Without the LOA the HKG FDA just aint gonna happen, period, nada. Can anyone think of anyway pilots will accept a section 6 move, no tax offsets, no housing, no adjustment to the gnd trans provisions, maybe even no HKG, the domicile in CAN I can't see any of it without some adjustment to our contract. CDG, on the other hand, would get some bites, IMHO.

 

Paddles is on the 727 and as I have heard so many times, this is not going to affect me, and the union is for it so, I guess im for it; what did you say that STD thing was again?

Paddles, do you really think this loa is ok for all 4900 of us?

 

Ran into an MD-11 Fo the other day and I quote.. "The union said it is a good thing and it won't really affect me so I am voting YES.." When I gave him some details, quote "Guess I should read it.." But my confidence factor is still low that he actually will...

 

We're fools to allow getting STV'd, a partial housing allowance, questionable healthcare and transportation - btw, Sleepy clarified the gnd transpo - he said it's a paid........thanks for the correction.

This is an concessionary LOA.

 

Is that true? I thought the 3 hr limo (train?) pays 1.5 hrs like any other ground transport?

 

Boy, folks can make some pretty big assumptions. First of all, I do have kids, a wife that works and although I am on the Boeing, I would like to upgrade to a wideboby as soon as I can. In fact, I hope the final outcome of the FDA issue is such a great deal, that everyone that goes is SENIOR to me. That way I move up the food chain in the type of flying I chose to do.... In that way, it does improve the lives of all 4900 of us. The last thing I would like to see is the FDA's going very junior for whatever reason or the worst of all, going to some shell company that is set up in country with locals doing all the flying. I don't pretend to understand all the issues the union had to consider when they recommended this to us. I do wish they would let us in on the information behind the decision to recommend this LOA be passed.


My point of the original post was two fold:

1. I do think the company does have other options than those stated in FedUp's first post. ie. What about all the FedEx airplanes flying around Canada with none of us in them? Can they do that in EU or Asia? I don't know, but I bet the company has thought it through.

2. I have a tough time burning at the stake ALL of the MEC/LEC/block reps. Some of them yes, but most of them I still trust and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I do need more information to make my final determination. Lets hope the NC will get it to us.



There are a lot of red herrings in this debate. My intention was to raise some questions and hopefully have a debate over what our real options are based on facts, not assumption and emotional bad gouge.

As someone earlier suggested, if OUR union looks at the crew force as so weak and splintered that this is as good a LOA as they can get us, then we have much bigger problems.


As stated prior...still in the decision loop....

 

http://www.bcbs.com/coverage/bluecar...worldwide.html


As far as ground transpo, go to the FDX ALPA webboard, and read the reply to MH.

 

I read it - thanks Sleepy.

I will say you're out in front busting your butt addressing the web-boards.....gracias.

 

Got this from a Subic dude:

Please Read!

Unless you have been sequestered over the last 4 weeks, you have probably heard/read more about the FDA LOA than you would like. Whether or not you intend to bid an FDA, this LOA is detrimental for ALL pilots on our seniority list. It is not just about the financials. Here is a few thoughts that I haven’t really seen floating around the net.

STVs
1. If this LOA passes, we are giving the company the ability to break any attempt to show personal resolve during negotiations. This LOA allows multiple FDAs in the same geographical area (ie A310 CDG, 757 CDG). If, in 2010, CDG based 757 pilots decide to spend more time at home with their families, the company can declare the need for A310s in CDG and staff it inside a month with STV pilots. Would we be working under our current contract right now if this had been possible last summer?
2. Inverse seniority pilots to fill STVs on a 3 month TDY basis? If the living situation is so bad in an FDA that the company needs to force us to live there, why would we ever vote for this?

Enhanced Move Package
1. This is NOT an enhanced move, whatever the company calls it. Please note that the company has tied the $2700 ($1800 after tax) monthly housing adjustment to this package. This is NOT because the enhanced move package is a good deal. If a pilot chooses the far superior CBA move package, the adjustment is $0. If the company wants to offer a more convenient package for them – fine. But why are we taking the concession?

Not an expansion of flying
1. Realize that as the company is opening overseas domiciles, this is not exactly tied to expansion of the airline. We are not being posted overseas to open up more routes – we can do that with SIBA. The company is doing this to be more efficient. Pilots working more days in domicile means fewer pilots, less seniority list expansion. We shouldn’t block this idea, as efficiency enhances the overall health of Fedex, but why should we take concessions for this?

HKG GT
This is a great example of what is wrong with this LOA. Here we are waiving the 2 hour max GT parameter that we have won for our SIG in previous contracts. Why? Because it is more than 3 hours to CAN from HKG. But, we are waiving this with no restrictions for scheduling. Two examples of legal pairings:
1. HKG-CAN GT – 6 hours APT STBY – CAN-HKG GT
2. HKG-CAN GT – O&B HKG-MNL-HKG – CAN-HKG GT
Each of these has a duty period of about 12 hours, but with 6 hours in a van.
It is similar to riding from Nashville to MEM and back, with flight duty in between.
Is this really what we want?

Signing a Blank Check
We have no idea what the pairings or lines will look like. So let me get this straight. The company expects us to vote on this LOA prior to seeing what our professional life will be like in CDG or HKG? You can be assured that Fedex has built numerous sample pairings, lines, and even bid packs. Let’s get a look at these and lock in restrictions to potential onerous changes before we agree to any LOA conditions. Remember, the company wants US to lock in our intentions with 2-3 years commitments – shouldn’t we get the same from them?
Catering
A minor point, but it highlights how this LOA was not well thought out by our MEC. The only catering required for CDG based crewmembers (as opposed to SIBA) will be a mini-snack into CDG, and a mini-snack outbound. This is because of how duty periods are catered with respect to a pilot’s trip ending in an FDA and a new trip starting with the outbound leg. Read the first sentence of Sect 5.E.1. This section is currently being applied in Subic. MD-11 crews hubturning through SFS are catered as per their complete DP (over 9+00 duty, two full meals). SFS based crews hubturning Subic receive a mini-snack inbound, and a snack service (management loves us) outbound, even with a 12+00 duty period.

Why the Rush?
When was the last time that our union negotiated something as big as this LOA without polling? It seems that we are being rushed into an agreement that is, well, everything the company needs, and serves our association rather marginally. What is the
rush? Management needs to keep the schoolhouse filled and they want to bundle an FDA LOA with an upcoming bid. We have been successfully flying SIBA with double deadheads for over 15 years. Why now the sudden rush?

What if it gets turned down?
While most pilots I know are planning to vote NO on this LOA, a few pilots voting for it have expressed concern of ‘what if it gets turned down?’
1. To my knowledge, there has not been a single offer from management that hasn’t improved after the crewforce opposed it. When the original Subic domicile opened in 1995, not enough pilots bid the new location. The company offered a larger signing bonus, and got the pilots they needed. We’ve turned down two TAs and two “3%” offers. All four times we showed some resolve to management and gave our negotiating committee some needed clout to work a better deal.
2. The company can’t do it without our help. While our flying (according to our MEC during our current CBA road shows) is protected legally by our scope agreements, our biggest protection is the good job we do each and every night. When routes are flown by non-fedex pilots, our reliability drops to unsatisfactory levels. Remember, if the freight doesn’t get there on time, it’s free. Also, if the company felt that they could fly our routes with other pilots, they would have done it by now.
3. So if the LOA is turned down, we might have to work under the current CBA provisions? SFS is currently working under the current FDA provisions, and I have not met any SFS pilot who would rather work under this LOA.

Conclusion
This LOA will affect all of us for years to come, and a substandard deal serves no one in our crewforce. Once again, the company is trying to save millions on the back of the pilots, and broker an LOA that not only serves them in the FDA, but cripples our ability to pressure negotiations in 2010. Please vote NO and empower our negotiating committee to work a fairer FDA agreement.

 

Paddles,

In reference to the jets flying around Canada without us. We can not fly INTRA canada. It's a regulation on the Canadian side. Similar to the fact that I bet we can't fly INTRA China or Intra France etc....


Past...