Some thoughts on the LOA from FXDX
08-06-2007, 05:10 PM
#1
Proponent of Hysteria
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2005
Position: 3B
Posts: 1,052
Some thoughts on the LOA from FXDX
LOA THOUGHTS:
These are some quotes from Jack Lewis’ email to us about the LOA followed by some of my thoughts (in bold) on his comments:
The income tax disadvantage alone would be enough to deter any pilot from bidding these bases. Sounds like leverage to me.
FedEx wants as much of its flying as possible done by its pilots. FedEx pilots are part of the reliability factor that wet-leased and code-share operations do not provide. Additionally, international flying is much more complicated, thus hiring off the street to man these bases, as we had to do for the ANC MD11 F/O seats, is not desirable. Thus, again, FedEx wants its experienced pilots flying from these bases. The Subic operation is successful because of the “home-town” A300 players. We need domicile operations in HKG and CDG just as efficient and effective as Subic. Sounds like leverage to me.
The LOA was intended to have pilots make individual bid decisions based on their personal situations and preferences, as always (married, single, kids, outside business, current residence, etc.). As is our decision on how to vote on this LOA.
Shipping. How much is enough to take your “stuff” to start up somewhere? We guessed 500#. It goes IP so you aren’t waiting 6 weeks for your winter clothes while you freeze. You get 3000# when you come back because people accumulate “stuff” Apparently you only accumulate stuff after you move to the FDA, cause you sure can’t take much with you!
We don’t need to have no-shows and late sick calls because someone doesn’t want to be there. I agree. So why the SVT language?
Hopefully IOE will be done in theater giving you a jump on looking around. Hopefully you are right. What if you aren’t?
Many details cannot be in the LOA because they are complicated, one-off situations, or just unknowns now that will become evident after-the-fact. Try me.
This will be a work in progress. Hopefully after its voted down we can come back together and prove you right here.
Schooling is not included because children and education are personal choices. Pilots in the U.S. spend similar amounts on their children’s education, thus providing schooling for the HKG and CDG domiciles was not reasonable, even though the options are more limited. This is just sad.
There is no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and no currency adjustment calculations. We don’t have a COLA for LAX or ANC and the SFS pilots would owe money for lack of cost of living. Therefore, a COLA was not included. The dollar has taken a header for sure and is sinking fast. It may go a bit lower but any further than that and we’ll be paid in yuans or euros and dollars won’t exist. It’s also a two way street. If there was a currency adjustment and the dollar strengthens, then money leaves your income. Yet, it’s doubtful your cost of living would change. Thus, it was felt it was best to avoid a currency adjustment. You mean that we’re not worth it and the company won’t pay the fair cost of doing business in a foreign country. Again, very sad.
Transportation is a personal choice in both places and each has its own unique issues. In CDG, the Company intends to provide transportation from the FedEx ramp to areas of the airport where trains or taxis are available. The Company also plans to set up transportation to the city center at times when other public conveyances are not operating. In Hong Kong, there will be a central meeting place for transport to Guangzhou for those trips that originate there. In both places, we are exploring parking at the airports if you drive your own car. Obviously this option, or an acceptable transportation option, must occur. Shouldn’t all of this be finalized before a hastily put together LOA is thrust upon the pilot group?
No ex-Pat packages are being offered. Companies do ex-Pat packages to send people with unique skills to places they do not want to go. Unfortunately, we are not particularly unique (at least skill-wise) and we do a voluntary bid. FedEx has some ex-Pat employees in various positions and the CDG and HKG Chief Pilots will be offered ex-Pat deals. It’s all about special jobs. It is all about the money, and we know it. Shameful.
The Company needs people living in domicile to protect the flying. The only crash-pad option is in the section 6 move package, which provides none of the other supplements except tax equalization. Commuting to Europe will be difficult due to the flight schedule planned. Hong Kong will be similar to the Subic schedule but could also becomeless commutable. Sounds like leverage to me.
Pilots home school or pay for private school now in the U.S. Because this is a personal choice, assistance was not included. If you have kids, analyze your budget closely. Those of you without kids, forget your budget and just come on over and subsidize the company’s expansion into international arenas.
Healthcare. Specifics are unknown due to the required CBA shift to Wellpoint/BCBS. We switch to the BC/BS system in January, 2008 and they are working to establish an international system, but have not finalized their plan yet. Until then, nothing is certain and therefore we are reluctant to make statements that may prove incorrect. More info should be known by about the end of July. Because the bid itself will not close until late September, the healthcare specifics will be known in time for analysis prior to the bid closing. While this may seem disconcerting, neither ALPA nor FedEx are going to accept substandard care. It was specifically excluded from the LOA because it is a CBA issue and therefore is unrelated to the LOA, except as to decisions on bidding. Lots of unkowns that perhaps should have been known before putting this thing out for a vote. Doesn’t exactly give me a warm and fuzzy. Any info on the Loss of License issue?
Also, the intent was never for the Company to totally subsidize housing. The pilot is expected to help pay for housing. If you buy rather than rent, the Company does not get the rent tax credit so it pays more in taxes. Some of that is recouped by reducing the monthly allowance for the pilot. I’ll bet it is the intent of the company to save as much money as they can by having pilots subsidize their international expansion. Works for me. How well did intent work out in our last agreement? How about this one?
Parking is still being explored. Just another of many unknowns.
Training. Intent is for recurrent to occur at base or on the appropriate continent, if possible. Some requirements / aircraft types may dictate returning to MEM for recurrent. Still a moving target on this one. Sample pairings and lines will be published with the bid. Yet another intent. Why not put out the pairings now, during the vote?
I hope there is enough gray area in this document alone to give everyone concerns about the validity of the proposed LOA. Why don’t we have more answers (and more money) before being forced to vote on this LOA? Why the hurry? How bad must the company need this LOA right now to get these domiciles off the ground? Sounds like leverage to me.
I sure hope we fix this LOA now instead of eating the she-at sandwich for the next 4 years (min) until we have another crack at the company in negotiations.
MEC: You want to start to reclaim the unity you squandered over the past 6-8 months? Retract this LOA and go back to the table and bring us something worth our efforts. Please.
No more doomsday threats or red letter comments and putdowns from the NC. Just some indication that you are hearing the demand for a decent LOA. One that recognizes our contributions, doesn’t force pilots to subsidize the company’s international expansion, and doesn’t force the junior members of the crew force to spend a month away from home in a foreign country involuntarily.
Thanks for listening.
These are some quotes from Jack Lewis’ email to us about the LOA followed by some of my thoughts (in bold) on his comments:
The income tax disadvantage alone would be enough to deter any pilot from bidding these bases. Sounds like leverage to me.
FedEx wants as much of its flying as possible done by its pilots. FedEx pilots are part of the reliability factor that wet-leased and code-share operations do not provide. Additionally, international flying is much more complicated, thus hiring off the street to man these bases, as we had to do for the ANC MD11 F/O seats, is not desirable. Thus, again, FedEx wants its experienced pilots flying from these bases. The Subic operation is successful because of the “home-town” A300 players. We need domicile operations in HKG and CDG just as efficient and effective as Subic. Sounds like leverage to me.
The LOA was intended to have pilots make individual bid decisions based on their personal situations and preferences, as always (married, single, kids, outside business, current residence, etc.). As is our decision on how to vote on this LOA.
Shipping. How much is enough to take your “stuff” to start up somewhere? We guessed 500#. It goes IP so you aren’t waiting 6 weeks for your winter clothes while you freeze. You get 3000# when you come back because people accumulate “stuff” Apparently you only accumulate stuff after you move to the FDA, cause you sure can’t take much with you!
We don’t need to have no-shows and late sick calls because someone doesn’t want to be there. I agree. So why the SVT language?
Hopefully IOE will be done in theater giving you a jump on looking around. Hopefully you are right. What if you aren’t?
Many details cannot be in the LOA because they are complicated, one-off situations, or just unknowns now that will become evident after-the-fact. Try me.
This will be a work in progress. Hopefully after its voted down we can come back together and prove you right here.
Schooling is not included because children and education are personal choices. Pilots in the U.S. spend similar amounts on their children’s education, thus providing schooling for the HKG and CDG domiciles was not reasonable, even though the options are more limited. This is just sad.
There is no cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) and no currency adjustment calculations. We don’t have a COLA for LAX or ANC and the SFS pilots would owe money for lack of cost of living. Therefore, a COLA was not included. The dollar has taken a header for sure and is sinking fast. It may go a bit lower but any further than that and we’ll be paid in yuans or euros and dollars won’t exist. It’s also a two way street. If there was a currency adjustment and the dollar strengthens, then money leaves your income. Yet, it’s doubtful your cost of living would change. Thus, it was felt it was best to avoid a currency adjustment. You mean that we’re not worth it and the company won’t pay the fair cost of doing business in a foreign country. Again, very sad.
Transportation is a personal choice in both places and each has its own unique issues. In CDG, the Company intends to provide transportation from the FedEx ramp to areas of the airport where trains or taxis are available. The Company also plans to set up transportation to the city center at times when other public conveyances are not operating. In Hong Kong, there will be a central meeting place for transport to Guangzhou for those trips that originate there. In both places, we are exploring parking at the airports if you drive your own car. Obviously this option, or an acceptable transportation option, must occur. Shouldn’t all of this be finalized before a hastily put together LOA is thrust upon the pilot group?
No ex-Pat packages are being offered. Companies do ex-Pat packages to send people with unique skills to places they do not want to go. Unfortunately, we are not particularly unique (at least skill-wise) and we do a voluntary bid. FedEx has some ex-Pat employees in various positions and the CDG and HKG Chief Pilots will be offered ex-Pat deals. It’s all about special jobs. It is all about the money, and we know it. Shameful.
The Company needs people living in domicile to protect the flying. The only crash-pad option is in the section 6 move package, which provides none of the other supplements except tax equalization. Commuting to Europe will be difficult due to the flight schedule planned. Hong Kong will be similar to the Subic schedule but could also becomeless commutable. Sounds like leverage to me.
Pilots home school or pay for private school now in the U.S. Because this is a personal choice, assistance was not included. If you have kids, analyze your budget closely. Those of you without kids, forget your budget and just come on over and subsidize the company’s expansion into international arenas.
Healthcare. Specifics are unknown due to the required CBA shift to Wellpoint/BCBS. We switch to the BC/BS system in January, 2008 and they are working to establish an international system, but have not finalized their plan yet. Until then, nothing is certain and therefore we are reluctant to make statements that may prove incorrect. More info should be known by about the end of July. Because the bid itself will not close until late September, the healthcare specifics will be known in time for analysis prior to the bid closing. While this may seem disconcerting, neither ALPA nor FedEx are going to accept substandard care. It was specifically excluded from the LOA because it is a CBA issue and therefore is unrelated to the LOA, except as to decisions on bidding. Lots of unkowns that perhaps should have been known before putting this thing out for a vote. Doesn’t exactly give me a warm and fuzzy. Any info on the Loss of License issue?
Also, the intent was never for the Company to totally subsidize housing. The pilot is expected to help pay for housing. If you buy rather than rent, the Company does not get the rent tax credit so it pays more in taxes. Some of that is recouped by reducing the monthly allowance for the pilot. I’ll bet it is the intent of the company to save as much money as they can by having pilots subsidize their international expansion. Works for me. How well did intent work out in our last agreement? How about this one?
Parking is still being explored. Just another of many unknowns.
Training. Intent is for recurrent to occur at base or on the appropriate continent, if possible. Some requirements / aircraft types may dictate returning to MEM for recurrent. Still a moving target on this one. Sample pairings and lines will be published with the bid. Yet another intent. Why not put out the pairings now, during the vote?
I hope there is enough gray area in this document alone to give everyone concerns about the validity of the proposed LOA. Why don’t we have more answers (and more money) before being forced to vote on this LOA? Why the hurry? How bad must the company need this LOA right now to get these domiciles off the ground? Sounds like leverage to me.
I sure hope we fix this LOA now instead of eating the she-at sandwich for the next 4 years (min) until we have another crack at the company in negotiations.
MEC: You want to start to reclaim the unity you squandered over the past 6-8 months? Retract this LOA and go back to the table and bring us something worth our efforts. Please.
No more doomsday threats or red letter comments and putdowns from the NC. Just some indication that you are hearing the demand for a decent LOA. One that recognizes our contributions, doesn’t force pilots to subsidize the company’s international expansion, and doesn’t force the junior members of the crew force to spend a month away from home in a foreign country involuntarily.
Thanks for listening.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
