Actual STV Side letter...
08-07-2007, 03:49 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 732
Actual STV Side letter...
The Union has posted the actual side letter on the inverse STV issue. Interestingly it is NOT signed by BC, just as he announced during the hub turn meeting I was at. Why ?
Here is the crux of why I think the 4 MEC guys voted against the addition of this letter to the LOA:
"However, we will agree to this change only if this is the only modification the parties agree to make to the LOA. If this is an acceptable approach, please accept this as the Company's written commitment that the language in the HKG/CDG FDA Letter of Agreement will be considered modified accordingly."
This letter basically says that we will not seek further changes to the LOA, so if it fails to pass I think they can and will throw this back in our face. The Union should have had Management send a letter to confirm intent on the STV since it was talked about in great detail during "negotiations" and was just a matter of clarification. Now we have signed off, well not yet, on not changing the LOA terms. Maybe Bob is doing us a favor by not signing this POS until we see what happens.
I voted NO, on day one, but after attending the meeting in the hub I have to say I am considering a change in my vote. I was totally put off by BC, he needs to move on, however, both he and Dave made some valid points.
The only reason I can think of voting yes is the simple fact of getting this deal done and not having to put out negotiating dollars in 2010 to just get back to where this LOA starts us at today because we ALL know this will happen either under the LOA or under the current CBA. The entire LOA from STV to "scope" protection is a load of BS. I am astonished by the hard sell the Union is putting on this deal, it makes me think there is either more on the table than we know or it has become personal for some other reason with our leadership.
As everyone else has said, you NEED to Vote !
Here is the crux of why I think the 4 MEC guys voted against the addition of this letter to the LOA:
"However, we will agree to this change only if this is the only modification the parties agree to make to the LOA. If this is an acceptable approach, please accept this as the Company's written commitment that the language in the HKG/CDG FDA Letter of Agreement will be considered modified accordingly."
This letter basically says that we will not seek further changes to the LOA, so if it fails to pass I think they can and will throw this back in our face. The Union should have had Management send a letter to confirm intent on the STV since it was talked about in great detail during "negotiations" and was just a matter of clarification. Now we have signed off, well not yet, on not changing the LOA terms. Maybe Bob is doing us a favor by not signing this POS until we see what happens.
I voted NO, on day one, but after attending the meeting in the hub I have to say I am considering a change in my vote. I was totally put off by BC, he needs to move on, however, both he and Dave made some valid points.
The only reason I can think of voting yes is the simple fact of getting this deal done and not having to put out negotiating dollars in 2010 to just get back to where this LOA starts us at today because we ALL know this will happen either under the LOA or under the current CBA. The entire LOA from STV to "scope" protection is a load of BS. I am astonished by the hard sell the Union is putting on this deal, it makes me think there is either more on the table than we know or it has become personal for some other reason with our leadership.
As everyone else has said, you NEED to Vote !
08-07-2007, 03:59 PM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Here is some more crux:
Even though the use of STV's is so limited, I understand many pilots are concerned about the possibility of being inversely assigned to an STV for a long period of time. While the Company may use STY's of up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to one month for those pilots who are inversely assigned to an STV. However, we will agree to this change only if this is the only modification the parties agree to make to the LOA. If this is an acceptable approach, please accept this as the Company's written commitment that the language in the HKG/CDG FDA Letter of Agreement will be considered modified accordingly. If you find this modification acceptable please sign below and return the agreement to me. We realize that the entire LOA even with this modification remains subject to the ALPA ratification process currently underway.
It doesn't sound to me like this was the plan all along.
Even though the use of STV's is so limited, I understand many pilots are concerned about the possibility of being inversely assigned to an STV for a long period of time. While the Company may use STY's of up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to one month for those pilots who are inversely assigned to an STV. However, we will agree to this change only if this is the only modification the parties agree to make to the LOA. If this is an acceptable approach, please accept this as the Company's written commitment that the language in the HKG/CDG FDA Letter of Agreement will be considered modified accordingly. If you find this modification acceptable please sign below and return the agreement to me. We realize that the entire LOA even with this modification remains subject to the ALPA ratification process currently underway.
It doesn't sound to me like this was the plan all along.
08-07-2007, 03:59 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
From the side letter.
"While the company may use STV's for up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to to one month for those pilots that are inversely assigned to an STV."
I thought the union said it was changed to one month? Does the above atatement mean you can volunteer for 3 months since that wouldn't be an inverse assignment? Not sure?
What exactly does, "While the company MAY use STv's for up to three bid periods" mean anyway? Why is that language still there?
TonyC, Sleepy? Anybody? Sounds like grievance language to me? In other words, "Fly now, grieve later!?"
Kind of makes you go hmmmmm ....
Mark
"While the company may use STV's for up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to to one month for those pilots that are inversely assigned to an STV."
I thought the union said it was changed to one month? Does the above atatement mean you can volunteer for 3 months since that wouldn't be an inverse assignment? Not sure?
What exactly does, "While the company MAY use STv's for up to three bid periods" mean anyway? Why is that language still there?
TonyC, Sleepy? Anybody? Sounds like grievance language to me? In other words, "Fly now, grieve later!?"
Kind of makes you go hmmmmm ....
Mark
08-07-2007, 04:09 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
From the side letter.
"While the company may use STV's for up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to to one month for those pilots that are inversely assigned to an STV."
I thought the union said it was changed to one month? Does the above atatement mean you can volunteer for 3 months since that wouldn't be an inverse assignment? Not sure?
What exactly does, "While the company MAY use STv's for up to three bid periods" mean anyway? Why is that language still there?
TonyC, Sleepy? Anybody? Sounds like grievance language to me? In other words, "Fly now, grieve later!?"
Kind of makes you go hmmmmm ....
Mark
"While the company may use STV's for up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to to one month for those pilots that are inversely assigned to an STV."
I thought the union said it was changed to one month? Does the above atatement mean you can volunteer for 3 months since that wouldn't be an inverse assignment? Not sure?
What exactly does, "While the company MAY use STv's for up to three bid periods" mean anyway? Why is that language still there?
TonyC, Sleepy? Anybody? Sounds like grievance language to me? In other words, "Fly now, grieve later!?"
Kind of makes you go hmmmmm ....
Mark
What the sleazy rat bast*rds are trying to do is create language that eliminates the necessity of 1 month voluntary STVs.
Explanation: To fill an STV they have to have a bid. They put the bid out for three month STVs. If this language wasn't here they would have to put out 1 month vacancies bid and after any of these went unfilled, then they would go the invol route. This language allows them to go straight from 3 month vol to 1 month invol.
Bottomline voluntary 1 month STV bids would cost them too much; no one would bid 3 months when you could bid 1 month..
No due diligence vote No
Last edited by FDXLAG; 08-07-2007 at 06:36 PM. Reason: Necessity used insead of chance
08-07-2007, 04:09 PM
#5
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 122
It's become personal with the leadership. The "team" that visited the FDAs consisted of only one block Rep. The other members were DW, BC, and a union lawyer.
This was copied from another Post:
"2. The Company further recognizes that included in the craft or class
Represented by the Association in conformity with the RLA are
Those crewmembers on Foreign Duty Assignment (“FDA”), Special
International Bid Award (“SIBA”) and/or any other international
assignment, domicile or location manned by pilots on the Federal
Express Master Seniority List."
Our current contract acknowledges FDAs already falling under the RLA. How can the company currently contend the RLA does not apply to FDAs and the LOA will? How will an LOA that says very little about scope improve upon the above paragraph taken directly from our current agreement? What your proposing the LOA gives us is already written in black and white in our current scope section. Rereading the LOA, the only thing I see it does is "reinforce" our current scope section. Why is this being sold as an improvement to our current scope section when all it does is "reinforce" what we already have?
So I'm guessing the ALPA lawyer did not realize we were already covered. To me his, DW, and BC's advise is like this: You are getting ready to jump off of a bridge. We have attached a bungee cord to your ankle. (CBA) But, as an added measure, we are attaching a kite string to your other ankle. (LOA).
This seems to be the cornerstone of what they are selling. The rest of the LOA was as the Company offered.
Some MEC members have admitted this LOA is inadequate in a lot of ways, but are hanging there hat on the fictitious Scope that is already in the CBA and not listed anywhere in the LOA.
The only one involved in the process other than the three mentioned above, voted against this POS. What am I missing?
This was copied from another Post:
"2. The Company further recognizes that included in the craft or class
Represented by the Association in conformity with the RLA are
Those crewmembers on Foreign Duty Assignment (“FDA”), Special
International Bid Award (“SIBA”) and/or any other international
assignment, domicile or location manned by pilots on the Federal
Express Master Seniority List."
Our current contract acknowledges FDAs already falling under the RLA. How can the company currently contend the RLA does not apply to FDAs and the LOA will? How will an LOA that says very little about scope improve upon the above paragraph taken directly from our current agreement? What your proposing the LOA gives us is already written in black and white in our current scope section. Rereading the LOA, the only thing I see it does is "reinforce" our current scope section. Why is this being sold as an improvement to our current scope section when all it does is "reinforce" what we already have?
So I'm guessing the ALPA lawyer did not realize we were already covered. To me his, DW, and BC's advise is like this: You are getting ready to jump off of a bridge. We have attached a bungee cord to your ankle. (CBA) But, as an added measure, we are attaching a kite string to your other ankle. (LOA).
This seems to be the cornerstone of what they are selling. The rest of the LOA was as the Company offered.
Some MEC members have admitted this LOA is inadequate in a lot of ways, but are hanging there hat on the fictitious Scope that is already in the CBA and not listed anywhere in the LOA.
The only one involved in the process other than the three mentioned above, voted against this POS. What am I missing?
Last edited by Lipout1; 08-07-2007 at 04:21 PM.
08-07-2007, 04:30 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by MaydayMark
From the side letter.
"While the company may use STV's for up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to to one month for those pilots that are inversely assigned to an STV."
I thought the union said it was changed to one month? Does the above atatement mean you can volunteer for 3 months since that wouldn't be an inverse assignment? Not sure?
What exactly does, "While the company MAY use STv's for up to three bid periods" mean anyway? Why is that language still there?
"While the company may use STV's for up to three bid periods, we are prepared to limit ourselves to to one month for those pilots that are inversely assigned to an STV."
I thought the union said it was changed to one month? Does the above atatement mean you can volunteer for 3 months since that wouldn't be an inverse assignment? Not sure?
What exactly does, "While the company MAY use STv's for up to three bid periods" mean anyway? Why is that language still there?
Nothing like working for 3 bid periods away from home and getting paid for
1 1/2.
But then they MAY not.
They didn't tell us, did they. More unanswered questions.
08-07-2007, 05:12 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Another give back - Senority Violation. I would be much more likely to volunteer for 1 month but can't. Meanwhile they force it on a Jr guy. Still no answer, does a 3 month volunteer fill you one month invol square?
Since there was no due diligence on the NC part the answer is No. Tough luck your 3 month vacation just got extended to four.
Since there was no due diligence on the NC part the answer is No. Tough luck your 3 month vacation just got extended to four.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
