what next?
07-28-2007, 01:51 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FDX A300 CPT
Posts: 967
cause ANC sucks
...but bottom line is they filled all the slots...they already said they would use newhires...we still lose..bases are open!
OK...i guess what i want to know is how do we win something positive for this crewforce with a no vote???????????????????
the only thing IMHO would be for NOONE at all to bid any seat...now that would be a message..! do you think that will happen?
...but bottom line is they filled all the slots...they already said they would use newhires...we still lose..bases are open! OK...i guess what i want to know is how do we win something positive for this crewforce with a no vote???????????????????
the only thing IMHO would be for NOONE at all to bid any seat...now that would be a message..! do you think that will happen?
07-28-2007, 01:59 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by CaptainMark
cause ANC sucks...but bottom line is they filled all the slots...they already said they would use newhires...we still lose..bases are open!
OK...i guess what i want to know is how do we win something positive for this crewforce with a no vote???????????????????
the only thing IMHO would be for NOONE at all to bid any seat...now that would be a message..! do you think that will happen?
...but bottom line is they filled all the slots...they already said they would use newhires...we still lose..bases are open! OK...i guess what i want to know is how do we win something positive for this crewforce with a no vote???????????????????
the only thing IMHO would be for NOONE at all to bid any seat...now that would be a message..! do you think that will happen?
We get something positive by eliminating involuntary STV. Most of us think invol or vol STV is a minus. Get rid of it and that is a plus.
I am voting no because I would like to bid CDG in a couple of years. I can't with this LOA. What is more I have the opportunity to be screwed multiple times with this LOA.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 07-28-2007 at 02:10 PM.
07-28-2007, 02:17 PM
#14
New Hire
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: DC-10 Capt.
Posts: 4
Hey guys
Do you think there are not well qualified pilots out there that would do this JUST to get on board FedEx?
Filling the shortfalls would be easy and wth attrition (unless age 60 changes) there's no shortage of pilots coming in for overseas duty and staying on 3 years down the road for an excellent retirement!
You know --- I'm "outta here" in 6 months but it seems to me that you have to figure out how to keep over 60 on board for a while anyway to close the floodgates of people who want to get in at any cost. I've seen well qualified pilots in their mid 40's up to 50 jumping at the chance to fly for a major even though it is in bankruptcy. They're out there and, though that won't cost you a dime, it will mean that the company doesn't have to deal with your vote.
skypair
Filling the shortfalls would be easy and wth attrition (unless age 60 changes) there's no shortage of pilots coming in for overseas duty and staying on 3 years down the road for an excellent retirement!
You know --- I'm "outta here" in 6 months but it seems to me that you have to figure out how to keep over 60 on board for a while anyway to close the floodgates of people who want to get in at any cost. I've seen well qualified pilots in their mid 40's up to 50 jumping at the chance to fly for a major even though it is in bankruptcy. They're out there and, though that won't cost you a dime, it will mean that the company doesn't have to deal with your vote.
skypair
07-28-2007, 02:23 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: A300 Captain
Posts: 257
Originally Posted by CaptainMark
postal contract....BC wants entire contract renegotiated....we lose 2 days of draft pay per month and get 2 additional days of work on our lines anyway( at straight pay)...they win
07-28-2007, 02:25 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FDX A300 CPT
Posts: 967
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
For the next contract I guess we don't need a Negotiating Commitee since we are just going to take whatever the company offers? After all if we say no they may hire someone to take out place.
We get something positive by eliminating involuntary STV. Most of us think invol or vol STV is a minus. Get rid of it and that is a plus.
I am voting no because I would like to bid CDG in a couple of years. I can't with this LOA. What is more I have the opportunity to be screwed multiple times with this LOA.
We get something positive by eliminating involuntary STV. Most of us think invol or vol STV is a minus. Get rid of it and that is a plus.
I am voting no because I would like to bid CDG in a couple of years. I can't with this LOA. What is more I have the opportunity to be screwed multiple times with this LOA.
07-28-2007, 02:27 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FDX A300 CPT
Posts: 967
Originally Posted by Bitme
Mark, I was here and where on earth did you get the idea that the postal renegotiation lost us 2 draft days and got us two extra days of work anyway. That is exactly what we prevented by not biting at that fiasco and we probably kept two days extra draft as a result of it.
07-28-2007, 02:31 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by CaptainMark
2 different animals!...an LOA and the CBA are quite different...can't do a job action with an LOA!...so we will need a negotiating committee like last time...
We get something positive by eliminating involuntary STV. Most of us think invol or vol STV is a minus. Get rid of it and that is a plus.
07-28-2007, 02:32 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by CaptainMark
we were offered 2 days of draft a month for the extra days of flying that the postal contract brought..compare the lines before and after the postal contract..more days of work...remember? we are doing it for straight pay....
