have some answers for me right? So, I’ve poured over them every day and night hoping that someone will post some definitive answers to all these questions I have, right?......well…….you be the judge of how many definitive answers (aka facts) you’ve gotten on this LOA from this forum. What I have found here (besides a lot of good entertaining comments – and a few funny jokes) are a lot of opinions, and a few facts, but for the most part just a lot of emotion (like I have a lot of times) clouding peoples’ logical thought processes.


Anyhow…..for all you out there, like me, whose questions over this LOA seemed to have fallen on deaf ears (at the union AND at the company) – good news!! The questions are finally starting to get answered.

FINALLY…..after 2+ weeks of waiting and hearing nothing, my MEC and LEC reps (MEC Sec-Treas. and LEC Pres.) responded with detailed answers to every question that I had sent in – and the MEC guy emailed me back and forth several times actually getting back to me on a follow-up answer that he had to research – I was on a trip to Asia, so that was my excuse for not picking up the phone and calling these guys – even though they both offered to answer my questions over the phone (and I could have easily Skyped them, but that was my excuse not to call – I’m on a trip in Asia, can’t call, better to email.)

Then, coincidentally, this thread pops up and Captain Kelly posts his comments the same day that I finally get a reply from my LEC rep via email.

So, I take Captain Kelly up on his offer to call him with my questions. I mentioned that I had read his post on the internet, and he was very cordial and professional over the phone (I couldn’t tell if the conversation was being recorded or not, but he didn’t say that it was) He actually was silent while I posed my questions (I thought the line had gone dead several times – turns out he was actually just listening to me) and, then answered the questions that I had, and said he’d call me back the next day with answers to the ones he couldn’t handle (didn’t know the answers to) right then. He actually called me back (great now he knows my phone number – I’m really screwed) and answered the rest of my questions.

BTW - he ended the conversation by telling me that I had been the only person who had called and/or emailed him after his posting on this site. I guess, maybe he thinks we don’t want to actually call anyone to get answers – we’d rather just belly-ache in anonymity? Who knows?

In summary – the questions are being answered. I guess you just have to ask the right people and be patient – we’re all pretty busy these days I guess.

FWIW.

 

Uh, FWIW, what were YOUR questions and what were THEIR answers?

 

AFW
Yadda yadda yadda - what were the questions and what were the answers? Your long post didn't answer anything.

 

Well first I woke up...then I walked down the street... the sun was almost up.. I could smell a faint scent of diesel in the air..............blah blah blah

Jeez AFW you writing a book???

"Brevity is the soul of wit"......try it

 

I sent an email with a whole slew of questions to the union leadership soon after the loa was first released and have yet to receive a reply.

Based on the answers I've heard/read thus far to every question posed on this subject, I'm guessing the ones you received should be interesting, if not funny. I'm curious to see how the creativity level will elevate in the next few days.

I'm still trying to understand why on earth a member would call management to ask questions about a tentative letter of aggreement thinking they would get a straight answers. We can't even get those from our own union leadership!

 

Sorry....I really wasn't intending to "answer anything".

My intent was to let folks on here know that while debating issues like this on the web can pass the time and be fun and sometimes cause you to think of questions you may not have thought of before or view the issue in a different light, at the end of the day only a handful of people have the REAL answers (not secret answers either)......usually that handful of people is not anyone who posts here.

I tend to agree with Captain Kelly in that if you want the facts - and not rumor and speculation - you need to ask the people who actually know the facts.

Also.....my intent was to point out that the Company and ALPA have both failed miserably (up until now) about communicating the FACTS surrounding this LOA to us lowly line swine - failed miserably - not only by their silence in response to our questions, but mostly by publishing a very vague (at best) document for us to consider ratifying.

This has caused people on this forum - and in the cockpits - and on layovers - to draw their own conclusions based on emotion, conjecture, and people stirring the pot on this web site - who (obvious to me) probably haven't even taken the time to actually READ the thing (as evidenced by everyone talking about SVTs when it is really STVs - did they even read the title of the section they're belly-aching about??) We've been forced to get together here and try to figure out the details for ourselves - not good in a lot of ways.

Here's an example of a couple of questions I had -

1. where in the LOA is it written that the company has "agreed" to provide on-duty ground transportation from HKG to CAN? If it isn't written, we won't be able to hold them to it later on down the road when they decide its not in their best interest to continue to provide it.
Union answer -
Under the proposed LOA, our base would be Hong Kong . It is management’s responsibility to deadhead crews that start the flying portion of their trip outside of HKG, just as is the case for us in ANC when a trip starts from somewhere other than Anchorage International Airport. Had management prevailed and established Guangzhou (CAN) as the base, pilots would have been responsible to get themselves to the CAN hub.

The clock also starts ticking once you begin the ground transport from HKG. You begin your duty and trip rig. Such would not be the case if CAN were the base. The clock would begin ticking once you arrived in CAN. The exemptions in the LOA apply to capping the GT credit to 2 ½ hours and having the SIG waive long GT times on a leg by leg basis. You would not get paid greater than 2 hour pay if the GT time triggered it.

Another question was - why $10,000 and not $10,000 OR 79 CH whichever is HIGHER - WHAT's UP WITH THAT???!!! (with emphasis because I read on APC that we were getting screwed out of the OR 79 CH and we were getting screwed out of ANY extra cash if we chose Relocation Option #1 - existing CBA option)

Turns out Captain Kelly pointed out that if you choose Option #1 - existing CBA option - where it says (FDA Bonus shall be inapplicable) - that section is actually a relocation bonus (in the CBA) that you don't/won't get - YOU STILL GET THE $10K or 79 CH whichever's higher as "seed money" - the two cash payments are in different sections of Chapter 6 of the CBA and only the one in 6.E.1.e. (not the $10K or 79CH) is inapplicable. The Company guy actually answered that one.

I was convinced from what I read on APC that the company was screwing me/us on that one.

These are two of my MANY questions. Most of my questions have been posted by others ad-nausium on this site - only to be answered by people here who don't really know, but can make an educated guess that will surely whip all the NO-voters into more of a frenzy.

I'm not saying that all my questions have been answered with answers I agree with and/or like either. But I feel that I have gotten straight/truthful answers of FACT on what has been negotiated (and YES, I believe there was a negotiation from talking to the ALPA and Company guys I talked to) and not just internet speculation and rumors.

Also, where neither side even knows exactly the details of the answer - like how's the ground transportation going to actually work when everyone lives in 50 different apartments around HKG within a 100nm radius? how, exactly are we all gonna get to work and back? or what kind of schedules are going to be flown/required? Both the union and company have said they don't even know exactly how it's all gonna work yet.

They do both agree that both the company and the union BOTH want US to man the bases - and both feel that the LOA is an overall positive for both the company and the pilots.

I'm not saying I'm sold either way - so don't shoot the messenger.

I'm just saying that everyone I've asked my questions to (ALPA and Company) outside this message board has finally gotten back to me with details and answers that I think are FACTUAL. I hope they are getting back to others who post here too. And I think a LOT of people on here are missing the boat and are maybe just outright wrong.

Like I said....."What we have here is a failure to communicate" - but I think its starting to work itself out.

(we finally also got the long-awaited "Minority Opinion")

Keep asking the questions and make an informed decision.

 

AFWMD11,

You're teasing us! It would be impossible for every pilot at FedEx or those of us in the pool as myself to ask these questions as there wouldn't be enough hours in this millennium to answer every pilot.

Please do your fellow crewmembers a huge service and provide the questions and answers to your questions. This would be one of the first really informative posts in a very long time.

With warmest regards,

Whale!

 

And you are less convinced now?

AFW,
Seriously, not trying bash you here, but Capt Kelly didn't point out anything that wasn't right in front of you in black and white, assuming you were looking at both the CBA and the LOA side-by-side. I've been following these posts closely and where misinformation has been put in writing, it's been quickly corrected by others (my stupid mistakes included).

I don't recall anyone here claiming the 10k or 79CH relocation allowance was something one would get screwed out of if they chose Option #1. In fact, if you go with option #1 (I still can't imagine anyone who could/would), you get that same 10k or 79CH on your return relocation move as well (BTW, no relocation $$$ for your return with option #2). I certainly recall reading and posting that if you want any housing allowance, you most definitely do give up the 10K/79CH language in section 6 (and a boatload of other stuff).

You make one good point. This is a BAD place to learn the contents of the LOA. But I've found it to be a pretty good place to get clarification on points that I don't quite understand and to make some points of my own (subject to the same flack as everyone else). And if I show a little emotion, well, it's because I don't like being bent over by the company like a prison ***** and I like it even less when the Union is the prison guard who looks the other way.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FDXBUSCAPT
But I need to say that since you have been the AirBus ACP, you have already developed a reputation that you are on a witch hunt to get guys fired, and the word out in the crew force is to "be careful." You use to be on the union grievience committee, and you are already calling guys in for formal hearings to review their job status because of minor infractions.


IT'S TRUE! I KNOW OF TWO FOR SURE.

 

Thanks for the information AFW_MD11...

The LOA does not provide enough, therefore I will vote against it. I agree with you that ALPA and management have not done a great job getting the information out. Either way, a narrowbody first officer will be placed at an economic disadvantage for the 'privilege' of living in France, and that is wholly unacceptable.

Emotion aside, it's simply not enough and my hope is that it will be voted down. The chips can then fall where they may. It has been said already; the company can open a Foreign Duty Assignment without the LOA. Let 'em do it.