BonesF15

Can anyone hit the highlights of the latest spin zone meeting?

Fartknocker

First of all, tonight's meeting went fairly smoothly. There was some emotion from both sides, but overall a pretty good meeting. Here's what I got out of it. This is from memory and all I can think of right now. Don't shoot the messenger, I am just reporting what I heard.

1. The INTENT of the company according to O. R. and J. L. is to only use the STV portion of the LOA for ONE bid period at a time. The email sent out by J. L. is sufficient to amend the LOA when he says, "The standard term for inversing will be one month". This was reiterated by both O. R. and the MEC members at the meeting. The consensus is that there will be plenty of people to bid these FDAs, and the involuntary STV will not be needed.
IF no one bids the FDAs under the current CBA, the company will have to put new hires into the seats, just like they did in ANC. They want FedEx pilots flying FedEx jets, not some other airline.

2. When the MEC asked the company about schooling allowances, the company said "absolutely not". They would not budge from this. Thus no schooling allowances.

3. O. R. went to Discovery Bay just outside of Hong Kong to look at living conditions. He says that he found some good places that he would want to live in for $2500/ month and 1080 square feet, overlooking the water. The MEC said they wanted more than $2700/month for rent, but that was all they could get at this time. The $1300/month for buying a place in a FDA was used because of the tax deductions you get for a mortgage. Somehow this equals the $2700/month for renting.

4. You will not have the same buying power in Europe or China that you do in the USA. It just won't happen. That's a bad deal for a lot of people. The company is going for a certain demographic here. I'm not sure, but it probably won't be a family with children.

5. Someone who bids an FDA under the LOA can take the existing section 6 language of the CBA, or one of the options of the LOA. It is the crew member's choice.

6. Tax equalization is a big deal. The company pays the difference in foreign taxes for you so that you are paying the same in taxes as you would living in the USA.

7. The Blue Cross medical coverage coming in Jan 2008 will cover you anywhere in the world.

8. This LOA is not for everyone. That's why we get a vote. Read it. Understand it. Vote what you think is good for all 4800 pilots.

That's all I can remember. If I think of anything else, I'll add it later. Again, I am just reporting what I heard. None of this is necessarily the gospel from either side, just what I remember. Please don't shoot the messenger. It's 5 am and I need some sleep.


Time for bed. Good night.

Micro

I attended the hub turn mtg tonight 17/18 and will try to relay what was said. If ANYONE thinks I misquote them or don't correctly state what was said please correct (chicken scratch at 12:00-03:00AM). In attendance were Wes R, Tony C, Derek M, negotiator Mark H, and our cheif pilot representing the company (his words). Derek started by making a statement that the MEC thinks this LOA is fair, contains enough positives, and strengthens our RLA/Scope language that we should vote for it. They next started fielding questions:
1. Not enough $ in the package. FDX pays management overseas a lot more, why not us? It's all we could get.
2. What was the cost of adequate housing? 2000 euros? Acceptable housing found at $2500-$2700 (note not euros)
3. What would happen if the LOA gets turned down? The company intends to open FDA's under existind CBA language.
4. Why no schooling for kids? Company dead set against it.

At this point Negotiator Mark H discussed how we arrived at this LOA: During contract negotiations the company approacted the NC about opening FDA's. Closing Subic and opening china. BC says section 6 move package is lots of money; can we have shorter less costly option where pilots won't stay as long. It doesn't go anywhere but after CBA negotiations are over, the company comes back to the issue. the company want a three year package the NC wants one. It gets settled at two. The company says the CBA move package costs $85-$90K so that amount of money is what make up the "enhanced" package. (Cost neutral????)
Mark then covers other parts of the LOA including: airline tickets Tax equalization (a noted good deal), and STV. STV was the "real nut". To open an FDA in a foreign country with new aircraft need a special program. Mark stated that he doesn't like STV. He also expects the line to be non-commutable.
The company wanted pilot to sign a CONTRACT (the now agreement or addendum) which was onerous. The NC came back with one written by the union lawyers and was accepted by the company.
Mark stated that there was a weakness in section 1:scope. RLA covers flying domestic and international (that starts or ends in the US). Extraterritorial flying (flying that doesn't touch the US is not covered by RLA in the companies opinion. The company lets us fly it because they 'like us" doing it (HIS words.) The alpa lawyers feel this is a big deal that the company will recognize extraterritorial flying as being coverd by the RLA (I hope I explained this all correctly).

Then our cheif pilot got up and said the company has realized that's it's better to work together (with the association) and wants to work with the association vs be adversarial. He said we all need to vote. We can't have apathy. He says voting for this LOA will set the tone for the future. (I'm not sure what that means...threat or get used to accepting shi**y offers).

Then it was back to questions:
5. Where are the comparisons of expat compensation the NC and MEC used for this LOA? NOT ANSWERED!! They said there are websites our here one could look at. Again it was asked which ones do they use? AGAIN no answer.
6. Don't you (the NC and MEC) think that with this package the standard of living will be too low? The NC thinks it's adequate.

Mark stated that he's not sure how he will vote for it except that he thinks the extra scope language is essential.

7. Audience stated- this is a cost neutral LOA ( as it just equals the money used for the move package under the present CBA morphed into the enhanced package but the company also gets a 50% increase in productivity using STV vs SIBA.

8. What demographics was the company shooting for with this LOA? The company was shooting for empty nesters or single pilots. The cheif pilot stated that it is his job to impliment the FDA's (under either option) and fill the seats even if it's newhires.

Big audience heartburn over the STV. The cheif pilot stated, on the record, that STV inverse assignment would ONLY be one month (30 days).

That about covers it.

Now my opinions: The audience was not too receptive of what was said about the LOA by either the MEC reps ot the negotiator. People are NOT happy with it. Money, schooling, STV were the big problem areas. Some people wanted to know what kind of message voting no would send (not whether the LOA was good or bad, just to do it for the message). I don't think trying to send a message is a valid reason to vote no. I think you decide either this is an acceptable LOA from one of the most profitable airline in the world and it meet the needs of this pilot group or not. I say NO and will still vote that way.
However, I think this company move from Jack L and our chief pilot to ONLY do inverse STV for one month is because they've read what is posted here and on other boards and will be just enough to make this LOA palatable enough to ensure it's passage. Too many guys have stated "well if the STV was only one month I'd vote yes". The company just insured the 50% plus 1.

I agree 5:30AM time for some sleep.

PurpleTail

Thanks guys for taking the time to show up, take notes and post a summary right away. I for one would have love to been able to attend becasue sitting in Osaka blows!

I'll say this, its getting interesting and we still have over three weeks until the voting window closes. What ever happened to that union slogan "No one left behind!"? Thats great that the company and union are working together to get this LOA done...NOW get back to the table and keep tweaking it! Put some MEAT on them bones boys cuz its still a big fat NO! I'd love to be on the phone with the poolie who gets the call...CONGRATS, your hired! Now pack your bags for Hong Kong!

FIX IT NOW, not 7 years from now when our next contract is signed. Lets get this right the first time!

av8rmike

Thanks for going and for the post, Micro. My eyes actually got stuck in place during the eye roll after reading 'the company will ONLY inverse for 1 month'. If it ain't in writing, it aint true. I'm from the company and I'm here to help you... Still a huge NO. All they're doing is describing the yummy candy coating on this piece of dog doo.

Trapav8r

This was in the recent email from JL. I don't understand how the language in the LOA supports this. In fact, if you go back to the contract negotiations when they changed the language to:

"...shall be

flown only by pilots whose names appear on the Federal Express Master Seniority List in accordance with the terms of the Agreement:
...
2. “International

It seems as though this language provides a window into the company's long term plan of supplementing FedEx pilots with foreign ones. In fact, when you read these statements:

"7. The Company may enter into wet lease and other agreements
with other carriers at any time without penalty or payment to any
pilot or the Association in order to deliver freight to cities that
cannot be served by Federal Express trunk aircraft because...

b. Foreign government or foreign authorities’ action restricts
the use of pilots on the Master Seniority List so as to render
the use of FedEx pilots not economically feasible"

Will the company say that the union's stance is not economically feasible in order to fly "international flights not originating, concluding, or transiting the US?

"5. FDA Vacancy Awards

a. Primary and, if applicable, secondary FDA vacancies shall be
awarded in seniority order based on pilots’ standing bids. The
Company may elect not to

fi ll secondary FDA vacancies.

b. No pilot may be assigned involuntarily to fill an FDA vacancy.
If no pilot on the Master Seniority List expresses a preference
by standing bid for an FDA vacancy, the Company may hire
a pilot to fill that vacancy.

Why does this not say that the new pilot will be on the Master Seniority list? This, in combination with the above statements, leaves it pretty wide open for the company to hire Chinese pilots to fly Chinese flights, or British pilots to fly European flights (good pilots, by the way). It just seems as though the last 5 years has been a slow migration/manipulation and the company knows exactly where they are heading.

Just foor for thought.

MEMFO4Ever

Or any narrowbody FO. Good thing that there won't be any of those in Europe. Oh wait, now how is that going to work?

Maybe they expect us to get part-time jobs.

DLax85

First, thanks to Fartnocker for the quick post.

Here are a few thoughts to the observations you posted:

1. The INTENT of the company according to O. R. and J. L. is to only use the STV portion of the LOA for ONE bid period at a time. The email sent out by J. L. is sufficient to amend the LOA when he says, "The standard term for inversing will be one month". This was reiterated by both O. R. and the MEC members at the meeting.

STV alone is a bad deal, terrible precedent --- even if 30 days --- it should be removed. We've got SIBA in the CBA, and the company can always put them in the bid pack and pay "draft" to fill the vacancies. (OBTW, if your intent was to use it for 30 days, then write 30 days...that's really not too difficult to understand.)

The consensus is that there will be plenty of people to bid these FDAs, and the involuntary STV will not be needed.

OK let the contradictory arguments begin! --- if the company/union is so sure the FDAs will be filled, then there is no need to include STVs. You really can't argue it both ways fellas.

IF no one bids the FDAs under the current CBA, the company will have to put new hires into the seats, just like they did in ANC.

Ooops, I'm sorry --- I guess they can argue it both ways. Ahhhhhhh! OK, which is it --- they'll be filled or won't be filled? Better yet, a third option --- sit back down and renegogiate to increase the overall package and take out STVs. That's logical and allows a consistent argument. (OBTW -- if a new hire agrees to a FDA that's known as "voluntary". New hires are adults and can make sound decisions --- plus, I really don't see them putting "new hires" in the left seat)

They want FedEx pilots flying FedEx jets, not some other airline.

GREAT!!! --- that's called leverage gentleman. Let's not be afraid to use it --- NOW!! (OBTW, I hope someone doesn't bring up an argument that if we don't pass this LOA the company will just go out and hire foreign pilots --- let's wait and see!)

2. When the MEC asked the company about schooling allowances, the company said "absolutely not". They would not budge from this. Thus no schooling allowances.

And what was our counter? Did we suggest a "middle ground" to truly get our foot in the door? How about 50-75% of the cost up to a family cap of $15-$20K? Getting zero sets a terrible precedent. Our future growth is international --- we won't always be able to fill it with empty nesters and folks with no kids.

3. O. R. went to Discovery Bay just outside of Hong Kong to look at living conditions. He says that he found some good places that he would want to live in for $2500/ month and 1080 square feet, overlooking the water. The MEC said they wanted more than $2700/month for rent, but that was all they could get at this time.

Our starter at $4K/month was way to low as a "starting point". What benchmarks were used? Jul 07 Dept of Defense tax-free housing allowance "offsets" for officers (O-3 thru O-6) avg $3,863 for Paris and $5,5550 for Hong Kong. This is the "difference" between the Overseas Housing Allowance for each city and the respective Memphis Basic Allowance for Housing. The combined avg is $4,700. We should recognize that Hong Kong housing is much more expensive then Paris and have the allowances seperate in the LOA and increased towards these levels. Setting one housing allowance for all FDAs sets a very bad precedent.

The $1300/month for buying a place in a FDA was used because of the tax deductions you get for a mortgage. Somehow this equals the $2700/month for renting.

I buy this one---it's a tax thing. Having lived/flown in Asia for 13 1/2 yrs I have known many expats living in Tokyo, Singapore and Hong Kong --- they've all told me the same thing. Additionally, my brother was just offered an executive level expat package to live in London. His wife is British so he is considering buying; however, he'll take the same 50% hit if he does it.

4. You will not have the same buying power in Europe or China that you do in the USA. It just won't happen. That's a bad deal for a lot of people. The company is going for a certain demographic here. I'm not sure, but it probably won't be a family with children.

Yep, I saw this from the beginning --- but once again, is this LOA where we want to start negogiations in the future? We do have leverage now --- lets calmly vote "NO" now and calmly get back to the table and negogiate a more equitable deal for ALL 4,800 pilots.

5. Someone who bids an FDA under the LOA can take the existing section 6 language of the CBA, or one of the options of the LOA. It is the crew member's choice.

Great. Now please put "choice" back into 90-day assignments to the FDA by removing STV.

6. Tax equalization is a big deal. The company pays the difference in foreign taxes for you so that you are paying the same in taxes as you would living in the USA.

Yes it is a "big deal" --- just like indoor plumbing. No one would buy a house today without it. The company knows this is a minimum requirement to operate in HKG or CDG. Subic was a very unique "tax free" area because the gov't there needed to intice commerce after we closed Subic and Clark in 1991. I don't think any of us will be able to understand (and therefore argue) the specifics of tax equalization until we live it.

7. The Blue Cross medical coverage coming in Jan 2008 will cover you anywhere in the world.

Once again --- not sure you can argue for/against any of this because it is such an unknown.

8. This LOA is not for everyone. That's why we get a vote. Read it. Understand it. Vote what you think is good for all 4800 pilots.

Roger, WILCO --- I very respectfully and politely vote "NO". Now, back to the table to negogiate a more equitable deal for all 4,800 pilots. Now --- not in 2 1/2 yrs.

The company wants these FDAs --- there is middle ground. The company can and will do better -- but, we need to "press to test".

That's all I can remember. If I think of anything else, I'll add it later. Again, I am just reporting what I heard. None of this is necessarily the gospel from either side, just what I remember. Please don't shoot the messenger. It's 5 am and I need some sleep.

Thanks again Fartnocker!

Time for bed. Good night.

kc10/c130

I too was at the meeting and seeing that I was on B RSV, was there until they turned out the lights. I went in and was 99% positive I was voting no on this. Period. I'll probably be shot for this or at least beaten in a dark corner, but I am now 60% in the yes column. I also am someone who will bid this, so it directly affects me. Albie and many others said they want to know who will bid it and why to vote yes so here I go in a Readers Digest version and only the big reasons.

1. This is not an ideal agreement in any way you look at it. We, the company and ALPA, need each other but we can get in a p*s#ng contest and no one will win. STV, a HUGE sticking point for me, is now one month. Argue it any way you want and throw me under the bus but it is one month. One month is a vacation, not a deployment as 3 months is, at least to me and I speak for no one else. O.R. directly addressed it in the meeting and after with me and others and I believe it to be.

2. I want FedEx pilots flying this all the way. I DO NOT want us readdressing from the very beginning next contract and we start this all over again. Whether or not someone else is flying it or new hires, it will raise its head again at contract negotiations. This way we start from here and go up not start from square one again. There are sooooooo many areas that get addressed in one lump with the contract that I believe we will be right back here again with this exact offer. Then it will be held up against other parts of the contract and what are we willing to spend the most time and capital on.

3. Yes I've lived in Europe and yes I have kids and while it is not optimal it is enough to go with IMHO. I realize I will be hammered for this statement. It was addressed that some may live way out in order to afford it. I flatly disagree with that. Go to Paris, get on the train and go any direction for 20 minutes at a minimum, and you will get a pretty good place under European conditions. Am I getting my 2700 sq foot place with an acre. No Way, No How. I still really believe the company should get behind helping us find schools, etc but that is what it is.

4. There are a couple of others but the Healthcare won't be a problem in either location. As a MD11 guy, I have no desire to live in Guangzhou but if you are going to send me over do so for only a month and I'll take Hong Kong please.

5. I believe the MD11 will be there, as JL's letter said, these bases will open with or without this LOA, and by the time we get them up and running we will soon negotiate our contract. It won't be from the start again and we will have more data to know what is our needs.

6. That is my .02 cents and I hope everyone at least goes to the road show. Feel free to fry me, I mean educate me, or PM me but those are why I changed my mind... most of the way. No matter what VOTE.

Falconjet

Ladies and Gentlemen, even the junior member of the Negotiating Committee is aware of what a steaming pile this LOA is, as evidenced by his admission that he might not even vote for it. We need the scope, that is all he can muster in support of this LOA. That is very telling.

Forget about any possible ramifications. This LOA is a blank check for Schedules to Junior Man you to a foreign country for 3 months at a time. They WILL take advantage of that scheduling tool at any time they need or desire. That is a scheduling tool that they will use, no matter what the Chief Pilot or anybody else says. Since when does Schedules report to the Chief Pilot?

Do not give the company a blank check to Junior Man into FDAs, we will NEVER get that back, and if international is our only growth, we will have it at every new FDA that opens in the future.

FJ