A300_Driver

I already did! A Big Fat NO!!!

Carlos Abundis

Very astute, Daniel.

Carlos Abundis

Close, but actually I said I don't care to spend a lot of time parsing scope language.

My bigger point about scope, in case anyone missed it, was that scope is all about who will do the flying - us or them? If you were fighting your company over scope, it would be because your flying was being outsourced to lower-cost carriers. I think contract language that dedicates more route structure, and, therefore, revenue, to flights flown by FedEx pilots on the master seniority list is a gain in scope.

Haywood JB

Yeah, Carlos, but do you think the company will risk it's reputation, that 99% reliability on the French? If they thought the risk was acceptable, they would already have French and Chinese pilots manning all of these routes already. Yes they would lose some money to alpa for outsourcing, but it would have already been done. I want FedEx pilots to fly those lines also, I just don't think it should be at the cost of junior manning anyone against their will. The company is plainly looking to cover the lines while minimizing cost. I think that there are some valid points in this LOA, but it falls grossly short in a lot of aspects also. The MEC and NC are supposed to protect all of us, and to me, a junior guy this STV is a no brainer, not only no, but HE!! NO. The company needs to give some, but the NC also needs to fight for us a more than what they did. If this is an issue that the membership needs to vote on, there should have at least been a pole to ask us, what we thought was important so they could have at least addressed those issues. EI's thoughts were dead on, as someone who lives outside the US, he spoke of many of the concerns that most of the crew force would have liked to see addressed, but noone on the NC seems to have any of those answers either.

Daniel Larusso

Yes, somewhere my old english teacher Ms. O'Calloghan is smiling.

Daniel Larusso

Now we're parsing words. Scope is one of the more difficult portions of legalese within the contract. I chose to call it sticky. I could be wrong, but I don't think that word choice altered the meaning of what I was trying to get across.

A300_Driver

As is Mr. Mayagi

Daniel Larusso

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFlQNtL8F9s

Underdog

Carlos, prior to endorsing an LOA on opening HKG, I believe the reasonable person would conclude the negotiating team at least visited HKG. I'm not talking about flying in there and spending the night before going to Macau and Guangzhou. I believe as a minimum they would compare other companies ex-pat packages to this LOA. Perhaps a cost analysis would have been in order. The negotiating chairman stated we can't "cherry-pick" other contracts such as Cathay and Dragonair, why not? That's exactly what they do during contract talks. During those times we see a comparison of charts pertaining to rigs, pay, retirement, etc. Since you addressed the bilingual limo driver that companies provide in Guangzhou, and I'm the one that brought that up, please forgive me if I led people to believe we should also have that. My intent was to demonstrate how much other companies provide their ex-pats(Fedex too, for its other employees) versus this pathetic LOA.

Matador

Carlos,

Your belief in our negotiating committee is commendable but I don't think you should speak to the crewforce or on this forum if you don't know all the facts! Our negotiating committee was told in contract negotiations that there were many things that needed to be fixed in Sec 6, they ignored the information they were given and said that they weren't going to waste money on Sec 6 since it wasn't an issue and SFS was closing. It was evident that the company was going to open new hubs but the Negotiating committee ignored this as well. Now that they have to go to the table again they took the first offer given to them. I don't know about you but my negotiating committee doesn't speak for me anymore! Especially when they have teamed up with the company to pass this poor excuse for an LOA. Next, don't you think in the least that our negotiating committee might be burned out after all that they did? Maybe our MEC should've replaced them for this LOA. If this LOA was so great why is it that the company and the MEC have teamed up together to try and get us to vote yes? Shouldn't it stand on it's own two feet and pass on it's merit? The fact is that we should probably listen to the guys that are living abroad that have seen and lived what we haven't and know more about what it takes to make an FDA work than anyone. I guess that's why the SFS rep voted against the LOA and how funny that the side letter from the company only passed 7 to 4...Sounds like some guys are having second thoughts to me. If you aren't going to bid the FDA's you probably shouldn't vote yes or even vote because you will effect other's lives in ways you can't even comprehend. This LOA should be about Scope either, I thought that was a corner stone issue on our CBA, I thought we had the best in the industry, so why now are they renogotiating it and saying that this is a bonus for us. This LOA doesn't address 4800 pilots who pay dues it only addresses the empty nesters and single guys/gals. I don't know about you but that's not what I pay dues for!!!My dues should take care of everyone not who the company wants. I think that our union leadership has failed us and guys like you who believe the hype have failed us as well...