Well, as you could expect there were some heated and not so heated comments directed at DW tonight. I thought there were some good points brought up by both sides, and I will add it stayed fairly professional all the way through...

DW stated that we negotiated to get our foot in the door. We want FedEx pilots on our seniority list flying our planes over there(I and I would haste to say, most of us agree).

He went on to say that he would like to have more than what we are getting in the way of a housing allowance, but in the face of having nothing, the 2700 was SOMETHING. He says this is a building block for the future, that if we have something, we can add to it based on profits, cost of living, etc, but if we start from nothing, and go into contract negotiations later, the company will likey reoffer the 2700 again.(make your own opinion on that one...) There were some arguments from the crowd about a B scale for those who go over there.

Sugestions about two seperate LOA's for each FDA...DW said the company may have more power of negotiation over one FDA than the other, so the MEC chose to make it one letter, but once again a building block by establishing something.

STV, well, I asked about this since it is near and dear to my heart as one of those junior guys. The loa states that the stv is in lieu of 24b2

1. Temporary Vacancy Posting
2. A temporary vacancy shall begin and end concurrent with a bid period. Temporary vacancies may not be utilized in a crew position for more than 4 bid periods during any calendar year.
3. A temporary vacancy posting shall specify the crew position(s) from which bids will be accepted and, if applicable, the number of bids which will be awarded at each domicile from which bids are accepted.
4. Temporary vacancies in a crew position shall be posted and awarded separately for each bid period.
5. A temporary vacancy may be utilized only at an existing non-FDA domicile.

well that is what is currently in our contract. No I can't go to an fda via the current contract, I can be sent to any of the other domiciles and junior manned. I can be inversed into siba. Now are some of the provisions under the loa a good deal if you get sent away, yeah, they do give you perdiem on your off days, company hotel, significant other visit(to include children). There is a little more, but the bottom line, through some talking with Tony C and DW, the company wants a way to ensure they can staff the domicile the first two years, and it was negotiated to make it the best for all parties involved. Siba is viewed as too costly and in the case of HKG unproductive.

I think after hearing some of the goals of the MEC, as stepping stones to future benefits, I can see more where they gave toward the companys side. There are also some unknown factors with foriegn governments and rules therin, that may make these domiciles costly to open.

I think the biggest thing I took away is to look at the facts. Reread the LOA. Read the sections that are referenced to be replaced. Read our CBA. Think about if we do shoot down this LOA, are we closing the door to more FedEx pilots flying our planes, or subletting. The LOA is no sparkling jewel, it is something that needs to be polished later, but I would say to relook at the facts and vote how you feel is right. I voted, I haven't changed it yet, but I am going to do some more research when I get some rest.

Flame away, as I'm sure you will

Haywood

 

Thanks for the Recap JB. I was just about to ask for a recap from someone who was there to post it.

 

I was there too, and you summed up my experience as well.. it sucks but we need to consider it a starting point. The alternative could be ugly and cost us more in the long run.

 

A 'stepping stone' of crap leaves a mess on your shoe and it smells bad.

There are too many steps back in this POS 'stepping stone'.

Vpte NO!

 

Were you at the meeting? It's easy to sit back and call BS on things but when you hear the info and the tone in person, it's easier to understand the position we are in VS the company. That is, no leverage. Everyone seems to have a part they hate about it, but that's life. We can't have everything so we have to give some to get some. Ask anyone from Polar or ATI how far they got with what they wanted.

I don't like the LOA either but 2700 a month is better than zero.

 

Well, not quite. If you are one of the people that the company claims this LOA was NOT negotiated for - then 2700 for someone comes with a chance of STV for yourself.

All the risk with no return = NO!

 

JB -

Where as it is not where it should be I am with you and I want the flying to stay with us. I don't want us to start from square one with this again in contract negotiations. Most importantly people need to go to the meeting and get information and then vote. Overall I think it is worth it to keep the flying with us and we can improve upon it in two years. This cost us nothing and it is going to open. Being junior, I'll take this with Hong Kong over CAN anytime. Paris with the money I'll take as well.

On a side note I asked ten buds at my squadron who would come to Fedex if they were asked but had to go to Paris on narrowbody pay and 7 out of 10 said for three years- H^$# Yes.

Either way Vote.

 

If you were a no voter, then went to the meeting, what was said that would make you consider voting yes? Do you think, by listening to our reps at the meeting, if the LOA does not pass, that the company will "farm" out the flying? What other negatives were addressed with the possibility of the LOA not passing?

We already have an idea of the negatives if it does pass.

 

We either believe Jack or we don't, where did he say they will farm out the flying? Why don't they publish some of this snake oil so that the rest of us will be convinced. So invol STV are something the company thinks they might need, at least someone finally said it.

 

i wish you guys would attend a meeting and if u can't call the union office or rep with your questions..don't get all your info from this board...i have to say a lot of guys are starting to change their votes to yes after doing one or the other...