New website w/ FDA LOA info
08-07-2007, 08:42 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by AFW_MD11
I TOTALLY agree with you on this point. That's why I have gone back and forth on support/non-support.
I believe that this IS the key issue with this entire LOA - "strategically" - "long-term"
Having said that, you are correct, you will not find any specific wording in the LOA (or the Attachment A letter) that says anything to the affect of - "we, the company, agree to use only FedEx pilots to fly this freight overseas from this day forward....." - I have been looking for it myself from day one, and have concluded - it is NOT there.
I don't even know what all the legal ramifications/possibilities of such language would be -
This issue is why the company AND the union are having such difficulty in "pleading their cases" to the masses.
The bottom line is that it boils down to an issue of trust - and that is taboo when it comes to (traditional/historical) company/union relationships.
I know I'm gonna take a lot of flak for the following statement, but it's what I believe so.........
I think that our company and union are trying to get our pilot group to understand that TRUST is the long-term/strategic goal that they are both working towards.
And, if you don't TRUST the company or the union when they say that this whole thing is geared towards OUR PILOTS flying FRED'S FREIGHT all over the world........then you're gonna have to vote no.
If you trust them, that, strategically/long-term it "secures the flying for US", then you should vote yes.
That's basically what it has all boiled down to for me - strategic/long-term picture/incremental gains and trust.......vs.......tactical advantage now/short-term picture and mistrust.
(long answer to say, I agree - it's not written in there anywhere)
I believe that this IS the key issue with this entire LOA - "strategically" - "long-term"
Having said that, you are correct, you will not find any specific wording in the LOA (or the Attachment A letter) that says anything to the affect of - "we, the company, agree to use only FedEx pilots to fly this freight overseas from this day forward....." - I have been looking for it myself from day one, and have concluded - it is NOT there.
I don't even know what all the legal ramifications/possibilities of such language would be -
ie
. can they even put something like that in an agreement that applies internationally - ??? I'm not a lawyer, I don't known.This issue is why the company AND the union are having such difficulty in "pleading their cases" to the masses.
The bottom line is that it boils down to an issue of trust - and that is taboo when it comes to (traditional/historical) company/union relationships.
I know I'm gonna take a lot of flak for the following statement, but it's what I believe so.........
I think that our company and union are trying to get our pilot group to understand that TRUST is the long-term/strategic goal that they are both working towards.
And, if you don't TRUST the company or the union when they say that this whole thing is geared towards OUR PILOTS flying FRED'S FREIGHT all over the world........then you're gonna have to vote no.
If you trust them, that, strategically/long-term it "secures the flying for US", then you should vote yes.
That's basically what it has all boiled down to for me - strategic/long-term picture/incremental gains and trust.......vs.......tactical advantage now/short-term picture and mistrust.
(long answer to say, I agree - it's not written in there anywhere)
It is not really a trust/mistrust issue, nor should it be. It is simply a contractual business agreement. I trust my knowledge of the Company - I understand their goals. I'm becoming uncertain of the Union. However, that does not impact weighing the merits of a presented proposal. It simply is what it is.
If the enhancements for the Company provided by the LOA and Attachment A provided the incentive for the Company to ensure FedEx Pilots are flying the freight, it would not have been to difficult to put it in writing through Scope amendment. They chose not to do that. As a result, Scope and Recognition remain exactly as they currently exist. No one in that room, from either side, can make a verbal statement or promise that can be assured of becoming fact. The reality is that if it is not written, it does not really exist.
It has already been made clear from both JL and the recent ALPA comm. that if this is voted down, they believe it will still be FedEx guys flying the freight. That is, obviously, with no changes to Scope.
So, when Scope enhancements, real and perceived, depart the pattern, other factors then need to determine the yes/no vote. This thing may still be worth a yes vote. Maybe not.
Not trying to get stuck on Scope. I don't like that, in my opinion, ALPA is doing what should be the Company's job of misrepresenting enhancements as reality, when they are not. I just would prefer to see votes occurring based on the actual wording of the LOA and attachment, not on perceptions or beliefs of what lies between the lines.
Sorry for rambling.
08-07-2007, 09:02 PM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
42GO,
You must just be doing day turns--you know--seeing daylight, avoiding circadian disruptions, or generally healthy living.
In any case--keep reading. I'll have you cussin' those over 60 ba$tards in no time!
(just kidding--beers on me when I get displaced off the mail 727 mail runs....)
You must just be doing day turns--you know--seeing daylight, avoiding circadian disruptions, or generally healthy living.
In any case--keep reading. I'll have you cussin' those over 60 ba$tards in no time!
(just kidding--beers on me when I get displaced off the mail 727 mail runs....)
08-07-2007, 09:10 PM
#63
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Toccata
Thanks for the response. I was truly hoping you would have found actual contractual Scope/Recognition enhancement.
It is not really a trust/mistrust issue, nor should it be. It is simply a contractual business agreement. I trust my knowledge of the Company - I understand their goals. I'm becoming uncertain of the Union. However, that does not impact weighing the merits of a presented proposal. It simply is what it is.
If the enhancements for the Company provided by the LOA and Attachment A provided the incentive for the Company to ensure FedEx Pilots are flying the freight, it would not have been to difficult to put it in writing through Scope amendment. They chose not to do that. As a result, Scope and Recognition remain exactly as they currently exist. No one in that room, from either side, can make a verbal statement or promise that can be assured of becoming fact. The reality is that if it is not written, it does not really exist.
It has already been made clear from both JL and the recent ALPA comm. that if this is voted down, they believe it will still be FedEx guys flying the freight. That is, obviously, with no changes to Scope.
So, when Scope enhancements, real and perceived, depart the pattern, other factors then need to determine the yes/no vote. This thing may still be worth a yes vote. Maybe not.
Not trying to get stuck on Scope. I don't like that, in my opinion, ALPA is doing what should be the Company's job of misrepresenting enhancements as reality, when they are not. I just would prefer to see votes occurring based on the actual wording of the LOA and attachment, not on perceptions or beliefs of what lies between the lines.
Sorry for rambling.
It is not really a trust/mistrust issue, nor should it be. It is simply a contractual business agreement. I trust my knowledge of the Company - I understand their goals. I'm becoming uncertain of the Union. However, that does not impact weighing the merits of a presented proposal. It simply is what it is.
If the enhancements for the Company provided by the LOA and Attachment A provided the incentive for the Company to ensure FedEx Pilots are flying the freight, it would not have been to difficult to put it in writing through Scope amendment. They chose not to do that. As a result, Scope and Recognition remain exactly as they currently exist. No one in that room, from either side, can make a verbal statement or promise that can be assured of becoming fact. The reality is that if it is not written, it does not really exist.
It has already been made clear from both JL and the recent ALPA comm. that if this is voted down, they believe it will still be FedEx guys flying the freight. That is, obviously, with no changes to Scope.
So, when Scope enhancements, real and perceived, depart the pattern, other factors then need to determine the yes/no vote. This thing may still be worth a yes vote. Maybe not.
Not trying to get stuck on Scope. I don't like that, in my opinion, ALPA is doing what should be the Company's job of misrepresenting enhancements as reality, when they are not. I just would prefer to see votes occurring based on the actual wording of the LOA and attachment, not on perceptions or beliefs of what lies between the lines.
Sorry for rambling.
These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:
3. I acknowledge that my duties as a pilot assigned to the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA shall be performed on Federal Express aircraft registered in the United States and operated within the Federal Express worldwide route system.
Taking those two lines together, and the fact that the agreement is between the company, the pilot, and the union, the implication would be that the duties of any pilot assigned to the FDA will be performed on Federal Express aircraft, etc.?
That, if correct, would be an enhancement, since our scope clause says only that flying on FedEx planes will be flown by line holders. Essentially that would mean that they could not farm out this flying. Which is the union's contention.
Or, maybe I had one too many stouts tonight.
08-08-2007, 03:34 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,193
Originally Posted by Laker
I have been working hard to find the scope enhancements touted by the union, too. The only thing I have found is these two statements from the Attachment A letter.
These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:
3. I acknowledge that my duties as a pilot assigned to the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA shall be performed on Federal Express aircraft registered in the United States and operated within the Federal Express worldwide route system.
Taking those two lines together, and the fact that the agreement is between the company, the pilot, and the union, the implication would be that the duties of any pilot assigned to the FDA will be performed on Federal Express aircraft, etc.?
That, if correct, would be an enhancement, since our scope clause says only that flying on FedEx planes will be flown by line holders. Essentially that would mean that they could not farm out this flying. Which is the union's contention.
Or, maybe I had one too many stouts tonight.
These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:
3. I acknowledge that my duties as a pilot assigned to the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA shall be performed on Federal Express aircraft registered in the United States and operated within the Federal Express worldwide route system.
Taking those two lines together, and the fact that the agreement is between the company, the pilot, and the union, the implication would be that the duties of any pilot assigned to the FDA will be performed on Federal Express aircraft, etc.?
That, if correct, would be an enhancement, since our scope clause says only that flying on FedEx planes will be flown by line holders. Essentially that would mean that they could not farm out this flying. Which is the union's contention.
Or, maybe I had one too many stouts tonight.
"F -"
There is no increase in scope.
We really need to just debate with the facts as written.
If the company is truly willing to agree to an increase in scope, then ask them to add specific language to that affect.
If they aren't willing to add the specific language, then please stop telling people they are agreeing to an increase in scope.
Is that really too difficult to understand?
Why do we allow scope clauses to be so nebulously written, and then make so many chest pounding comments about how great they are?
08-08-2007, 05:06 AM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: DC10 Captain
Posts: 284
Originally Posted by Laker
I have been working hard to find the scope enhancements touted by the union, too.
If so, are we 'advancing backwards' to depending (and hoping) on the benevolence of the Company? (We never retreat, we just charge backwards.....) If our union believes so, is that good enough? Are they held accountable for "Well, we thought they would follow through with what they said they were going to do.....".
Might as well go back to the FCH and FAB days. I miss Barksdale.
08-08-2007, 07:46 AM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 1,395
Originally Posted by Laker
3. I acknowledge that my duties as a pilot assigned to the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA shall be performed on Federal Express aircraft registered in the United States and operated within the Federal Express worldwide route system.
Taking those two lines together, and the fact that the agreement is between the company, the pilot, and the union, the implication would be that the duties of any pilot assigned to the FDA will be performed on Federal Express aircraft, etc.?
Taking those two lines together, and the fact that the agreement is between the company, the pilot, and the union, the implication would be that the duties of any pilot assigned to the FDA will be performed on Federal Express aircraft, etc.?
08-08-2007, 10:26 AM
#68
On Reserve
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by Toccata
The last part of your sentence is that "trust" issue. If you want to trust the union, than we have some scope enhancements, even though no enhancements were crafted as a part of the proposed legal contract put before us. Even if you believe, or hope, that the union has knowledge they cannot disclose to us for some reason, do you trust the company to make good on something when they are not contractually required to do so? Indefinitely?
If so, are we 'advancing backwards' to depending (and hoping) on the benevolence of the Company? (We never retreat, we just charge backwards.....) If our union believes so, is that good enough? Are they held accountable for "Well, we thought they would follow through with what they said they were going to do.....".
Might as well go back to the FCH and FAB days. I miss Barksdale.
If so, are we 'advancing backwards' to depending (and hoping) on the benevolence of the Company? (We never retreat, we just charge backwards.....) If our union believes so, is that good enough? Are they held accountable for "Well, we thought they would follow through with what they said they were going to do.....".
Might as well go back to the FCH and FAB days. I miss Barksdale.
I have friends on the MEC, I know a lot of you do, too. They are men of integrity. Do you think that they are lying to you? What would be the reason for that? The theory that DW is trying to go national, if you believe it, only covers one member of the MEC. Personally, I think that they believe there are "enhancements" to scope. So, why do they think so? I can't argue with the multitudes of posters decrying the lack of information coming out of the union, but if they don't believe what they are selling, we have a much larger problem than a substandard LOA, and probably will never see anything better. I can't help but want to find whatever it is they see, even if I don't agree with it.
08-08-2007, 11:19 AM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
It's very simple. I am not saying that "they" don't believe that there are scope enhancements in the LOA.
But, like you said, "They are not infallible." "They" also believed that the previous contract would not allow the company to increase our health care costs. But, it did. Why? Because there was no language to stop the company from doing it.
Language and written agreements are what's important and arguable in grievances. Not, someone's belief. Or hope. Or opinion.
The LOA lacks much of that written language that should be a no brainer. Our MEC has blasted us with 14+/- letters of beliefs, hopes and largely opinions.
But, like you said, "They are not infallible." "They" also believed that the previous contract would not allow the company to increase our health care costs. But, it did. Why? Because there was no language to stop the company from doing it.
Language and written agreements are what's important and arguable in grievances. Not, someone's belief. Or hope. Or opinion.
The LOA lacks much of that written language that should be a no brainer. Our MEC has blasted us with 14+/- letters of beliefs, hopes and largely opinions.
08-08-2007, 12:33 PM
#70
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,193
Total Enlightenment
Originally Posted by Laker
....but if they don't believe what they are selling, we have a much larger problem than a substandard LOA....
I regret to inform you, you must be on your deathbed.....because you have reached "total enlightenment"!
Doctor Dali Lama
p.s. I'm not sure if we take that medical insurance over here in Asia, it is the first time we've ever seen it. Could you be so kind as to please pay in cash? I'm sure your insurance company will reimburse you.
Last edited by DLax85; 08-08-2007 at 12:45 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
