I beleive I read in an article recently Cathay was having a hard time finding pilots, and their benefits package is a lot better then ours. Plus, I can't believe if this is the money cow and future of FedEx they are going to entrust it to foreign nationals that they will not have direct control over. Yes, Chinese pilots are probably going to be flying intra-china. But Chinese pilots flying FedEx planes to Narita, Taipei, Subic, Bangkok, Penang, Singapore, Osaka, Mumbai, etc. Maybe, but again is FedEx willing to risk the brand name and reliability on a "few million dollars". I am willing to call their bluff. Either way, THE LOA ON ITS OWN MERITS IS ENTIRELY SUBSTANDARD. And that is undeniable. I am a resounding NO.

 

No MrZog, there will be no Chinese pilots available to fly FedEx airplanes. I think you will find that a good number of Chinese airliners today are flown by Brits, Ausies, and Americans. My guess is that FedEx will target Cathay Captains that retire at age 55 and will have 5 to 10 good years to give if they so choose. These pilots are far more qualified to do the flying out there than most, if not all the FedEx pilots that would accept a FDA. This plus the fact that none will have any home country tax issues like US citizens. The fact that ALPA's UPAS provided non seniority list crews to fly freighters back in 1995 might provide additional incentive.

 

Wow George ... that's even more "out there" than your ordinary "out there" posts. I suggest that you put the crack pipe down and start practicing your 727 s/o flows. It will be harder for you now with the Alzheimers.

It looks like the "Age 65" legislation will be too late for you and WON"T be retroactive ... bummer

Regards,


Mark

 

I got an email forwarded to me outlining the LOA and it's shotcomings. Nice to see info is being circulated on the side. I've been on R24 for a month now, not through MEM in awhile, what's the word around the campfire in the AOC...are guys talking this up? Do you get the feeling that it won't pass? Trying to get a finger on the pulse...

Here's what was passed FYI:

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

 

Obvious you have not read the Bill, nor have a clue what is going on. Looks like October 1, 2007.

 

BUSBOY,

I don't know what the company has planned. I only know that we are becoming a "global" company. Open skies, shell game organizational structures, and who knows what the future holds. Fedex continues to buy foreign companies...and if I'm not incorrect, we already own a chinese airline as of not too recently, or entered into an agreement with one.

I don't want to give FDX a single excuse or chance to find a way to do it without us.

That doesn't mean vote for the LOA, or vote it down. Just offering thoughts for discussion.

My comments are only based upon past precedents. Cathay and Atlas are two examples. Our brand is reliability, so that is the best thing going for us now to keep Fedex Pilots flying Fedex freight.

Cathay however had no problem finding qualified off the street guys that were willing to cross picket lines and WH*RE themselves at the cost of unionized pilots trying to improve their lot in life and their rights. Chinese courts didn't help them out later, even though their company clearly violated their contract on several accounts.

If I knew what was going to happen or what they were thinking, I sure wouldn't be here posting, I'd be buying stock somewhere.

I also bring up our past performance on holding the line. We told our pilots not to bid Subic due to the RLA not applying extraterratorially. Our pilots filled it up with no problem for those few tax free shekels due to the Subic free trade zone aggreement that the company helped include our pilots in.

The company on the postal contract didn't come back with anything better when we said no...

And for a while, our only growth appears to be geared in the international arena. So...

The LOA is lacking. Significantly. I'm one of the guys that would like to go there. The education and health care issues are my big sticking points. I"m on the fence and will continue to look at what plays out.

Again, just putting out food for thought, no crystal ball here.

I think it is clear why the company wants to pass this LOA. Saves money and provides some manning stability on their part.

Hope everyone is having a great weekend at home. I am for a change.

 

And what were the short-term and long-term ramifications of that LOA being rejected?

Really, please educate those who were not on the property at that time.

As I've been told by others the results were that they we maintained our current work rules and did not capitualate to a request to have less days off per month --- a benefit we are all still enjoying today.

I'm also told the extra work days showed up in "open time" where folks either gobbled them up or were paid draft.

While that may have angered some, it was within the confines of the CBA and everyone had an equal opportunity to do the extra flying --- VOLUNTARILY.

This LOA changes the work rules on many levels --- and is predicated on NON-VOLUNTEERING people when the move package proves to be sub-par or the companies delivery schedule gets disrupted or some other portion of the planned system hiccups and they need more bodies fast.

I would enjoy hearing other perspectives on the perceived outcomes/ramifications of us rejecting the Postal LOA.

Using our 20/20 hindsight, was it the right thing to do?

Any lessons there that we could apply to today's dilemma?

(OBTW, still a resounding "NO" vote for me)

 

Good post.

You are correct, we didn't loose anything from not accepting the postal LOA. We didn't gain anything other than more open time flying.

I guess we just need to figure out what are our goals, as I think to alot of people here, they vary, from many for some, to a only STV for others.

I think the postal aggrement attempt was a subtle way to undermine what little protections we did have under the old contract.

We didn't bite. And there was more open time flying, and not much else as a result.

IMHO, I don't think they will come back with a better offer. They see us in chaos, we even have ACP's posting on here due to the chaos to try and further muddy the waters.

You are right about the implications, and there are many negative ones and not many positive ones.

Your post actually scored a few points towards a no vote for me. Like I said, I'm trying to remain in the middle to see all the pieces.

I do worry about giving them a chance on the future flying with "other" pilot opportunities...these guys will waste dollars to save pennies sometimes. I'm paranoid about scope(Look at this fuel stuff going on...that is a whole other thread and subject.)

 

wrong...forget about the 2 days of draft and unlimited drops?...

 

Who's had enough? I have ...

Age 65 Stance

I expect the leadership of the Union to represent the majority of pilots. Period. Don't act like your my Dad and do what you think is best without my (our) input -- read this as conducting a VOTE of the membership-- not Wilson Center polling.

Thanks for the representation guys! Well done. I can't believe no one guy on the MEC spoke up and said, "This issue is critical, we need to send it to the membership for a vote". Let the pilots decide. Didn't happen. Unanimous -- means not one person had the stones to say something.

FDA LOA

I expect the leadership to negotiate GAINS -- not break even, not give backs. FDX makes an exorbinant amount of money annually because of the hard work of its employees and sound business practices. FDX can afford to PROPERLY offset FDA financial concerns for pilots and their families.

This LOA represents the "low ball" offer regardless of the assurances that this is as good as it gets ... I don't trust the company with the written or spoken word anymore. Just like professional sports -- you get what you negotiate and what the market will bear. I say we tell Maliniak, Cassell, and Lewis, to go ... back to the table.

The Scope guarantees (is there really such a thing?) would be nice, but not taken along with this PATHETIC, WOEFULLY INADEQUATE POS LOA!

VOTE NO. PERIOD. Show some spine and stand up!

Wear your ALPA lanyards INSIDE OUT and your pins UPSIDE DOWN. Quite a few DISENFRANCHISED MEMBERS are doing this. I think it sends a very telling message -- we aren't going to quit the Union, but the Union has fallen well short of expectations.

Times like these make me question the INTELLIGENCE of pilots negotiating on behalf of pilots VS. a Fortune 500 company like FDX. Never take investment advice from a fellow pilot, never follow some get rich scheme from a fellow pilot, never go into business with another pilot ... should I place my current/future earnings and quality of life in the hands of negotiators who took an ALPA sponsored negotiating course and call themselves qualified? Well, I guess we do since this is all we've got.

IMO -- Much rather have professional negotiators do the dirty work. Then we can FIRE THEM when they don't get the job done! What a concept!

As for our elected/volunteer representatives spending upwards of 3 hours on 2 separate occasions addressing the concerns of our pilot group -- thanks for the sacrifice. If it hurts so much: step down, leave, quit, whatever it takes.

I feel my 1.95% of earnings is a complete waste over these 2 issues. Relatively satisfied with contract negotiations. Not great, just OK. But thanks for the efforts by the NC and MEC. Age 65 and the FDA LOA have shown either a severe case of misguided judgement and/or post contract negotiations APATHY. You decide.

FOLKS, WE NEED TO CLEAN HOUSE.

At least we get to vote on the FDA LOA. Thanks for that.

VOTE NO!