USMCFDX

Your Mileage May Vary

FDX1

Thought you guys might want to take a look at the following e-mail. If you don't know Gary, I can tell you that he has been one of the strongest block reps I have every seen and cares a great deal about the crew force. He has submitted the following e-mail to almost every Union rep/chairman/volunteer that has accumulated in his adress book over the past few years.

HERE IT IS:

Hello to everyone at FedEx for whom I have a personal email address record - (a large list, and that is why you are getting this as a BCC.)
(This email and its attachment may be forwarded without limitation to airline pilot forums and to the e-list -- both of which I am not a
subscriber/member)
It is my opinion that the LOA for the FDAs in CDG and HKG should be rejected by FDX ALPA members. I will outline my reasons for opposition to this LOA in brief, and the attached file expands on my reasons with a great deal more detail, along with web links for your own research.
As you consider your vote, the main question I ask everyone to assess in their decision is "could you move your household/family to the FDA and live there under the proposed LOA without incurring financial hardship?" While my wife and I would like to consider moving overseas, the answer for us, as I believe the answer is for the majority of us, especially those with families is a resounding "NO".
As the minority opinion by Subic rep discussed, if you elect to take the "enhanced option", the areas which are considerably deficient are the meager housing allowance, cheap-o airline ticket for visits back to the USA and the miniscule move/storage packages. If you stay with the current CBA FDA package, you get a similar, but different, amount of nothing to live in two of the most expensive locales in the world for expat employees.
The one area that is totally deficient (nothing there) for either option is the educational allowance for your kids to go to international schools (none). I guess for FedEx this means that singles and empty-nesters only need consider bidding for a FDA assignment.
Management did get a few things right in the LOA. The tax equalization provision (called tax neutrality by some companies) is completely industry standard. The travel provisions from HKG to Guangzhou and the Special Temporary Vacancy sections also seem reasonable (see attachment).
BTW my attachment also outlines my opinion on the following intangibles, all of which I reject as good arguments for this flawed LOA (HOOK to look at the
attachment!)
>> "The company could use the current CBA and open the FDA anyway if we
reject the LOA." -- True, but could they fill the seats?
>> "This LOA is better than the current CBA and should be viewed as an
incremental step in the process. We can fix or build on this LOA in the next negotiations." -- True, but $5 would be more and that would (hopefully) have been rejected as insufficient.
>> "The LOA contains an incremental improvement to RLA language for FDA
assigned pilots" -- Doesn't change the fact that you can't live overseas under its provisions.
>> "If we don't accept the LOA, FedEx could use foreign pilots to do the
flying" -- Doubtful. Between unreliability, lack of control and scope, won't happen.
After we reject this LOA, what would be a fair FDA LOA? We should not expect to either have a package that would be offered to corporate executives moving to HKG or the $1M pay and benefit package paid to the recent CDG chief pilot husband/wife duo. But it is entirely reasonable for us to expect a package commensurate with management's need to have qualified professional employees live and work, without financial hardship, from an expensive (i.e., not Subic!) foreign domicile.
Bottom Line >> Should the reasonable ability to bid and move to a FDA be limited by management to singles and "empty nesters" alone? Or should ALL FedEx pilots have the chance to bid and move to a foreign domicile without financial hardship?
It does not matter if you personally would consider moving under this LOA or not - we are all making a collective decision on the suitability of this proposal. I urge you to measure not whether or not you would bid, but whether or not you COULD bid and live under this LOA. Clearly the answer is NO.
Vote NO on the FDA LOA. I encourage each of you to fully explore the issues surrounding this LOA with Capt Bob Chimenti during the short-notice LEC79 meeting in Anchorage this Thursday July 19 at the Snowgoose Restaurant.
Fraternally,
Capt Gary Roeder
ALPA MEC 2004-2007 as ANC Council 79 Chairman FPA BOD 2000-2002 as ANC Status Block Representative
ALPA-1 1995-1996 SPC Committee and ANC Local Council Officer
Cc: FDX ALPA elected officers and volunteers

TonyC

Oops, I usually try to avoid the abbreviations in case someone doesn't recognize them. YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary = It worked for me, but that doesn't guarantee it will work for you.


I think I've answered all the e-mails I've recieved (if I missed anyone, try again), and my turnaround is averaging around 2 or 3 hours. I've been answering the phone whenever I'm awake, and I haven't cut any of those calls short. I was present at the last hub turn meeting, and I stuck around until the last question was answered and the last comment was registered. I plan to do the same thing tomorrow night. Bring a list, or shoot from the hip -- I'll do my best.




.

BonesF15

[QUOTE=AerisArmis;196759]Valid point

FDXFLYR

FDXBUSCAPT and FDX1: Thank you so much!!

gcsass

Hey FDX1,

Could you post the attachment and links Gary mentions, or e-mail 'em to me?

Thanks...

FDX1

My original intent was to vote yes for the LOA. I won't go in to a long list of why (because it isn't), but I have spent the past week reading all of the posts regarding this LOA in additional to what little information has come out of the Union and from the Company.

My initial yes vote was that I believed the LOA to be a slight improvement as compared with current language. Second, I felt that I could be hurting those that wanted to bid the FDA by Not Voting Yes and denying them the additional allowances. Third, I felt that the MEC and NC did its homework and due diligence in getting us this LOA. Lastly, and most importantly in my mind was that the company would use the failure of this LOA to pass as justification to hire "other"pilots to fill the vacancies in these FDA's.

With those concerns in mind, I will not vote for approval of this LOA and deal with the consequences that follow. I don't believe those 'consequences' are as bad as accepting this LOA in its present form.

To the NC: Improve this LOA and work the obvious faults. Work them as if you were going to actually bid to HKG and my bet is you may want to make some improvements. We should not make assumptions as to the outcome of a failed LOA as we did with the AGE 60 debacle.
To the MEC: If Asia and Europe is the growth for our company then lets make this LOA work for everyone involved and not begin to accept a standard far short of what we deserve or set the bar so low we all trip over it!

FDX1

http://www.shelteroffshore.com/index.php/living/more/overseas_assignments_expat_relocation_packages/

See HKG: http://www.landmarkasia.com.hk/ or http://residential.savillsproperty.com/
See CDG: http://www.intransit-international.com/home_housing_request.html , http://www.premium-relocation.com/ or http://www.avendrealouer.fr/

Hope this helps.

FDX1

Oppose FDA LOA – VOTE NO on the LOA ballot

It is my opinion that the LOA for the FDAs in CDG and HKG should be rejected by FDX ALPA members. I will outline my reasons for opposition to this LOA.

I participated in the conference call held by LEC79 on Saturday June 30. The questions and answers in that call, and some limited research on my part into aspects of this LOA provide the basis for my opposition. I hope my lengthy treatise will prompt you to take a hard look at the facts surrounding this LOA.

The main question I ask everyone to assess in their decision is “could you move your household/family to the FDA under the proposed LOA without incurring financial hardship?” I believe the answer for the majority of us, especially those with families is a resounding “NO”.

The housing allowance of $2700 per month for residence leasing, or $1300 per month for purchase are dramatically less than the actual differential between housing costs in the USA and either of the FDAs.

See HKG: http://www.landmarkasia.com.hk/ or http://residential.savillsproperty.com/
See CDG: http://www.intransit-international.com/home_housing_request.html , http://www.premium-relocation.com/ or http://www.avendrealouer.fr/

Additionally, the LOA proposed allowances are dramatically lower than well-established levels for housing that FedEx (and other multi-national corporations) provide for their employees. Also, is your desired home near the international school for your children, and what effect does that have on the monthly cost? As an aside to the housing discussion, nothing is mentioned about the difference for utilities overseas, which are roughly double the cost per square foot in the USA. This is not to say that FedEx pilots should expect to be made whole for housing of the same size as in the USA, as equivalent housing in either HKG or CDG is much smaller than the American “standard of living” size. Rather, FedEx pilots should expect that they could afford housing in a location that would be typical for their family situation and income level.

Storage – nothing in the LOA provide for the preparation and move of household effects into and out of storage, nor is time off allocated for such preparation for a move. One call to a major mover in Anchorage – it is a minimum of $3K to pack up and move 10,000# in/out of storage, and $4200/year for storage. However, it is not unusual for well-established families to have good well in excess of 10,000 pounds. I guess the garage sale will help…

Household shipping – it is absurd to think that a family of four could move their household essentials to either FDA and stay within the 500 pounds allotted in the LOA. It is likewise absurd that one would live in the FDA for several years and move back with only 3000 pounds. Does this limit us to researching only homes or apartments that are furnished? Anyone who has done any sort of full household move knows these figures are completely out of touch with reality.

Travel provisions (LOA: one coach ticket after 2 years) to/from the USA while on the FDA is woefully deficient. Most multinational companies provide paid travel at least once per year, and this long-range international travel is in at least business class. (BP for example).

While visas are addressed for spouse and children, nothing is mentioned in the FDA or management information about the availability of spouse work visas/permits. It is unknown whether or not either the French or Hong Kong authorities will allow spouses to work; this information could especially a factor in a family’s financial decision on bidding the FDA assignment.

The most egregious deficiency for many of us is the lack of an education allowance for school-age children. HKG schools cost a minimum of 8000HKD per month (about $1100). To those who have made a personal decision to use private schooling in the USA, I would offer there is a major difference between opting to use a private school and being forced by language to utilize an international school. Every multinational company that I’ve researched provides an educational allowance to their foreign-assigned employees. This LOA is a slap in the face to any of us with children. This LOA should allow for ALL FDX pilots to weigh a decision to bid the FDA, not just the empty nesters and single pilots.

See HKG: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/29/news/ateach.php, http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/12/business/sxb4.php, and
http://www.moveandstay.com/hongkong/guide_international_schools_universities.asp
See CDG: http://www.marymount.fr/base.php?code=26

Not everything is flawed within this LOA! The tax equalization provision (called tax neutrality by some companies) is completely industry standard. Likewise, the travel provisions from HKG to Guangzhou seem reasonable. The Special Temporary Vacancy provisions troubled me at the outset because of the inverse assignment provisions until it was pointed out to me that SIBA currently has a similar provision. So this seems like a reasonable provision for short term relief.

What would be a fair FDA LOA? We should not expect to either have a package that would be offered to corporate executives moving to HKG or the $1M pay and benefit package paid to the recent CDG chief pilot husband/wife duo. But it is entirely reasonable for us to expect a package commensurate with management’s need to have qualified professional employees live and work, without financial hardship, from an expensive (i.e., not Subic) foreign domicile.

While you’re still reading check out these interesting articles – some are dated, but still have good information:

http://www.relocatemagazine.com/international-spring06-pg20.php
http://www.shelteroffshore.com/index.php/living/more/overseas_assignments_expat_relocation_packages/

After reading all of this, I hope you will agree that the proposed LOA falls well outside of what your family would need to consider moving to another country to fly for FedEx.

I’ll close with observations on the intangibles some of which the MEC outlined as reasons to vote for this LOA.

• “The company could use the current CBA and open the FDA anyway if we reject the LOA.”
  • ANSWER >> True. But they could have done this several months ago and yet management elected to negotiate this LOA. Management must feel that they want either more volunteers or a greater seniority in the FDAs, or they would not offer an LOA. If the LOA is rejected the only pilots who will be awarded the bid will be those who feel that the current CBA meets their needs, and management could assign new hires to fill the FDA. There is NO provision in the current CBA for inverse assignment to a FDA. With the announced plans to release the bid soon for both new FDA domiciles management is either very confident of the LOA passage, or they really intend to junior staff the domiciles, especially the narrow-body paid CDG domicile.
• “This LOA is better than the current CBA and should be viewed as an incremental step in the process. We can fix or build on this LOA in the next negotiations.”
  • ANSWER 1 >> By this logic, we would accept a $5 housing allowance which is a quantifiable improvement to the CBA. Clearly that would not pass muster with any of us. However, it seems clear with the rush toward the upcoming bid, management must think they can get a 50%+1 vote on this LOA. I hope they are wrong.
  • ANSWER 2 >> The next negotiations will be likely dominated with a defense of our pensions, especially if as expected the FAA age-60 retirement rule changes. We will also need to fix the work rules that were unimproved with Contract 2006. It is unlikely that negotiating for improvement to the FDA LOA will weigh in very high on the negotiations priority list. We should not accept a clearly deficient LOA at the outset that lowers the bar for FDAs as much as this proposal.
  • ANSWER 3 >> The Anchorage Move LOA was widely recognized as a “something better than the current Contract” while not being everything needed in a long-range move package. As such, its deficiencies arguably contributed to the poor response (usage) especially by the Purple Nuggets -- less than 1 out of 10 nuggets decided to take the move package. Management thus implemented a marginal benefit that really has not performed as they intended – to get more Anchorage local pilots. Today, since the ANC domicile is not expanding, what reason would management have for negotiating to improve that flawed LOA? And if the proposed flawed FDA LOA is approved and the bases are initially staffed, what reason would management have for agreeing for any improvement during the next negotiations?

FDX1

• “The LOA contains an incremental improvement to RLA language for FDA assigned pilots”
o ANSWER >> True, but what is the point of better RLA protection if you essentially take a pay cut to fly in the FDA? Won’t this LOA feel to the FDA pilot’s wallet a sort of B-scale international flying?
• “If we don’t accept the LOA, FedEx could use foreign pilots to do the flying”
o ANSWER 1 >> Again, if management thought they could save money and provide the same reliability as FedEx pilots, then they would have done this at the outset, taken the chance with Section 1 (Scope) violations and not bother with the LOA. As professionals we provide our company with a quality product at a fair price. This will remain so even after this LOA is fixed.

Bottom Line >> Should the reasonable ability to bid and move to a FDA be limited by management to singles and “empty nesters” alone? Or should ALL FedEx pilots have the chance to bid and move to a foreign domicile without financial hardship? Ask YOUR status representative if they could bid either FDA and maintain their current same standard of living!

It does not matter if you personally would consider moving under this LOA or not – we are all making a collective decision on the suitability of this proposal. I urge you to measure not whether or not you would bid, but whether or not you COULD bid and live under this LOA. Clearly the answer is NO.

Vote NO on the FDA LOA.

Fraternally,

Capt Gary Roeder
ALPA MEC 2004-2007 as ANC Council 79 Chairman
FPA BOD 2000-2002 as ANC Status Block Representative
ALPA-1 1995-1996 SPC Committee and ANC Local Council Officer