Mentioned why not two LOA's. The company wanted two. NC felt one would be better. They felt the differences between LOA's could split the pilot group. (How come those guys get this and we don't? "the have and have nots") Paris would be easier to fill than HKG.

Scope impovement

From what I got out of the explanation, the improvement is in the individual contract between the pilot and the company that you have to sign. It's not a legal improvement but a precedent improvement. The company still feels that the RLA doesn't apply overseas since the only court action on record is in one single Federal District affirmation of that. But by signing a contract with the company saying that each individual is being covered by the RLA then that improves our scope protection. I'm still kind of fuzzy on that explanation, but it at least was one.

 

captain mark-
We really have to do something about that pompous avatar of yours!!...
Los1

 

Wow! Yes, yes; lets capitulate on every demand the company has for the sake of flying they will eventually outsource anyway. It is, after all, a U.S. company we're talking about.

Sheep!

Sorry, this is ONLY about money, and they are not offering enough to expose yourself to life in a foreign country.

 

One of the things to consider with this is that it was/is a negotiation. We have to give something and they have to give something. DW said it straight out, he wanted more, the company wasn't willing. It is a step in the direction of getting US, FedEx pilots, flying our planes. The STV is a means for the company to ensure that when it places 10 million dollars on the pass line, it has the any craps covered just in case. If they invest in opening this domicile, using/hiring our and new pilots, the company has to ensure that if they don't have enough pilots qualified, that they can cover these lines. What happens to FedEx's credibility in a push in new market, if our pilots can't/won't fly the lines.

I am 30 from the bottom on the bus, the STV thing is very near and dear to my heart. I argued it at the meeting and spoke with DW, Tony C, and the other reps about it, in depth while I was there. I made the point that if anyone gets inversed, I'll be him, it's that simple. The STV was a give on the unions behalf to ensure the flying get's done. Would I rather see that go as siba, absolutely, then my days off are just that, mine. I don't agree with the STV, it by far is my biggest beef with this LOA. Does this LOA give us what we want, no, but it is a start. It can be built upon. I think that the mass emails and general tone in what we see here and on our FCIF, inbox from the union, convey something in an us vs. them, you need to vote this attitude. I though DW did a good job explaining the unions objective, getting MORE FedEx pilot's on property, flying FedEx planes, and protecting our interests. This LOA is far from being a good one IMHO, but it is something to work from. I encorage those of you that feel emotionally charged by this to attend a meeting, or pick up the phone and call your rep. Read the LOA and CBA, get smart on what part is pi$$ing you off, and get an answer, in a phone call or in person. You may also get some insight to why the LOA is written the way it is.

I was dead set against the LOA(for the STV), I voted no, but I can say, I am on the fence now after attending the meeting. Think about what is important, and the best way to attain that(if it is even attainable). I'm not trying to get you to change your vote, but I encourage you to talk to someone and read about it before you set yourself in stone.

Flame away...

 

i agree...hence i have not voted yes..yet

 

I got in to the AOC late last night and went to the meeting and listened to several questions fielded by DW, CB and MA. The idea that this flying will be contracted out, farmed out, given to foreign pilots has no substance with me and is a doom-and-gloom scenario. DW said last night that he doesn't know what the company will do if we turn down this LOA. They could come back with another offer but he asked who wants to take that chance?

I do. This idea of signing a binding LOA and then fix it years later during the next contract negotiations is faulty logic at best. Many of the pilots I sat next to were against the LOA and have voted no but didn't ask questions.

I spoke with some of the MEC reps after the meeting and it was determined after reviewing the LOA that 2 years at the FDA is the MINIMUM. You will have to bid during a vacancy bid, wait for the bid to close, be awarded something on that bid, wait for the training letter to come out and then go to training. There is a likely chance that your "2 year adventure" will in fact be a 3 -3.5 year adventure as you time your exit based on the availability of a vacancy bid and where you end up on the training letter after the bid closes.

On a sidenote I was just in HKG on a layover. I picked up the local newspaper and 3-4 year old 3-series BMWs in HKG go for the same as new ones in the states. Not that you need a 3-series while in HKG but I am familiar with the market value of that car, both new and used, so I use it as an example. Someone posted previously on another thread the cost of registration, tags and insurance for a car in HKG is so expensive that it's not a realistic option for a temporary assignment.

I spoke with someone who just moved their household goods into storage. Unless you plan to move all of your stuff yourselves get ready for sticker shock. The proper way to move and store your household goods is to have them properly containerized and moved to a bonded, climate contriolled warehouse. $10K is a good starting number for that plus annual storage each subsequent year. And where are your cars and boats going to be during your time in the FDA? I've stored cars in climate controlled storage and in mini-warehouses. Trust me, if you have anything of value and this includes your household goods, don't put them in a tin or concrete block mini-warehouse unless you want to come home and start crying. Large temperature swings and humidity will do their work on your belongings while your away.

The people I envision the company targeting to go over to these LOA's are empty nesters or young people with relatively no tangible assets or who are willing to liquidate all assets. You factor in the costs of doing that with market timing, etc.

My vote stands at no. I'm a senior widebody F/O with 2 kids and working spouse and this FDA is not an option for me. I am not carrying over any emotion from the age 60 issue and honestly have never tied the two together. I applaud the MEC for the hard work they have done in the past and the contract we achieved. My opinions are not emotional but I feel I am reasonably intelligent and capable of looking at this LOA as a business decision. My business decision is to vote no and see where the chips fall.

 

It's great to see that everyone "knows what the company will do"....
They won't contract out the flying? Based on what?

They will come back to the table and offer more....again...how do we know that?

The bottom line is that most of the guys against this thing have no intention of ever going over there. The worst thing that would happen is a 1 month STV. Most guys are commuters around here..They are already gone 2 weeks a month....we are talking about an additional 2 weeks of your life that could open the door to some huge numbers being added to our seniority list. I'll take an STV if it comes up. One month in a hotel in Paris...have Grandma and Grandpa take care of the kids and my wife and I have a month to check out Paris. Not a bad deal. The LOA is far from perfect, if it turns out to be a really bad deal, fix it in the next CBA after we are doing all of the flying. That's when we can improve this. Go to the meetings with an open mind and think long term. Like I said before, I was a no vote and the meetings changed my tune.

 

That's the problem, I don't see this being a NEGOTIATION at all. What did we have available to give up? Sorry, just free will and rigs.

We were told the schooling was a show stopper. Well then government rates and a Euro cola should have been a show stopper for us.

If the STV's were our idea (as in BC) then it appears to be way off base with the membership. This LOA if voted down may be a reality check, but I still think it will pass.

 

OK purpledriver, will you take my DEC SVT and the one 6 months later during my kids birthdays.

SVT is a huge giveback but it isn't the only problem I have with this LOA.

This fortune 200 company stands to make millions on these FDA"S and they want us to help pay for it.

I have been to 2 meetings prior to last night and the union reps are using scare tactics to get us to vote for this.

As for fixing this in 2 years, how long did it take to get a new contract? That means we will be under this LOA for at least 4 years. And by the way with SVT the company can add an aircraft type to these FDA'S and keep the intl freight flying. There goes our leverage during the next round of talks.

Fedex can't provide the reliability that our customers are used to if they use non Fedex pilots flying under French laws. That is our biggest bargaining chip in 2 years, If we sign this LOA all of that is gone.

Still voting No and still trying to ghange as many yes as I can.

 

From what I got, the big negotiation was to keep FedEx pilots in FedEx planes flying this stuff. That was negotiation to keep growth in our company for us. The school and cola relates to a choice(as it was put), you don't have to bid the fda. The NC wanted to get us more, the company said no. The company cannot choose which pilots go over(so if they pony up for schools, what is the cost for a pilot who is single vice someone who is married with seven kids). So the company bites the cost to send a pilot over there...that is the difference between what is offered to the execs...FedEx chooses who goes. They can limit their cost by that alone. Our seniority list dictates who gets to go, so they have to put a salary cap on the home team to ensure cost effectiveness.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the STV, I don't think we got enough, but I do see potential to get more jobs for pilots at fedex(seniority for all), I see potential that as these FDA's do well to negotiate better, and there is a tax break(granted not as good as the one the subic guys/gals got, but like DW said, that was a one time thing, and subic is closing, so you really can't compare the taxes).

I just think that DW put this out there, that the LOA is to get more jobs for us and protect that flying. Something to think about. I haven't changed my vote, although, I am considering it.

Once again...flame on