LEC 99 Update
07-24-2007, 06:39 AM
#1
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
LEC 99 Update
July 24, 2007
LEC 99 Update
Ladies and Gentlemen of LEC 99,
As we approach the start of the balloting for the FDA LOA, I would like to share some of my thoughts with you. I hope that after educating yourselves on the many aspects of this proposal, you will consider voting against ratifying this LOA.
I feel a certain level of frustration when the company puts information out in which they imply that the union was involved in all aspects of developing this proposal, as I am reasonably certain that no one from the union visited Paris or Hong Kong with company officials for the purpose of fact-finding. In my opinion, it is misleading to the pilot group when the company makes such statements.
I am also confused about some of the statements surfacing lately on how we ended up with the enhanced option. We ended up with this package because that is what the company offered and we took it. That’s it. I don’t recall the company starting any lower or the union countering any higher. 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.
When I started doing MEC work, I understood that even though I was the SFS representative, my job was to work for the betterment of the whole pilot group. Clearly the demographic targeted with this LOA is not 4,800 pilots. I think that is disappointing, and that is why I can’t endorse this LOA. I would like to think that the phrase “no one is left behind” is still the way we do business, but that is for you to decide.
In his e-mail to the pilots, Mr. Lewis writes about some of the facts of this LOA as he sees them. I think we need to expand on a few of those facts.
·Housing Allowance¾Much has been made of the fact that the intention was for the pilot to add whatever he was spending on housing back in the U.S. to the $2,700 U.S. allowance in this LOA to be able to secure adequate housing. The problem is that the company is selling this as a two-year temporary “adventure.” In that case, most pilots will still be paying some kind of mortgage back home. Most of us in SFS do that for tax purposes anyway. Of course, you can rent your house but I think for that short period of time most people will not. Now you are faced with paying a mortgage and coming up with money out of pocket (without equity) to be able to provide decent housing for your family in CDG or HKG. That’s why I think that $2,700 U.S. is not sufficient to provide a fair benefit.
·Seed Money¾Mr. Lewis says that the seed money is to buy things like bed sheets, cleaning supplies, and small appliances. What about furniture? When we visited Guangzhou, we saw fully furnished and serviced apartments, so $10,000 U.S. would have been adequate there. The problem is that it is expensive and difficult to find apartments in CDG or HKG that are like the ones we saw in Guangzhou. Also, what about the two- to three-month deposit and the agent’s commission to secure an apartment? I think the 79 credit hours times your hourly rate or $10,000 U.S., whichever is greater (current CBA relocation allowance), would have been more appropriate.
·Shipping Allowance¾500 pounds . . . are you serious? Mr. Lewis says that they “guessed” that amount. Well, it is obvious that somebody forgot to tell him that we would need more weight in the allowance to be able to furnish a place since the seed money is not enough when you can’t find fully furnished apartments at a reasonable price. How much more do I think is reasonable? I think about 7,500 pounds would have been a more sensible number. That is about how much I brought to SFS, and my apartment is about the size of what you can expect to get in CDG or HKG (1,300 square feet).
·Schools¾I understand the company’s reluctance to pay for very expensive education without knowing how many children they would have to pay for. I think the answer is not to ignore that benefit completely. The reasonable approach would have been to subsidize the tuition to a certain percentage per child and maybe cap the total that will be paid. I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of pilots would have found that acceptable. I agree with Mr. Lewis that school is a personal choice. You can choose private or public schools if you live in the U.S. I think he is wrong trying to compare the choices one has in the U.S. versus the FDAs. We have very limited choices in CDG and HKG without the support of the company.
·Transportation¾If the company does not want to ship a car for only two years, I think that’s fair enough. If that is the case, why not provide some transportation allowance instead. Perhaps that would allow you to add some personal funds to the allowance and pay for the lease of a car. If you don’t want to do that, then you can use that money for all the public transportation that you and your family will require.
Certainly there are other issues, but I think these are the most talked about deficiencies in this LOA. I personally think that a package that offered $5,000 U.S. monthly, to include housing, schooling, and transportation, would have been the minimum required for an average family of two adults and two children. My guess is that’s pretty close to the “ex-Pat deal” the guy in the office will get.
I think it is rather telling that the voting has not even started and the company is already modifying their stance in various subjects in the LOA in response to our reactions. If their “intent” is to inverse people to an FDA for only one month using the STV clause, then go ahead and put it in writing. If they are going to give us the seven days to move, like the current CBA option, then go ahead and put in writing. Even the remail, that has been so important for us in SFS, needs to be put in writing. Please forgive me if I don’t have enough trust to be comfortable with verbal assurances.
Mr. Lewis is absolutely correct when he says that the FedEx pilots are the best option to do the FedEx flying. I think we all share that sentiment. We have proven over the years that we can do international flying very safely and reliably under some very tough conditions. To me, that means we do have some unique skills, perhaps more skills than a guy sitting in an office.
Fraternally,
Captain Edgar Irizarry, Chairman
FDX Council 99
LEC 99 Update
Ladies and Gentlemen of LEC 99,
As we approach the start of the balloting for the FDA LOA, I would like to share some of my thoughts with you. I hope that after educating yourselves on the many aspects of this proposal, you will consider voting against ratifying this LOA.
I feel a certain level of frustration when the company puts information out in which they imply that the union was involved in all aspects of developing this proposal, as I am reasonably certain that no one from the union visited Paris or Hong Kong with company officials for the purpose of fact-finding. In my opinion, it is misleading to the pilot group when the company makes such statements.
I am also confused about some of the statements surfacing lately on how we ended up with the enhanced option. We ended up with this package because that is what the company offered and we took it. That’s it. I don’t recall the company starting any lower or the union countering any higher. 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.
When I started doing MEC work, I understood that even though I was the SFS representative, my job was to work for the betterment of the whole pilot group. Clearly the demographic targeted with this LOA is not 4,800 pilots. I think that is disappointing, and that is why I can’t endorse this LOA. I would like to think that the phrase “no one is left behind” is still the way we do business, but that is for you to decide.
In his e-mail to the pilots, Mr. Lewis writes about some of the facts of this LOA as he sees them. I think we need to expand on a few of those facts.
·Housing Allowance¾Much has been made of the fact that the intention was for the pilot to add whatever he was spending on housing back in the U.S. to the $2,700 U.S. allowance in this LOA to be able to secure adequate housing. The problem is that the company is selling this as a two-year temporary “adventure.” In that case, most pilots will still be paying some kind of mortgage back home. Most of us in SFS do that for tax purposes anyway. Of course, you can rent your house but I think for that short period of time most people will not. Now you are faced with paying a mortgage and coming up with money out of pocket (without equity) to be able to provide decent housing for your family in CDG or HKG. That’s why I think that $2,700 U.S. is not sufficient to provide a fair benefit.
·Seed Money¾Mr. Lewis says that the seed money is to buy things like bed sheets, cleaning supplies, and small appliances. What about furniture? When we visited Guangzhou, we saw fully furnished and serviced apartments, so $10,000 U.S. would have been adequate there. The problem is that it is expensive and difficult to find apartments in CDG or HKG that are like the ones we saw in Guangzhou. Also, what about the two- to three-month deposit and the agent’s commission to secure an apartment? I think the 79 credit hours times your hourly rate or $10,000 U.S., whichever is greater (current CBA relocation allowance), would have been more appropriate.
·Shipping Allowance¾500 pounds . . . are you serious? Mr. Lewis says that they “guessed” that amount. Well, it is obvious that somebody forgot to tell him that we would need more weight in the allowance to be able to furnish a place since the seed money is not enough when you can’t find fully furnished apartments at a reasonable price. How much more do I think is reasonable? I think about 7,500 pounds would have been a more sensible number. That is about how much I brought to SFS, and my apartment is about the size of what you can expect to get in CDG or HKG (1,300 square feet).
·Schools¾I understand the company’s reluctance to pay for very expensive education without knowing how many children they would have to pay for. I think the answer is not to ignore that benefit completely. The reasonable approach would have been to subsidize the tuition to a certain percentage per child and maybe cap the total that will be paid. I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of pilots would have found that acceptable. I agree with Mr. Lewis that school is a personal choice. You can choose private or public schools if you live in the U.S. I think he is wrong trying to compare the choices one has in the U.S. versus the FDAs. We have very limited choices in CDG and HKG without the support of the company.
·Transportation¾If the company does not want to ship a car for only two years, I think that’s fair enough. If that is the case, why not provide some transportation allowance instead. Perhaps that would allow you to add some personal funds to the allowance and pay for the lease of a car. If you don’t want to do that, then you can use that money for all the public transportation that you and your family will require.
Certainly there are other issues, but I think these are the most talked about deficiencies in this LOA. I personally think that a package that offered $5,000 U.S. monthly, to include housing, schooling, and transportation, would have been the minimum required for an average family of two adults and two children. My guess is that’s pretty close to the “ex-Pat deal” the guy in the office will get.
I think it is rather telling that the voting has not even started and the company is already modifying their stance in various subjects in the LOA in response to our reactions. If their “intent” is to inverse people to an FDA for only one month using the STV clause, then go ahead and put it in writing. If they are going to give us the seven days to move, like the current CBA option, then go ahead and put in writing. Even the remail, that has been so important for us in SFS, needs to be put in writing. Please forgive me if I don’t have enough trust to be comfortable with verbal assurances.
Mr. Lewis is absolutely correct when he says that the FedEx pilots are the best option to do the FedEx flying. I think we all share that sentiment. We have proven over the years that we can do international flying very safely and reliably under some very tough conditions. To me, that means we do have some unique skills, perhaps more skills than a guy sitting in an office.
Fraternally,
Captain Edgar Irizarry, Chairman
FDX Council 99
07-24-2007, 07:09 AM
#2
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 77
[quote=iarapilot;201124]July 24, 2007
LEC 99 Update
I am also confused about some of the statements surfacing lately on how we ended up with the enhanced option. We ended up with this package because that is what the company offered and we took it. That’s it. I don’t recall the company starting any lower or the union countering any higher. 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.
When I started doing MEC work, I understood that even though I was the SFS representative, my job was to work for the betterment of the whole pilot group. Clearly the demographic targeted with this LOAis not 4,800 pilots.
I really hope that all that are eligible to vote will read this.
And I sure hope that it was a typo on Edgar's part b/c if we took what the company offered w/o a counter, then our UNION surely has lost their way.
LEC 99 Update
I am also confused about some of the statements surfacing lately on how we ended up with the enhanced option. We ended up with this package because that is what the company offered and we took it. That’s it. I don’t recall the company starting any lower or the union countering any higher. 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.
When I started doing MEC work, I understood that even though I was the SFS representative, my job was to work for the betterment of the whole pilot group. Clearly the demographic targeted with this LOAis not 4,800 pilots.
I really hope that all that are eligible to vote will read this.
And I sure hope that it was a typo on Edgar's part b/c if we took what the company offered w/o a counter, then our UNION surely has lost their way.
07-24-2007, 08:37 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
I have said it before, one of the reasons the company prefers HK is the 16% vs. 49% tax rate difference. The numbers are significant and should have been analized by ALPA before the NC signed off and before the MEC voted.
But like everything else with this LOA the attitude has been: It is more then we get now so we will take it.
Anybody think the company hasn't figured this table out? Anybody think the MEC independently got these numbers?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXEstimated Tax Equalization Benefit
Income...............HK..............CAN..............CDG
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
But like everything else with this LOA the attitude has been: It is more then we get now so we will take it.
Anybody think the company hasn't figured this table out? Anybody think the MEC independently got these numbers?
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXEstimated Tax Equalization Benefit
Income...............HK..............CAN..............CDG
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
Last edited by FDXLAG; 07-24-2007 at 08:53 AM.
07-24-2007, 09:18 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXEstimated Tax Equalization Benefit
Income...............HK..............CAN..............CDG
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
Income...............HK..............CAN..............CDG
100K
150K
200K
250K
300K
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.
With the Tax equalization, one will not further benefit from the first $82,500 as that will be incorporated.
The money that the company pays both governments on your behalf taxes, will also be taxed as income
To simplify it (if that is possible with tax issues), if you Normal US TAX is $25,000 and your foreign Taxes obligations are an additional $15,000 USD, the accountants will figure your gross income with all benefits and see what you would have paid as a resident of the US and any additional tax burden to other goverments will be paid by the company.
In the example above the company would pay 15,000 to the French or HKG government on your behalf, but that 15,000 they pay will be figured into your gorss w-2 for tax purposes. So you will be paying taxes on the Taxes FedEX paid on your behalf.............Simple??
So pilots should not expect to "Make out on taxes", they just won't have to bear the Buren of paying additional foreign taxes.
Also you should check with you individual States because each state handles EXPAT taxes differently. SOme States forgoe any state taxes to Expats, others will still tax you as if you still reside there.
Good bad or indifferent,
The
07-24-2007, 09:32 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
Sorry, but I gotta raise the BS flag here. I’m not advocating voting yes OR no, I would just like people to have the FACTS to decide, not misinformation...
First – count how many times EI uses the phrase “I think” or “I feel” vs. “I KNOW” – doesn’t sound like he really has ALL the facts now does it?
Second – EI - “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.”
Maybe this other guy (NC member) might KNOW why HKG...from his letter:
MH - “At the urging of our committee, the LOA bases the pilots in HKG rather than CAN, even though the actual operational base is CAN.”
EI - “Why? That is a question that only the company can answer.”
How ‘bout that the union guys got over there and saw the place for the she-ite hole that it is and URGED the company to base us in HKG vs. CAN?
Third – Housing Allowance, Seed Money, Shipping Allowance – all EI’s arguments here are debunked with just a little internet research – here’s a 1-bedroom apartment in Paris (a couple of blocks from the layover hotel) for 1900 Euro FULLY FURNISHED – with MAID SERVICE
http://www.parisattitude.com/apartme...numProduit=109
Still available as of this posting.
etc. etc. etc.
Blasphemy, I know, to all you Subic guys, but the facts are the facts.
Flame away, but PLEASE VOTE.
First – count how many times EI uses the phrase “I think” or “I feel” vs. “I KNOW” – doesn’t sound like he really has ALL the facts now does it?
Second – EI - “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.”
Maybe this other guy (NC member) might KNOW why HKG...from his letter:
MH - “At the urging of our committee, the LOA bases the pilots in HKG rather than CAN, even though the actual operational base is CAN.”
EI - “Why? That is a question that only the company can answer.”
How ‘bout that the union guys got over there and saw the place for the she-ite hole that it is and URGED the company to base us in HKG vs. CAN?
Third – Housing Allowance, Seed Money, Shipping Allowance – all EI’s arguments here are debunked with just a little internet research – here’s a 1-bedroom apartment in Paris (a couple of blocks from the layover hotel) for 1900 Euro FULLY FURNISHED – with MAID SERVICE
http://www.parisattitude.com/apartme...numProduit=109
Still available as of this posting.
etc. etc. etc.
Blasphemy, I know, to all you Subic guys, but the facts are the facts.
Flame away, but PLEASE VOTE.
07-24-2007, 09:37 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by RedeyeAV8r
Tax equalization was/ is NOT to be a Monetary Benefit for Gain but rather a benefit to minimize TAX burdens to expats. In other words one should not be expecting to MAKE MORE...
FDXLAG is saying that the COMPANY prefers HKG over CAN, for tax purposes. They(the company) would have to pay $66,000/yr less, under the tax equalization plan.(for a $200,00/yr pilot)
Last edited by Busboy; 07-24-2007 at 09:47 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
