FDXLAG

No the point is the MEC & NC think we should kiss the company's arse because they gave in and put us in HK. I am simply saying why the company was chuckling when they said OK but it will cost you invol STVs.

Hong Kong is good

Tax Equalization is Good

But know what you are getting before you decide what to give up.

Do you think the company hasn't figured out what it will cost? Shouldn't the Union figure out how much it will cost fred? Shouldn't the voters have some knowledge of total package costs?

AFW_MD11

You are probably correct - "most wives" would not (mine included) - but some might?

Glad we're finally talking facts on here vs. hypotheticals though.

The apartment ad I linked was just one I found after about 5 minutes of surfing. Also, it is in the heart of downtown Paris - only a few blocks from the Champs d Elysees. The further out from the heart of the city you get, the less expensive the rent and the bigger the places.

This example was only intended to demonstrate how quickly/easily (if someone wanted to) EI's arguments could be debunked with a few clicks.

I'm not sayin'.....I'm just sayin'......

As for HKG - you can do the same thing here:

http://www.hongkonghomes.com/

This site even has a picture of an 'expat' family on the home page.

My point is only that one could argue (with information like this) that, contrary to what EI might have you believe, the LOA "Enhanced Option" might actually be "sufficient" for a short-term (2 year) commitment......isn't that the purpose of that option in the first place - short-term option?

AFW_MD11

So....what you're saying is that all this LOA "cost" us (the pilots) was granting the company the STV option?

And we get all the "stuff" in the LOA for granting the possibility of being non-vol'd somewhere for up to 3 bid periods with full per diem, hotel....etc.....etc....ummm.....

Where's the down side to that again?

Who cares how much it cost Fred, or even why they're offering it (conspiracy theorists)?

You're saying we're being oferred a whole lot of "something" for almost nothing.

I agree.

Caveat - if the STV were to Darfur or Bagdad, etc. (as has been hypothesized on this site) THEN it might be a HUGE cost for the pilots - but it's not - it's HKG and/or CDG.

nightfreight

AFW,

No one says this has to be a windfall for the pilots. But it shouldn't be for the company as well. If you want to live in a 600 square foot apartment (more like hotel), good for you. You probably won't need more than 500 pounds of stuff in that place. Most of believe in a higher standard of living. Look at it this way, you can move over to Paris and live in your cubicle if/when the company decides to open the domicile under the current CBA. I am not sacrificing a chance at STV for you to get $2700 bucks a month.

The company has found two of the most expensive cities on the planet to base pilots. Most of us think that there should be more reimbursement from the company due to this fact. If it cost the company extra money, this my friend, is the cost of doing business. If they can't (or don't want) to afford a little more, then maybe they need to consider plan B.

Yes the expat family on the home page of Hong Kong homes. At least they got a decent package and can afford to live in something more than a 600 square foot ****hole.

iarapilot

"With regard to being based in Hong Kong, I think that we are going to be based there because the company wants it that way. Why? That is a question that only the company can answer."

I think I can answer. China taxes are around 51%, HKG 17%. The company saves money! (Remember tax equalization?) Also, after company and ALPA reps went to CAN to look at housing and schools they saw that it was not acceptable. Those are twp of the reasons.

nightfreight

Sorry AFW, I don't care where Fedex "invols" me, I choose to live where I please. If they want me to be gone 30-90 days, then pay me trip rig and then we can talk business. Something like 172 hours/month plus per diem and housing....

Their deal is beyond cheap...

Sorry pal, but cost neutral is not a win-win for us.

hyperone

AFW_MD11, "Caveat - if the STV were to Darfur or Bagdad, etc. (as has been hypothesized on this site) THEN it might be a HUGE cost for the pilots - but it's not - it's HKG and/or CDG."
Spoken like a man with no kids in school or a wife who doesn't work. For the 75% of us with either of those, getting forced to spend 3 months away from the family is a "HUGE" cost. If I didn't mind being forced to be away from my family, I'd probably still be in the military. I'm not- I'm a civilian airline pilot. And I'm not in favor of allowing Fedex to become the ONLY airline in the U.S. who has the option of forcing crew members to leave their homes for extended periods of time (30 days is too long) against their will. To top it off, we would be stuck for up to 15 days a month away from home for only per diem! YGTBSM!

AFW_MD11

I never said I want to live in a 600 square foot apartment - I don't think I could fit myself, wife, 4 kids and 3 dogs in there. (sidenote:...IMHO the apartment ad in Paris didn't really fit the definition of ****hole - but to some it might.)

Most of us who believe in a higher standard of living probably won't bid this if/when the LOA passes either (myself included)

I am saying, however, that I might be willing to "pay the cost" of the possiblity of a non-vol STV assignment (since that's all I can see that it possibly might cost me) so that others who might want to volunteer to live in a 600 square foot apartment in Paris (or HKG) for two years can get a little extra "help" than our current CBA offers them to do it.......might be willing to......possiblity of.....

OPINION: I personally agree with the folks who say it probably will never come to non-vol'ing people - so I believe that even further reduces the risk/cost to me to support this. For the record I HATE being away from my wife and kids for even a week or more. I just don't see it happening, but I might be willing to roll the dice to get the gains (yes, gains) that the LOA offers.

.....I haven't voted yet......

(or they can choose the regular 3-year CBA option too and get tax equalization too - their choice again)

Doesn't seem to be such a big sacrifice for me, and a pretty "good deal" for someone who WANTS to bid it......that's all I'm saying......team player all the way baby!

iarapilot

"Simply put, TAX equalization pays the difference in Taxes both to the US and Foreign governments on your "Taxable income" over what you would pay the US government as if you still lived in the US."

I feel that I need to clarify this tax equalization....the way I read it. It seems that a lot of folks DONT understand it. First, there is no reason to pay the same taxes as if you were in the US, because you ARE NOT in the US, and you are entitled to an $82000+ exclusion, after meeting certain criteria. Now, I agree that with CDG it will be to ones benefit. But in countries that will tax you at a lower %, you could be better off without the equalization.

Take SFS. An FO, married with two kids, no property in the US, no gains on any investments, will pay around $3000 federal per year. That is because he first takes his income, say $150K, subtracts his $82.4K for foreign earned income exclusion, that leaves $67.6K. Then he takes out his housing deductions and others. The number you come up with is what you would pay taxes on. If SFS had the equalization BS, we would be paying a lot more than we do!!!!

Now, HKG is around 17% tax on your income. At $150K, that is about $25,000 in taxes you pay to the HKG government. Then, you would pay Uncle Sam the same as you would in the paragraph above. That amounts to a total of $28500 in total tax liability.

Now, throw in the tax equalization into the pic. The company gets the credit for your foreign earned income exclusion (82,400). YOU LOSE THAT DEDUCTION, THE COMPANY GETS IT!!!!!! Basically, if you would pay taxes on what you would have in the US, as far as HKG goes, I think your taxes would be more than if you didnt use the equalization. But, as I said, with countries that have a higher tax rate, you would be better off with the equalization.

Hopefully, I have explained it in an understandable way.

nightfreight

AFW,

Don't confuse being a team player for someone willing to take a crappy deal. Both FDAs are ultra expensive and if the company wants to place pilots there, they need to spend some extra money. It really is that simple.

If you want to be a team player, then think about voting NO.

Here is why:

I think we can get a better deal if we work together. Renegotiate the LOA, improve the money involved and clear up the details. This is the most vague LOA I believe I have ever seen. Contracts should be clean, this one is absolutely not.

If the company elects to fill the FDAs under the current CBA, we all have an opportunity to bid it. If people choose to be "team players," then we won't bid it. Of course this won't happen, so those folks choosing to go under the current CBA get what they deserve. If they want to be team players, then a better deal will happen.

Give the union some "leverage" and vote down this turd....