MaydayMark

This is where BC says, "Don't bid it." And others say,"If you think you can do better then run for union office yourself." Where do we get such people?

I know that always makes me feel better inside ...

fdxmd11fo

$32,400.00 per year that the monthly allowance totals, amounts to a 21.6% pay premium for a sixth year FO earning $150,000.00 annually, and 14.4% for a twelfth year Captain earning $225,000.00. By any measure those percentages represent quantifiable economic gain that is quite substantial. In fact, the 21.6% pay premium for a First Officer exceeds the cumulative pay raises of the entire 2006 Agreement on a per year basis.

What about the $80,000 move package that I have to give up in order to get this "gain".

This is a cost neutral deal fro Fedex and BC just Pi$$id on me and told me it is raining

Still a No vote and trying to turn as many yes votes as I can

applefritter

Looks like JL and BC are doing that too. If they keep digging like this, FedEx won't have to open up a FDA in China. The company can just drop the packages in the hole and catch them on the other side.

FDXLAG

Went to Pilot.FEDEX.Com to look for my personal copy. Couldn't find it. Took me a while to realize that this wasn't company propaganda. It so hard to tell anymore.

MD11Fr8Dog

Nothing NEW in the letter from BC other than an effort to marginalize anyone that is vocal about the LOA, but then he goes on to say about scheduling/optimizer issues -

Bob, you can't have it both ways!

Overnitefr8

If this gets voted in, then yes, I honestly feel the LOA will significantly impose a hardship. I'm in the bottom 5% of the Airbus Captains list. Don't feel like being inversed into an STV. Do the Chinese celebrate Christmas? I'm sure that's when I'd be going.

kwri10s

Is it just me or were we missing a point. He said it "I could give you many well-substantiated reasons to do so, but in the interest of brevity I’ll limit myself to three important ones." Then he lists $2700 per month and a brief mention of Scope. That's only two reasons or did I miss one?

I still don't see the scope improvement. But then again, I didn't see the cornerstone scope improvement in the contract either.

MD11Fr8Dog

Hmmm, I see the problem! Since BC thinks 2 = 3, he must also think the value of the TA is more than it actually is!

HerkyBird

<< Those who post on the internet found expensive Hong Kong apartments and asserted those prices are the norm. What is more troubling, however, is that people would rather believe the internet chat boards than rationally discuss the matter with their Association representatives. >>

Actually, several of our pilots have done EXACTLY THAT, repeatedly, and they are still waiting for an answer. And the two pilots (TJ and TA) who DID hear back from Tangled Webb, our Union President, were answered with threats.

<< For the record, we assumed a housing contribution of $2,000.00 per month per pilot. >>

Who's stupid enough to pay $2,000/mo. in RENT?

<< Adding the $2,700.00 per month contribution from the Company makes $4,700.00 per month available for housing expenses (rent, utilities, internet). There are very nice housing accommodations available in both Hong Kong and Paris at that amount. >>

He doesn't mention that utilities cost double the U.S. average, but anyway, that housing is so far out of town that you'll need that car that FedEx is NOT shipping in for you.

<< It is certainly inarguable that ANC isn’t for everyone, and if MEM worked well for everyone I doubt we would have upwards of 65% commuters in that base. If CDG and/or HKG don’t work well for your situation, I recommend you don’t bid them. >>

He is ignoring the fact that pilots in CDG/HKG will NOT be allowed to commute in from someplace with cheaper housing, like MEM/ANC/LAX pilots can! And I guarantee you, the scheduling computer will be programmed with no more than 4 days off between trips, and trip trades/drops to increase contiguous days off will be disapproved.

<< In fact, the 21.6% pay premium for a First Officer exceeds the cumulative pay raises of the entire 2006 Agreement on a per year basis. >>

This would only be true if every F/O in the system could eventually be forced to relocate long-term to HKG/CDG. Since this IS NOT the case, this is a false argument.

<< The approval of this LOA further memorializes this flying under our Agreement and the Railway Labor Act. I know you understand the importance of that. >>

Scope was already locked up in our CBA; in fact, scope improvements were touted as "a major gain for us", so I don't see why it needed "further memorialization." In fact, scope isn't even mentioned in the LOA. If you underline something in a legally binding document, it doesn't become more legally binding. It's either in there, or it isn't. Underlining ("further memorialization") is just eye candy, or judgment morphine, or "Soylent Green" (rent the movie, Charleston Heston's in it).

<< The rejection of something as straightforward as an LOA that only adds to our current Agreement and gives up nothing can only empower the “hawks” on the management side. >>

Gives up NOTHING -- are you kidding me? How about giving up: 12,500-lb. household goods shipment, of which 1,500 lbs. goes by air; three annual 1,000-lb. shipments; monthly 100-lb. shipments; a car shipment; and how about giving up the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion OF MORE THAN 80 GRAND?

<< ... but are intending to vote “no” ... then know you are doing irreparable damage to this process and depriving the pilots who will bid these bases anyway of, at the least, tax equalization. >>

He's overlooking the fact that NOBODY "will bid these bases anyway" under the present tax structure. Absolutely NOBODY will bid to go to CDG or HKG and pay those taxes ON TOP OF U.S. taxes.

<< I must admit though, to being more than a little concerned about the ability of a vocal minority to drive this group into the angry and emotional state in which we are currently entrapped. >>

He means Subic pilots ... the same ones who were so tight about not flying overtime, that FDX had to send pilots out from MEM, at a cost that sometimes went to more than $50K/month/pilot, to cover some of our trips. Without this "vocal minority", he'd still be sitting at the negotiating table. Without our "vocal dissent", the company would need a rake to pull in all the money they'd have saved over our contract that went into effect last year.

BrownGirls YUM

And if this were an accurate statement of the overall gain this LOA provides, I'd be all for it. Well, actually I'd be disappointed at how silly the small number is in light of actual living costs, but I'd see the gain for what it is. He fails to mention the substantial concessions made in this aggreement on which these "gains" are contingent. Swing and a miss.


I was really hoping he would bring something to light here which could give me the same "moment of clarity" that seems to have swept Prez off his feet. That's all he's got? "I know you understand the importance of that?" This certainly reaffirms my understanding that this document does zero to further "memorialize" jack squat. He looks at a fast ball straight down the pipe for strike two.




The gall for him to say the meager "improvements" come at no price is amazing if not insulting. To suggest that rejecting such a pitiful offer so that we look like cooperative little boys and girls is laughable. Does he not recall the overwhelming support we gave them last year? What he doesn't understand here is those who are the most vocal critics on this subject, were his most stalwart supporters throughout the last contract negotiations. Does he not recall the overwhelming margin on which the TLA was voted in? This is pure BS. Strike three. Get us someone else to negotiate for us. Even Tony Gwynn knew when to hang up his cleats.


If this is all he can come up with, then my suspicions are substantiated. They didn't give a rip about this LOA. He's happy to make a stand on the 777 pay rates....perhaps there really is some sort of drug deal in the works tied to that. I wasn't much a conspiracty theorist, just thought apathy, negligence or incompetence prevailed at the table on this one. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but if I sit back for a moment and look at who stands to gain on the 777 issue versus who gets thrown into the volcano crater on this LOA, I wonder if there isn't something to what the conspiracy speculators are saying.


I’ll leave you with this business axiom from a good friend of mine,

"...and the horse you rode in on!"