FDA without the LOA
07-19-2007, 04:09 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
FDA without the LOA
I do not believe for one minute that the Company could or would attempt to open either domicile without an LOA in place.
1. Without tax equalization, no one will be able to live in CDG.
2. The company needs the RLA protection against foreign labor laws.
3. China has not even signed off on having an FDA there yet. They are awaiting the outcome of the LOA before giving permission.
If we can possibly get our collective arses together for once, we can vote this substandard POS down. The company will have to come back to the table, if for nothing else than to get the tax equalization in writing. There is currently no provision for it under our CBA, and they cannot just give it to us without an LOA.
1. Without tax equalization, no one will be able to live in CDG.
2. The company needs the RLA protection against foreign labor laws.
3. China has not even signed off on having an FDA there yet. They are awaiting the outcome of the LOA before giving permission.
If we can possibly get our collective arses together for once, we can vote this substandard POS down. The company will have to come back to the table, if for nothing else than to get the tax equalization in writing. There is currently no provision for it under our CBA, and they cannot just give it to us without an LOA.
07-19-2007, 06:26 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by fedupbusdriver
I do not believe for one minute that the Company could or would attempt to open either domicile without an LOA in place.
1. Without tax equalization, no one will be able to live in CDG.
2. The company needs the RLA protection against foreign labor laws.
3. China has not even signed off on having an FDA there yet. They are awaiting the outcome of the LOA before giving permission.
If we can possibly get our collective arses together for once, we can vote this substandard POS down. The company will have to come back to the table, if for nothing else than to get the tax equalization in writing. There is currently no provision for it under our CBA, and they cannot just give it to us without an LOA.
1. Without tax equalization, no one will be able to live in CDG.
2. The company needs the RLA protection against foreign labor laws.
3. China has not even signed off on having an FDA there yet. They are awaiting the outcome of the LOA before giving permission.
If we can possibly get our collective arses together for once, we can vote this substandard POS down. The company will have to come back to the table, if for nothing else than to get the tax equalization in writing. There is currently no provision for it under our CBA, and they cannot just give it to us without an LOA.
07-19-2007, 10:14 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 177
They need us
Not trying to be a "pompous" pilot, but the company has stated that they want/need us at the FDA's to make this work. It's all about safe, reliable operations and we are the only ones that can provide this from the start.
I don't want to rap the company and require a "executive move package," however I think what the Cathay pilots and even our own military get for living over there is fair and we deserve the same (plus no STV - I don't care what JL promises).
Bottom line: It's about choice and fairness for all FedEx pilots, not just a select group!
Voting No and not bidding it!
SG
I don't want to rap the company and require a "executive move package," however I think what the Cathay pilots and even our own military get for living over there is fair and we deserve the same (plus no STV - I don't care what JL promises).
Bottom line: It's about choice and fairness for all FedEx pilots, not just a select group!
Voting No and not bidding it!
SG
07-19-2007, 10:47 AM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Moving Around
Posts: 184
I respectfully disagree that the company will not open a FDA without the LOA. I think it will open one regardless of how we vote. The new business is there, the company wants their foot in the door and they will not wait for us. While I think the company would prefer we do the flying, I don’t think it is a requirement. Block 6 and 11 have new updates on the ALPA/FDX site and they are both well written. They put to bed some of the incorrect assumptions and bad gouge that have been written about on the several different LOA threads. I realize that this LOA is not all it could be and is not everything to all people. However, I do think it is reasonable under the circumstances. As a fairly junior guy (seniority ~ 3000 +/-), I also still think the Negotiation Committee has our best interest at heart and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Read the new updates and think hard about flying here 10 years down the road (I’ll still be under 60).
Block 11 rep said a lot when he closed with “There is a lot of rhetoric against this LOA. I believe some who advocate voting it down will never bid these FDA’s. However, rejecting the LOA will only mean that the people who do bid the FDA will have less. More importantly, FedEx pilots need to do the flying and all of our future growth is in the International arena.”
Still on the fence, but leaning YES
Chaff....Flares
Block 11 rep said a lot when he closed with “There is a lot of rhetoric against this LOA. I believe some who advocate voting it down will never bid these FDA’s. However, rejecting the LOA will only mean that the people who do bid the FDA will have less. More importantly, FedEx pilots need to do the flying and all of our future growth is in the International arena.”
Still on the fence, but leaning YES
Chaff....Flares
07-19-2007, 11:19 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
Paddles,
I disagree. Who will bid these FDA's without tax equalization? Not 140 crews is the correct answer. Our future at this company is based on international growth. If we do not fix this problem now, it will never get fixed. Reread the info on the company website, and you will see that the company knows good and well, that no one can afford living in either FDA without tax equalization, and that the company cannot rely on foreign pilots to pick up the ball and carry this company into the global marketplace with any kind reliability. Domestic flying is dormant at Fedex, and will continue that way. The only way this company can grow is internationally, and with us. If we set the bar this low, they will weld that sucker so tight that we will never be able to move it. It happens with every work rule that you give away. There is not one pilot at this company that can name a single work rule that we have signed away to the company and later gotten back. It doesn't happen.
The only leverage that we will ever have is now. Once you give in to involuntary STV and substandard move packages, we lose the ability to negotiate.
Personally, I do not believe we will ever see the company give in on school money, but a better overall move package is attainable. Possibly a little less than $2700 in CDG, but more in HK, along with higher limits on household goods, and storage, as well as an adaquate amount of seed money to realistically start a new household in a foreign country. We should also not be forced to vote yes on an LOA with health questions looming. This is a world class company, they need to act like it.
I disagree. Who will bid these FDA's without tax equalization? Not 140 crews is the correct answer. Our future at this company is based on international growth. If we do not fix this problem now, it will never get fixed. Reread the info on the company website, and you will see that the company knows good and well, that no one can afford living in either FDA without tax equalization, and that the company cannot rely on foreign pilots to pick up the ball and carry this company into the global marketplace with any kind reliability. Domestic flying is dormant at Fedex, and will continue that way. The only way this company can grow is internationally, and with us. If we set the bar this low, they will weld that sucker so tight that we will never be able to move it. It happens with every work rule that you give away. There is not one pilot at this company that can name a single work rule that we have signed away to the company and later gotten back. It doesn't happen.
The only leverage that we will ever have is now. Once you give in to involuntary STV and substandard move packages, we lose the ability to negotiate.
Personally, I do not believe we will ever see the company give in on school money, but a better overall move package is attainable. Possibly a little less than $2700 in CDG, but more in HK, along with higher limits on household goods, and storage, as well as an adaquate amount of seed money to realistically start a new household in a foreign country. We should also not be forced to vote yes on an LOA with health questions looming. This is a world class company, they need to act like it.
07-19-2007, 11:41 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
Also,
I just went and read the Block 6 and 11 letters. (They seemed to almost be a carbon copy) . Just more of the same snake oil salesmanship that the company is pushing.
I cannot stomach one more union rep telling me that this is not concessionary. That STV is just like SIBA. That the money is not enough but it is not there. Yada Yada Yada......
On STV, tell me where giving up trip rig for perdiem is not concessionary. That living my days off in a hotel room is not concessionary. That being forced to live in a hotel room anywhere in the world for three months is like DDH trips that last 14-17 days, with every minute that I am gone, I get paid trip rig and perdiem. If I wanted perdiem on my days off I would just PDO bump guys and take these vacations to a bunch of different locations (when I wanted to, not when the company tells me that I have to).
I just went and read the Block 6 and 11 letters. (They seemed to almost be a carbon copy) . Just more of the same snake oil salesmanship that the company is pushing.
I cannot stomach one more union rep telling me that this is not concessionary. That STV is just like SIBA. That the money is not enough but it is not there. Yada Yada Yada......
On STV, tell me where giving up trip rig for perdiem is not concessionary. That living my days off in a hotel room is not concessionary. That being forced to live in a hotel room anywhere in the world for three months is like DDH trips that last 14-17 days, with every minute that I am gone, I get paid trip rig and perdiem. If I wanted perdiem on my days off I would just PDO bump guys and take these vacations to a bunch of different locations (when I wanted to, not when the company tells me that I have to).
07-19-2007, 11:44 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: Moving Around
Posts: 184
Fedup,
I understand your arguments and agree with a lot of it. But for me, it all comes back to the union (guys I know and trust, both Sr and Jr) putting this back up to us with the recommendation that this is the best that they can do.. for now. I wish the Negotiating Committee felt that all we had to do in order to get a better offer was to vote this down with an overwhelming majority and they could go back and get us a better deal. If that were the case, a no brainer....I would vote NO. That is not what they are telling us. I do wish the union would explain their feelings as to why they feel this LOA is as good as it is going to get. That I do not understand.
Respectfully
Paddles
I understand your arguments and agree with a lot of it. But for me, it all comes back to the union (guys I know and trust, both Sr and Jr) putting this back up to us with the recommendation that this is the best that they can do.. for now. I wish the Negotiating Committee felt that all we had to do in order to get a better offer was to vote this down with an overwhelming majority and they could go back and get us a better deal. If that were the case, a no brainer....I would vote NO. That is not what they are telling us. I do wish the union would explain their feelings as to why they feel this LOA is as good as it is going to get. That I do not understand.
Respectfully
Paddles
07-19-2007, 11:56 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
In my opinion Paddles, something smells fishy in the cheese shop. I have lost the trust that you still have with our union leadership. There might be an ulterior motive behind this.......
Respek (as ALI G would say) to you also.
Fedup
Respek (as ALI G would say) to you also.
Fedup
07-19-2007, 12:05 PM
#9
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Originally Posted by Paddles
Fedup,
I understand your arguments and agree with a lot of it. But for me, it all comes back to the union (guys I know and trust, both Sr and Jr) putting this back up to us with the recommendation that this is the best that they can do.. for now. I wish the Negotiating Committee felt that all we had to do in order to get a better offer was to vote this down with an overwhelming majority and they could go back and get us a better deal. If that were the case, a no brainer....I would vote NO. That is not what they are telling us. I do wish the union would explain their feelings as to why they feel this LOA is as good as it is going to get. That I do not understand.
Respectfully
Paddles
I understand your arguments and agree with a lot of it. But for me, it all comes back to the union (guys I know and trust, both Sr and Jr) putting this back up to us with the recommendation that this is the best that they can do.. for now. I wish the Negotiating Committee felt that all we had to do in order to get a better offer was to vote this down with an overwhelming majority and they could go back and get us a better deal. If that were the case, a no brainer....I would vote NO. That is not what they are telling us. I do wish the union would explain their feelings as to why they feel this LOA is as good as it is going to get. That I do not understand.
Respectfully
Paddles
Paddles, The union guys say this is the best they can get because this crewforce has never shown it has a spine. The union asks us not to fly disputed pairings and people argue over who gets it first. Any time the company ask for voluntary vacation cancellation they have more than enough volunteers. Every time the company has threatened to do something evil if we don't accept the bone they have thrown at us everyone cowers and folds. Guys climb over each other to be the ***** in the front of the line. The company has already determined what we are they are now negotiating the price.
It is time to show the MEC and the company that we are willing to stand up for what is right.
If you read the stuff coming from the LEC's - it is all the same old song - "we can't get better so accept this turd and it is not as bad as it looks on paper, TRUST US".
I only trust what is in writing and what this LOA has in it gives the company too much license for bugga bugga.
I am not advocating a no vote to make a statement. I am advocating a no vote to send the MEC back in with some backing and to fix what is lacking in this LOA.
07-19-2007, 12:30 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 356
Don't fall for the spin!!!
Paddles,
The Union is selling this LOA so hard because they have sold themselves that this is a good/the best deal we can get. But with good deals like this, who needs a Union? If you read Block 6 and 11 letters, it is essentially the same boilerplate nonsense in each one. It's as if they are either all sitting in the same room writing these things or working off crib notes from the MEC,NC and/or DW.
STV is NOT a vacation!! I absolutely do NOT want to give the Company one iota of a possibility that they can send me over to either place for 90 days involuntarily. I can only imagine my wife and kids' response when I tell them,"Well gang, I gotta go on a 12 day trip while you stay here in Hong Kong. If you have any questions, call the Chief Pilot. I'm sure he'll have all the time in the world to help you out." And I already get perdiem while I'm flying a SIBA trip.
And they "wish they could have gotten more money out of the Company"??? What is the purpose of the NC? They have yet to provide the membership with the openers to these negotiations. I strongly suspect that is because there would be outright revolt among the membership if we saw how little they "squeezed" the Company for us.
And do you not care that there is no school stipend? You either do not have kids, homeschool them or they speak Cantonese or French. Outside of that, this LOA essentially forbids a LARGE group of FDX pilots fom bidding these FDAs. If "my negotiating committee speaks for me" means anything at all to you, consider the large envelope of our pilots this LOA excludes from participation..voluntarily at least.
And finally, no COLA being provided is absurd. Their talk of either"the SFS guys didn't get COLA" and/or "the COLA can cut both ways" is just outright goofy. The SFS guys have a HUGE tax break that allows them to survive without the COLA and you would be hard pressed to find a reputable international company or the US government that doesn't at least minimally protect their employees from a volatile world economy with some sort of COLA.This LOA is weak...at best. For me, the alternatives of continued SIBA or foreign pilots being used are worth pressing to test. They would have already done the foreign deal were it not for the dependability factor and the fact that NO foreign pilot would abdicate their strike option in a way that the RLA would Fedex pilots to. They NEED Fedex pilots, adhering to the RLA, to accomplish their international growth in places like China and France.
The Union is selling this LOA so hard because they have sold themselves that this is a good/the best deal we can get. But with good deals like this, who needs a Union? If you read Block 6 and 11 letters, it is essentially the same boilerplate nonsense in each one. It's as if they are either all sitting in the same room writing these things or working off crib notes from the MEC,NC and/or DW.
STV is NOT a vacation!! I absolutely do NOT want to give the Company one iota of a possibility that they can send me over to either place for 90 days involuntarily. I can only imagine my wife and kids' response when I tell them,"Well gang, I gotta go on a 12 day trip while you stay here in Hong Kong. If you have any questions, call the Chief Pilot. I'm sure he'll have all the time in the world to help you out." And I already get perdiem while I'm flying a SIBA trip.
And they "wish they could have gotten more money out of the Company"??? What is the purpose of the NC? They have yet to provide the membership with the openers to these negotiations. I strongly suspect that is because there would be outright revolt among the membership if we saw how little they "squeezed" the Company for us.
And do you not care that there is no school stipend? You either do not have kids, homeschool them or they speak Cantonese or French. Outside of that, this LOA essentially forbids a LARGE group of FDX pilots fom bidding these FDAs. If "my negotiating committee speaks for me" means anything at all to you, consider the large envelope of our pilots this LOA excludes from participation..voluntarily at least.
And finally, no COLA being provided is absurd. Their talk of either"the SFS guys didn't get COLA" and/or "the COLA can cut both ways" is just outright goofy. The SFS guys have a HUGE tax break that allows them to survive without the COLA and you would be hard pressed to find a reputable international company or the US government that doesn't at least minimally protect their employees from a volatile world economy with some sort of COLA.This LOA is weak...at best. For me, the alternatives of continued SIBA or foreign pilots being used are worth pressing to test. They would have already done the foreign deal were it not for the dependability factor and the fact that NO foreign pilot would abdicate their strike option in a way that the RLA would Fedex pilots to. They NEED Fedex pilots, adhering to the RLA, to accomplish their international growth in places like China and France.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
