My NC Speaks for Me. I voted YES.
07-28-2007, 09:40 AM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
My NC Speaks for Me. I voted YES.
I haven’t posted a lot on this subject, but I think it’s time to state my position on this LOA.
I’ve voted “yes” and I think you should, too. If you haven’t decided yet or have already voted “no,” you should carefully consider the statements from the MEC, negotiating committee, and the recent letter from JL. These are serious people and you should take their statements seriously.
There has been a lot of speculation about what a no-vote on this LOA would mean. Maybe, some think, we could get the company back to the table to give us…what? An extra thousand or two a month? Subsidized education for our kids? A car with a bilingual driver? No STV?
However you feel about those issues, I think the letter we got from JL should clear up any ambiguity: 1.) There will be no return to the table before the next CBA. 2.) The company is willing to man these domiciles with junior pilots on our seniority list, even if they have to commute. Our elected ALPA representatives know these things, and they have been trying to get the message to us, but some among us have chosen not to listen. Maybe we're sore about Age 60. Maybe we're tired of the cast of characters at FedEx ALPA. Maybe we just feel better if we can complain anonymously (as I'm doing).
Our company hires awesome pilots, and nearly all of our new hires (including, yes, 727 second officers who are on probation and can’t even vote yet) are more than capable of operating our aircraft safely and efficiently AS CAPTAINS. If you don’t think we could man our foreign domiciles without this agreement, just watch. Some will live in domicile, and some would commute, but these domiciles will happen.
In the end, it comes down to two things for me. 1.) I don’t want to take money off the table for those pilots who want to take advantage of the opportunity to man these foreign domiciles. 2.) Now is the time to accept the improvements in scope and make it as likely as possible that our business grows with OUR PILOTS - not contract foreign pilots - at the controls; on our next CBA, we can use our experience and leverage to make up for actual deficiencies.
OK, I lie. Make it three things. The third thing is the credibility of this crew force to bargain effectively with the company through its elected representatives. The sentiments I’ve read on this discussion board, if allowed to prevail, will seriously undermine our credibility in future negotiations because it will be apparent that we’re a pilot group that can’t be led by reasonable people.
As for me, My Negotiation Committee Speaks for Me. I voted YES.
I’ve voted “yes” and I think you should, too. If you haven’t decided yet or have already voted “no,” you should carefully consider the statements from the MEC, negotiating committee, and the recent letter from JL. These are serious people and you should take their statements seriously.
There has been a lot of speculation about what a no-vote on this LOA would mean. Maybe, some think, we could get the company back to the table to give us…what? An extra thousand or two a month? Subsidized education for our kids? A car with a bilingual driver? No STV?
However you feel about those issues, I think the letter we got from JL should clear up any ambiguity: 1.) There will be no return to the table before the next CBA. 2.) The company is willing to man these domiciles with junior pilots on our seniority list, even if they have to commute. Our elected ALPA representatives know these things, and they have been trying to get the message to us, but some among us have chosen not to listen. Maybe we're sore about Age 60. Maybe we're tired of the cast of characters at FedEx ALPA. Maybe we just feel better if we can complain anonymously (as I'm doing).
Our company hires awesome pilots, and nearly all of our new hires (including, yes, 727 second officers who are on probation and can’t even vote yet) are more than capable of operating our aircraft safely and efficiently AS CAPTAINS. If you don’t think we could man our foreign domiciles without this agreement, just watch. Some will live in domicile, and some would commute, but these domiciles will happen.
In the end, it comes down to two things for me. 1.) I don’t want to take money off the table for those pilots who want to take advantage of the opportunity to man these foreign domiciles. 2.) Now is the time to accept the improvements in scope and make it as likely as possible that our business grows with OUR PILOTS - not contract foreign pilots - at the controls; on our next CBA, we can use our experience and leverage to make up for actual deficiencies.
OK, I lie. Make it three things. The third thing is the credibility of this crew force to bargain effectively with the company through its elected representatives. The sentiments I’ve read on this discussion board, if allowed to prevail, will seriously undermine our credibility in future negotiations because it will be apparent that we’re a pilot group that can’t be led by reasonable people.
As for me, My Negotiation Committee Speaks for Me. I voted YES.
07-28-2007, 09:47 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
This is not about age 60. This is about the company offering a sub standard package and getting STV as a crutch in case no one will bid it. STV is a give back on almost every section of the contract.
This is about:
"In a few cases, the questions have made both sides go back and rethink areas that were never discussed or have implications never considered ."
To me this is an admission that the company and the negotiation commitee jumped to soon and are trying to force a solution without appropriate cost analysis or legal advice.
As far as your third point. This negotiating commitee has lost all credibility to negotiate for the membership. The only hope for passage is a huge percentage of uninterested voters and voters scared by threats from the MEC and the company.
PS Carlos, I recommend logging out of your computer when JL is in the room.
This is about:
"In a few cases, the questions have made both sides go back and rethink areas that were never discussed or have implications never considered ."
To me this is an admission that the company and the negotiation commitee jumped to soon and are trying to force a solution without appropriate cost analysis or legal advice.
As far as your third point. This negotiating commitee has lost all credibility to negotiate for the membership. The only hope for passage is a huge percentage of uninterested voters and voters scared by threats from the MEC and the company.
PS Carlos, I recommend logging out of your computer when JL is in the room.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 07-28-2007 at 10:08 AM.
07-28-2007, 10:07 AM
#3
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
This negotiating commitee has lost all credibility to negotiate for the membership. The only hope for passage is a huge percentage of uninterested voters and voters scared by threats from the MEC and the company.
07-28-2007, 10:09 AM
#4
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Carlos,
Man - get a grip on yourself. The company blinked with their STD side letter and they are just trying to get us to blink back with JL's psuedo red letter.
It's just business and they want us doing their business!
By saying "My Negotiating Committee Speaks for ME" are you saying that you agreed it was OK for the MEC to roll over on us and support the age 65 thing when the majority of FedEx pilots were not in favor of change?
Man - get a grip on yourself. The company blinked with their STD side letter and they are just trying to get us to blink back with JL's psuedo red letter.
It's just business and they want us doing their business!
By saying "My Negotiating Committee Speaks for ME" are you saying that you agreed it was OK for the MEC to roll over on us and support the age 65 thing when the majority of FedEx pilots were not in favor of change?
07-28-2007, 10:15 AM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 266
Okay Carlos for your 3 points
1.You will let the company divide us up into groups as opposed to a loa for the whole 4800 of us. At the 2 hub turns I have been to it was said that the company wants a specfic segment of the crew force to bid these.
Why did the union allow that to happen? What happened to "Leave no pilots behind"?
I don't expect the company to come back to the table with another offer, especially if we vote for this LOA, until we as a pilot force show MGT that we won't accept a sub-standard offer by not bidding it. As I have said before, If we accept this LOA then Fedex can send us weither we bid it or not via SVT.
2. What improvements in Scope? Show me where it improves our scope clause, the one that our union said was great 8 months ago.
3.If we are bargaining through our reps, this is just the final step. Using your logic we shoulden't even need to vote because we should just accept what our union tells us. Do you think it is reasonable for a 30 billion dollar company, trying to expand in the fastest growing market in the world, not share in the wealth being created by this expansion.
Our union has told us,
This LOA costs the company the same as a current saction 6 move.
Fedex is looking to make a killing in Asia and Europe.
Why should we give them 50% more availability than SIBA without getting any extra money for our additional work?
I still vote NO and will continue to press people to change there vote to NO.
1.You will let the company divide us up into groups as opposed to a loa for the whole 4800 of us. At the 2 hub turns I have been to it was said that the company wants a specfic segment of the crew force to bid these.
Why did the union allow that to happen? What happened to "Leave no pilots behind"?
I don't expect the company to come back to the table with another offer, especially if we vote for this LOA, until we as a pilot force show MGT that we won't accept a sub-standard offer by not bidding it. As I have said before, If we accept this LOA then Fedex can send us weither we bid it or not via SVT.
2. What improvements in Scope? Show me where it improves our scope clause, the one that our union said was great 8 months ago.
3.If we are bargaining through our reps, this is just the final step. Using your logic we shoulden't even need to vote because we should just accept what our union tells us. Do you think it is reasonable for a 30 billion dollar company, trying to expand in the fastest growing market in the world, not share in the wealth being created by this expansion.
Our union has told us,
This LOA costs the company the same as a current saction 6 move.
Fedex is looking to make a killing in Asia and Europe.
Why should we give them 50% more availability than SIBA without getting any extra money for our additional work?
I still vote NO and will continue to press people to change there vote to NO.
07-28-2007, 10:15 AM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Carlos Abundis
Hey, FDXLAG, I'd like you to elaborate on that point a bit. Do you mean the NC had lost its credibility BEFORE these negotiations? It must have been after the very complex and lucrative CBA they negotiated for us. If so, could you give me an example of where they've come up short? I suspect, though, you mean to say the current LOA has forfeited their credibility. Which, I think, in light of their previous performance, places you in the category of one-issue whiners.
Remember Vacation. I remember that as the 1st question asked about STV and it is still unanswered. How will we bid for for voluntary STVs? If I do a voluntary STV does that exempt me from an involuntary STV? Can I bid on the 30 day STVs? Answer honestly Carlos; would you have approved this LOA without seeing sample lines? Knowing they are available? I have it from a reliable source that the SIG has seen absolutely no information on trips or lines in the FDAs. Don't believe me, ask em yourself.
If you want to call me a whiner for this loa, I'll take it as a compliment.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 07-28-2007 at 10:22 AM.
07-28-2007, 10:18 AM
#7
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
This is about:
"In a few cases, the questions have made both sides go back and rethink areas that were never discussed or have implications never considered ."
To me this is an admission that the company and the negotiation commitee jumped to soon and are trying to force a solution without appropriate cost analysis or legal advice.
"In a few cases, the questions have made both sides go back and rethink areas that were never discussed or have implications never considered ."
To me this is an admission that the company and the negotiation commitee jumped to soon and are trying to force a solution without appropriate cost analysis or legal advice.
"Here's why the company cannot renegotiate the LOA terms."
You want to roll the dice against those odds?
07-28-2007, 10:23 AM
#9
Gets Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: Nordskog Industries Field Technician
Posts: 688
Originally Posted by Carlos Abundis
In the end, it comes down to two things for me. 1.) I don’t want to take money off the table for those pilots who want to take advantage of the opportunity to man these foreign domiciles. 2.) Now is the time to accept the improvements in scope and make it as likely as possible that our business grows with OUR PILOTS - not contract foreign pilots - at the controls; on our next CBA, we can use our experience and leverage to make up for actual deficiencies.
As for me, My Negotiation Committee Speaks for Me. I voted YES.
Furthermore, I am a pilot that wants to bid the FDA's. I'm 29, single, no wife, no kids, flying the maddog... This LOA was constructed for guys like me, yet I still throw the B.S. flag! So don't think you're taking money out of my pocket.
Go do some reading and come back with something substantial.
07-28-2007, 10:23 AM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 329
Not to disagree, but only to counter your assertions with the facts.
Already proven wrong by the reduction from 3 bid periods to 1 bid period.
Here are the applicable LOA sections:
5. During the period of the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA assignment, the laws of the United States and the laws of the states within the United States shall at all times apply to the employment relationship between me and Federal Express. Neither the laws of France, China or Hong Kong nor the laws of any other country or territory shall apply to the employment relationship between Federal Express and me.
-and-
7. I shall continue to be a member of the craft or class of fight deck crewmembers of Federal Express currently represented by ALPA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. ALPA will continue to act as my exclusive collective bargaining representative during my assignment at the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA.
-and-
10. No court or agency outside the United States, including those in France, China, or Hong Kong, shall have jurisdiction to consider claims arising out of the employment relationship between Federal Express and myself.
Here is what our CBA says regarding scope:
2. “International flights” are all Company flights which originate from, terminate in or transit the U.S. or its territories via a location outside the contiguous 48 states. International flights also include all flights conducted by any pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List assigned to Foreign Duty Assignment (“FDA”), or Special International Bid Award (“SIBA”).
-and-
3. All Domestic and International revenue flights conducted with aircraft that are owned, leased, or operated by the Company, having a MTOGW of greater than 60,000 lbs., and operated pursuant to the Company’s Airline Operating Certificate or any additional Part 121 Airline Operating Certificate obtained by the Company, shall be operated by pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Flying conducted with aircraft at or under 60,000 lbs.
-and-
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, the Company may continue to interline, co-load, code-share, part charter and enter into block space agreements with other carriers to move freight and service in International (outside the contiguous 48 states) markets as required. Within the Domestic system (the contiguous 48 United States) the use of the above shall be done only: (1) when necessary to expedite or (2) when economically necessary, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties
Therefore, your assertion that there are Scope improvements in the LOA is completely incorrect. The LOA does not change the definition of 'Inernational flights' nor does it in any way alter the ability of the company to interline, co-load, code-share, or part charter and enter into block space agreements with other carriers in the International markets. What it does is offer protections to the company from foreign courts by forcing crewmembers to sign this.
Vote as you see fit, just don't vote based on something that is not true.
Originally Posted by Carlos Abundis
1.) There will be no return to the table before the next CBA.
Originally Posted by Carlos Abundis
2.) Now is the time to accept the improvements in scope and make it as likely as possible that our business grows with OUR PILOTS - not contract foreign pilots - at the controls
5. During the period of the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA assignment, the laws of the United States and the laws of the states within the United States shall at all times apply to the employment relationship between me and Federal Express. Neither the laws of France, China or Hong Kong nor the laws of any other country or territory shall apply to the employment relationship between Federal Express and me.
-and-
7. I shall continue to be a member of the craft or class of fight deck crewmembers of Federal Express currently represented by ALPA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. ALPA will continue to act as my exclusive collective bargaining representative during my assignment at the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA.
-and-
10. No court or agency outside the United States, including those in France, China, or Hong Kong, shall have jurisdiction to consider claims arising out of the employment relationship between Federal Express and myself.
Here is what our CBA says regarding scope:
2. “International flights” are all Company flights which originate from, terminate in or transit the U.S. or its territories via a location outside the contiguous 48 states. International flights also include all flights conducted by any pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List assigned to Foreign Duty Assignment (“FDA”), or Special International Bid Award (“SIBA”).
-and-
3. All Domestic and International revenue flights conducted with aircraft that are owned, leased, or operated by the Company, having a MTOGW of greater than 60,000 lbs., and operated pursuant to the Company’s Airline Operating Certificate or any additional Part 121 Airline Operating Certificate obtained by the Company, shall be operated by pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Flying conducted with aircraft at or under 60,000 lbs.
-and-
4. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, the Company may continue to interline, co-load, code-share, part charter and enter into block space agreements with other carriers to move freight and service in International (outside the contiguous 48 states) markets as required. Within the Domestic system (the contiguous 48 United States) the use of the above shall be done only: (1) when necessary to expedite or (2) when economically necessary, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties
Therefore, your assertion that there are Scope improvements in the LOA is completely incorrect. The LOA does not change the definition of 'Inernational flights' nor does it in any way alter the ability of the company to interline, co-load, code-share, or part charter and enter into block space agreements with other carriers in the International markets. What it does is offer protections to the company from foreign courts by forcing crewmembers to sign this.
Vote as you see fit, just don't vote based on something that is not true.
