New website w/ FDA LOA info
08-06-2007, 05:40 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: A300 CAP FDX
Posts: 287
bs
Originally Posted by Laker
Not that it makes it any better, but that "concession" is already in the CBA under a different name, Temporary Vacancies.
08-06-2007, 05:50 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
We concede First Class Tickets.
We concede our Foreign Income Exclusion.
We concede Every 14 months for every six months.
We concede max of 4 bid period per year (for TV) to max of 42 months per FDA for STV.
We concede two weeks off (where you want it) every month.
We concede our Foreign Income Exclusion.
We concede Every 14 months for every six months.
We concede max of 4 bid period per year (for TV) to max of 42 months per FDA for STV.
We concede two weeks off (where you want it) every month.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 08-06-2007 at 06:00 PM.
08-06-2007, 06:12 PM
#24
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by AFW_MD11
concede - give over; surrender or relinquish to the physical control of another; give way, yield
concession - the act of conceding or yielding, as a right, privelege.....
Please do "help out a little there".......it won't take you much time because it'll be a very short list.
I have been asking for people to point out all the "concessions" for me, but so far the only thing that anyone has even half-way convinced me fits the definition is:
If, under the LOA, a person chooses Option #1 - 3 year option - current CBA option then they "concede":
1. the non-vol portion (and only the non-vol portion) of STV (the STV itself is NOT a concession - it's a different mechanism, compensated differently than anything in our contract now, designed to be used if all the permanent vacancies are not filled - different, not concessionary - don't care how you try to spin it)
2. the "FDA Bonus" - amount of $$ unknown/at company's discretion anyway - so they might use $0.00 and even this wouldn't be a "concession"
That's it for the "concessions list" - under Option #1 - you get EVERYTHNING in the current CBA move package (minus #1 and #2 above)
Not saying this option is adequate to move over there with your family and all your stuff and live there, but we aren't giving up anything that we have now under the current CBA - are we? show me what if we are - choosing Option #1 that is.
The LOA also provides Option #2 - the 2 year Enhanced Option.
This option is provided IN ADDITION to our current CBA option.
The merits of the Enhanced Option stand on their own (woefully inadequate in my estimation) but since we RETAIN THE RIGHT not to select this option - we are not "yielding" or "giving up" any of our rights under the current CBA unless we voluntarily select the Enhanced Option - so not concessionary because you can vote FOR the LOA and not select the Enhanced Option and not have "conceded" anything while still approving the LOA.
So, you can't list any of the Enhanced Option items as "concessionary" items because we don't concede that we have to accept any of them.
So, please, post the short list of concessions and move on to determining what in this LOA is enough of a GAIN to vote for - or NOT enough of a GAIN and vote against it.
It really is getting old to read on here about how this thing is "chocked full of concessions and givebacks"
I agree totally that it is inadequate for anyone with a family to elect to bid either HKG or CDG under this LOA, but not concessionary......
.....this may have been what DW meant on his latest message line......inaccurate information......not using terms in their proper context that always have negative connotations - "concessionary" - "givebacks".......and no one being able to hold the people using the terms accountable because they're anonymous on here.
concession - the act of conceding or yielding, as a right, privelege.....
Please do "help out a little there".......it won't take you much time because it'll be a very short list.
I have been asking for people to point out all the "concessions" for me, but so far the only thing that anyone has even half-way convinced me fits the definition is:
If, under the LOA, a person chooses Option #1 - 3 year option - current CBA option then they "concede":
1. the non-vol portion (and only the non-vol portion) of STV (the STV itself is NOT a concession - it's a different mechanism, compensated differently than anything in our contract now, designed to be used if all the permanent vacancies are not filled - different, not concessionary - don't care how you try to spin it)
2. the "FDA Bonus" - amount of $$ unknown/at company's discretion anyway - so they might use $0.00 and even this wouldn't be a "concession"
That's it for the "concessions list" - under Option #1 - you get EVERYTHNING in the current CBA move package (minus #1 and #2 above)
Not saying this option is adequate to move over there with your family and all your stuff and live there, but we aren't giving up anything that we have now under the current CBA - are we? show me what if we are - choosing Option #1 that is.
The LOA also provides Option #2 - the 2 year Enhanced Option.
This option is provided IN ADDITION to our current CBA option.
The merits of the Enhanced Option stand on their own (woefully inadequate in my estimation) but since we RETAIN THE RIGHT not to select this option - we are not "yielding" or "giving up" any of our rights under the current CBA unless we voluntarily select the Enhanced Option - so not concessionary because you can vote FOR the LOA and not select the Enhanced Option and not have "conceded" anything while still approving the LOA.
So, you can't list any of the Enhanced Option items as "concessionary" items because we don't concede that we have to accept any of them.
So, please, post the short list of concessions and move on to determining what in this LOA is enough of a GAIN to vote for - or NOT enough of a GAIN and vote against it.
It really is getting old to read on here about how this thing is "chocked full of concessions and givebacks"
I agree totally that it is inadequate for anyone with a family to elect to bid either HKG or CDG under this LOA, but not concessionary......
.....this may have been what DW meant on his latest message line......inaccurate information......not using terms in their proper context that always have negative connotations - "concessionary" - "givebacks".......and no one being able to hold the people using the terms accountable because they're anonymous on here.
Uhhh, company's discretion? Might use "zero"?
That isn't exactly what the CBA says. This is:
Sec 6.E.1.e.iv. "If the Company and the Association disagree as to the amount of an FDA bonus, if any, the disagreement may be submitted for resolution to the System Board. The System Board shall lack jurisdiction to establish FDA bonuses in excess of the maximums established in Section 6.E.1.e.ii. (above). "
I would think that conceding one's standard of living would count. Wouldn't it?
Conceding my seniority to someone junior, or not even hired yet, to take a position that I would like, would count. Wouldn't it?
Last edited by Busboy; 08-06-2007 at 07:31 PM.
08-06-2007, 06:15 PM
#25
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by a300fr8dog
CBA says you can NOT be involuntarily sent to an FDA on a Temp. Vacancy Basis. 9 posts? YGTBSM, poser!
08-06-2007, 06:22 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: A300 CAP FDX
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by Laker
Touchy, Touchy! MD11Fr8Dog said that the loss of TAFB was a concession. I was simply pointing out that a temporary vacancy already allows the company to send you without TAFB. That was the only comparison drawn.
quibble, verb
To evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections.
Last edited by a300fr8dog; 08-06-2007 at 06:40 PM. Reason: info added
08-06-2007, 06:29 PM
#27
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by a300fr8dog
CBA says you can NOT be involuntarily sent to an FDA on a Temp. Vacancy Basis. 9 posts? YGTBSM, poser!
Touchy, Touchy! MD11Fr8Dog said that the loss of TAFB was a concession. I was simply pointing out that a temporary vacancy already allows the company to send you without TAFB. That was the only comparison drawn.
How about I point out, again, for the umteenth time, that is a BS comparison. Apples and oranges. That means it is not a relevant comparison!!!!!!!
Originally Posted by a300fr8dog
CBA says you can NOT be involuntarily sent to an FDA on a Temp. Vacancy Basis. 9 posts? YGTBSM, poser!
Touchy, Touchy! MD11Fr8Dog said that the loss of TAFB was a concession. I was simply pointing out that a temporary vacancy already allows the company to send you without TAFB. That was the only comparison drawn.
How about I point out, again, for the umteenth time, that is a BS comparison. Apples and oranges. That means it is not a relevant comparison!!!!!!!
08-06-2007, 06:58 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by hawkeye77
I have looked for the STV side letter on ALPA web site. Has anybody, but the MEC, seen the side letter?
I wonder if it will contain the word "intent".
08-06-2007, 07:22 PM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 478
AFW,
If you can show me an example of how Option #1 can possibly remain a realistic option for anyone, then I'll concede
your point. But in light of the reality of what it costs to live in these places, Option #1 is, in reality, a non-option. It's clever, yes, but the company, as you have, can conveniently point to option #1 and say: "Look, you still have the option to select the current CBA". Right.
Option #1 is a farce. Option #1 reminds me of DPs that continue to be flown. Well actually, the "enhanced option" reminds me of the DP.
Due to the financial requirements for relief in these areas, nobody could possibly bid these FDAs without the housing allowance. So the company carefully crafts the language of the LOA to leave us a "choice". Then when Section 6 inevitably comes open for negotiation in 2010, the baseline will be the LOA, not the current section 6 language, because "nobody selected it".
The truth is, you can't make the move to either CDG or HKG without the housing allowance and therefore you must C-O-N-C-E-D-E everything in section 6 in order to be able to have a pot to pi$s in.
As if a blanket GT waiver, STV, mandatory tax equalization, weren't enough of a concession for you, you want to quibble over a ridiculous example of bad semantics.
If you can show me an example of how Option #1 can possibly remain a realistic option for anyone, then I'll concede
your point. But in light of the reality of what it costs to live in these places, Option #1 is, in reality, a non-option. It's clever, yes, but the company, as you have, can conveniently point to option #1 and say: "Look, you still have the option to select the current CBA". Right. Option #1 is a farce. Option #1 reminds me of DPs that continue to be flown. Well actually, the "enhanced option" reminds me of the DP.
Due to the financial requirements for relief in these areas, nobody could possibly bid these FDAs without the housing allowance. So the company carefully crafts the language of the LOA to leave us a "choice". Then when Section 6 inevitably comes open for negotiation in 2010, the baseline will be the LOA, not the current section 6 language, because "nobody selected it".
The truth is, you can't make the move to either CDG or HKG without the housing allowance and therefore you must C-O-N-C-E-D-E everything in section 6 in order to be able to have a pot to pi$s in.
As if a blanket GT waiver, STV, mandatory tax equalization, weren't enough of a concession for you, you want to quibble over a ridiculous example of bad semantics.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
