Show me the openers!!
 

I have mentioned this on other threads but wanted to reiterate it as a standalone thread to see if I'm making something out of nothing or if you guys think there is validity to my concern.
First, the Company AND the Union come out together(queasy feelings already) and tell us "this is the best we can get". Then we get an admonishment by our new lead ACP on this website that we are a bunch of anonymous malcontents(guilty!) who should be thankful we are getting an enhancement to our "industry-leading contract"....and oh by the way, tell me who you turds are.
The company AND the Union then give us their concerted dog and pony show in the AOC again telling us that "this is the best we can get" and let's "wait until the next contract for enhancements".But when we start voting and a public forum like this communicates to the Company that this vote on the LOA is heading south faster than our confidence in our MEC.....VOILA....a quick pen and ink change to what we had been told was "their final offer".
A lot of my concerns would be addressed if the Union and the Company did one simple thing.......SHOW ME THE OPENERS!
How else will I know that OUR Union has aggressively tried to address this terrible excuse for an LOA?? I still believe since none of the NC or Union leadership ever thought this LOA would impact them; they failed to AGGRESSIVELY address it's shortcomings. And hey, anybody want to give me odds on whether DW runs for a National ALPA office soon........
OK gang...flame away!!

Hey Ham. I would like to flame away....but not on you. You are quite correct in your comments. IMO of course.

.........................

"Somedays you're the tree, somedays you're the dog."


This LOA makes me feel like the tree.

Makes me feel more like the unwitting leg the dog views with desire.

No flame intended..........I'm curious, Would that really change your mind on how you vote?

I would think you vote on it's merits. Either you think it is good enough or you don't.

And why do you think this LOA won't affect anyone on the MEC?
They cover the whole spectrum of Seniority. Maybe a couple planned on Bidding either FDA. I don't know, do you?
1/3 of them on on the A300 and could be STV's just like the rest of us.

The company has said that the MD-11 A/300 are going to be based in HKG and CDG (respectively) in the future didn't they. This LOA will affect all of us, both good and bad. Good if we grow with increased flying, bad if someone is forced to go for a month when they don't want. Worse if we los the flying to someone else.

And BTW who cares if DW wants to run for National office? Thats a personal choice , and quite frankly, I would love to see some FedEx pilots as National Officers, wouldn't you?

I think we can all agree that would be a plus, as long as he doesn't allow the company to hose us over in order to get there!
The problem is this LOA is a ridiculous step backwards for our pilot group (other than this magical hidden Strategic Scope clause the MEC/NC is solely concerned with).

Yeah, it's not like the MEC reps from block 6, 7, and 8 are junior enough to be affected by STV or think about bidding one of the FDAs. Wait a minute!! Yes they are. Gee, look what happens when you making sweeping generalizations. You're proven wrong. Flame off!!!

I don't see this LOA as a step backwards, because the company can do it now. If anyone thinks the current CBA language is better, they still have that option under the LOA with the addition of Tax equalization.

The RLA language concerning FDA's is what the UNION wanted 2 contracts ago but couldn't get. Many people don't seem concerned with SCOPE. While I certainly don't claim to be an expert, I know that most ALPA contracts like to have stong SCOPE language to protect ALL their flying. Look at what has happened to NWA, USAir, DAL and UAL. They all were forced to give up most of their domestic scope language in BK courts and have lost a significant amount of their Domestic flying to the regionals forever! They will never get it back!

While our SCOPE language concerning extra territoral flying outside our borders is vastly more complex and "Iffy" in the US courts,
I fel any language we can get to define the flying as "OURS" is extremely important and should not be taken lightly. Is this language a step backwards? Our ALPA RLA attornies apparently don't think so, and niether do I.

Now while I agree and have previously stated so, the Housing allowance is LOW, but again it is more than we currently have.

The STV clause is what seems to have most folks up in arms. The Recent FCIF just clarifed and allieviated my fear of being forced there for 90 days. Being forced there for a month isn't the end of the world. Quite frankly with the month limit, it will probably go more senior similar to SIBA and there won't be too many involuntary inversions IMHO.

Is this A GIANT step forward...............NOT!
but it is hardly a step backwards.

Maybe you haven't noticed, but a lot of guys don't even want DW in charge of Fedex Alpa let alone National.