I like that. My Negotition Team speaks for me--as long as I am single, no kids, don't plan to be sick for the next three years, eat at the deli or McD, and plan on living in a van down by the river!!

No LOA No Foreign Pilots
 

Help me understand how voting down the LOA means we go VFR-Direct to hiring foreign pilots?

No LOA means no to STV, no to an enhanced option. We have a CBA to open an FDA. Correct me I'm sure you will--it doesn't say step one is hire foreign pilots.

As far as tax equalization, I believe FedEx wants it or is unknowingly required it by the host country. . .? FedEx approached ALPA. I'd guess they approached asking for STV (Big LOSS) and offered tax equalization (maybe a reqirement--maybe a legit offer WIN/WIN) and asked for the agreement letter (a mutual protection).

So, voting the LOA down does what? Let's chat that up. What do we gain and what is lost?

STV goes away. If were going to "trust"--I think tax equalization can/will still be offered w/o the proposed LOA.

"But with good deals like this, who needs a Union?"

Amen, Brother. That pretty much sums it all up.

Problem is, these are the same guys who just a few months ago told us that Age 60 change was imminent and that we'd better jump on the change bandwagon if we wanted to "have a say" in the process. Here we are months later, no closer to Age 65, with the bitter taste still in our mouths from them selling 70% of us out in their effort to reclaim seniority rights for ROPES, and they are asking us to trust them.

Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, I don't think so. The MEC has no credibility, and that is the main reason why they shouldn't have gone against the majority of the membership. They will never get it back and they need to go.

There is no way in hades I believe that STV will be limited to 1 month if this thing passes. NO WAY Schedules will not use that tool any time it remotely needs to. I wouldn't blame them if they did, after all we would have been stupid enough to GIVE that to them.

Even one month of STV is too much, I can't believe we are even discussing it. They have already won that one and the vote isn't even open yet.

We are our own worst enemies, and will have only ourselves to blame if this steaming pile of poo is passed.

FJ

I agree that the tax equalization is probably a must in order to open an FDA.

My point is that I do not believe that the company can just give it to us if the LOA gets voted down. We operate under a contract, and that contract does not provide for this option. That is why if we vote this down, I believe that the company will have to come back with some kind of LOA, even if it only contains the tax equalization.

Call their bluff and vote to flush this turd. (It is starting to smell up the whole house.)

PADDLES: Be sure to invite me over for dinner in your 500 sq/ft apt in HNG next time I pass on through. Me I'm voting NO............:mad:

May be true, but on some issues they cold have a one item LOA approved by the MEC. Kinda of like the letter last years where we agreed they could optimize all they wanted. Tax equlaization is easy; especially since the more senior you are the better the benefit.

That letter didn't change anything in the CBA, did it?

They COULD just post the bid and include each provision (or some of them) of the LOA as a condition of the bid award!

I don't think that they can do that. Otherwise they would just put out that MD11Fr8Dog only gets half BLG for whatever line he is awarded in Sept bid pack, (and XO gets double).:D