I attended last night and found the meeting informative. DW, BC, and Tony C were all there plus about 75 crew dogs. Here's what was discussed:

1) Heavy STV talk - There were the standard questions on why not SIBA vs STV (not really a good anwer except the company does not want to pay the bucks for SIBA and would rather have someone there for an entire month to fly a non-commutable line). It will only last 24 months and you can only be inversed once every 6 months is what they said--although I thought it was every 4 months. Not sure on that one. Also the standard questions about being inversed. What if you have kids or are a single parent? Is there a way to get out of it for Mil Leave or Family Hardship? DW thought there would be, but there's nothing in writting to that effect. The following is my opinion: After listening to the speakers, I am less concerned about junior guys being inversed. It's possible, but I think there will be enough guys to jump on a free trip to Europe/Asia for a month that it won't be a player. So I guess I don't view the STV as a big threat to junior guys being non-vol'd, but still think it's not a good deal for us and great deal for the company. So if they want this STV thing, then they should show us some love in other areas of the LOA like housing, move pckg, and schooling.

2) Move Package - What up with 500lbs??? DW and BC gave good answers on this I thought, but I did not like everthing I was hearing. According to DW, you have your choice between the LOA move pckg and the old CBA pckg. So if you want more allowance, take the old CBA deal over the LOA. Here's the catch---if you choose the CBA option, you pass on the $2700/mo but still get tax equalized. I don't understand how that works. The company can selectively give you portions of the LOA that is good for them, but cut you out on the good portion for us? So you can have a "normal move" with all your stuff, but you pass on the rent money if you do. DW explained that they wanted us to have options, either take the LOA option for 500lbs, or take the larger move from the CBA---but give up your rent money if you do. According to DW they wanted to give someone the option to try this for just 2 years verse the 3 years in the CBA. So the small 500lb move package they thought was in line with a 2 year temporary move. My Opinion: This move package is a blink of the eye for the company. 500lbs, YGBSM. I don't view 2 years as a short term move, and 500 lbs is not adequate. The last time I had a 500lb move package was on a 4 month TDY for training in the AF. Take the big move, but pass on the rent money. This part is keeping me in the NO camp.

3) When will all this happen? BC thought training for the 757 would start in Sept/Oct. So our first guys would be getting to Europe in Jan/Feb. All speculation.

4) Education - Never got brought up becuase we spent an hour on the STV and Move pckg stuff. My opinion: Until the company is willing to make our families an important part of the this LOA, I've got to vote NO. They are showing us little to no love in the area of family support.

5) Monthly Housing - Did not really get into the $2700 number, but did get into the idea of "being realistic" about the kind of house you would rent. I don't think the $2700 is near enough, but I do concurr with DW and BC that we need to think realistically about the kind of place we could rent in either location. My Opinion: To think that we will be living the life style we have in the States is unrealistic. The reason I want to go is for the experience of living overseas again. I don't expect to get rich doing it, but I'm not living in the poor house either. Until the company is willing to pony up more for our housing, I dont think I can vote yes for this.


Overall it was a good meeting, got a bit heated at times but I think they all have. Dw confessed that the Union could have done a much better job communicating with the masses on this LOA. BC and DW both got heavy in the scope discussion, but I never really heard a good argument as to how the LOA protects our flying overseas. Because the overriding message is that this FDA will happen with or without the LOA. I'm of the opinion if the company wants to farm out our flying (which I don't think they do), they will do it with or without the LOA. DW did have a very good point in this area, we need to be careful about asking for the moon becuase there are powers at be that would love an excuse to give our flying away. I just don't think we are asking for the moon if we demand support for our family and the ability to maintain something close to our current standard of living. I'm sorry to say I'm still a NO vote on the LOA in it's current form. Time to hit the rack---Cheers.

vr
Jolly

 

Jolly,You may not be living in the Frech poor house but your F/O might be if the US dollar takes a dump against the Euro. Of couse as it was explained in the LOA questions section, the company feels it is fair because if the dollar gains against the Euro, the pilot will realize a gain. Awesome! I can't wait until the dollar takes off. We'll all be rich!......YGBSM. Another risk the company will put on the backs of it's pilots in order to grow internationally.

 

i attended a few myself..i agree on your points and that's why i have a negative stance on this thing...basically the company being cheap...although i think the company screwed up by putting this LOA out...they could have put out a bid without the LOA and filled it and there would be no purpletails forum on this website with 10,000 threads...we would not even be having these conversations...the company has not made a dime on these FDAs yet so we should not be asking for the moon either...if it fails..so be it...if it passes..so be it!

 

Thanks for the updates. Thanks to EVERYONE here who posted a lot: Albie, DLAX, TonyC on occasion, Captain Mark, FDXLAG, Busboy, Haywood et al. The amount of info has been staggering. I voted NO as soon as the voting opened but have been waffling due to the scope threats and some of the well-written letters from the MEC. I've decided to stick with my NO vote due to the inadequacies in the LOA and some of the strong arguments written by many of you. Mostly, I'm irritated that I've had to spend weeks stressing about this. This should've been a slam dunk from the beginning and I'm disappointed we had a LOA presented to us that was so poorly written, negotiated, and thought out. We should've gotten a document that we all shouted in unison "he!! yes" I'll take that LOA, and thanks to the NC for getting it for us. Sadly, that's not even close to what happened. Maybe next time it will.

 

AMEN!!! I am hitting the delete button more often these days. I have managed to stay away from "the spin" on ALPA e-mails and this board since I put my NO VOTE in........although I keep hearing how I can always change my vote.....how appropriate.

 

Jolly - Thanks for taking the time to write this synopsis of the mtg.

Just a thought regarding STVs though --- looking at the "actual side letter" regarding STVs that is now out and available on the web, it looks like the company is still going to ask for "volunteers" for 90-day STVs, not 30.

A 30-day "vacation", where you are only being paid per diem on your days off, may be something a few senior guys try, but I'm not so sure they'll volunteer for the 90-day versions.

If the STVs offered aren't filled with volunteers, then the side letter states the "inversed" (non-volunteers) will be limited to 30-day STVs.

Do you recall if STVs were discussed from this angle at all?

Thanks again!

 

I keep hearing STV will go senior because "who wouldn't want a 1 month vacation in Europe?" WRONG--you only get 1 month if you are involuntarily sent--READ JUNIOR. If you volunteer, you get 3 months. Read the LOA letter carefully. There are not many senior folks willing or able to jump on a "3 month vacation" to Europe or HKG. Don't buy the argument that STV will go senior!

 

I don't plan on ever bidding either FDA, but I still think this will affect me. The thing that really bothers me is the fear mongering that the company and union have been putting out. Don't buy into it. Like it's been said here many times before, if the company wanted to do that, we wouldn't be voting on an FDA LOA.

Fedex can't afford to take a chance on the brand by hiring Chinese, French, Irish or whatever pilots. For those of you here in 1998, remeber all the wet leasing and how they fell on their swords. If they company felt that they could take a chance on that, they would have done it already.

If they want to hire right into the left seat of the Bus in HKG, let them. I'm sure the insurance company will be very happy to hear we are putting brand new Capt's and F/O's for that matter into the HKG domicile.

I don't think most pilots want the moon in this LOA. I think most of us want the company(who could easily afford it) to present a reasonable LOA that doesn't exclude families from bidding it. It doen't have to be an executive package, but more generous than they are offering.

The Bottom line is, Fedex is doing what Fedex always does. They want to get what they want on the cheap. They are good at what they do and they use every tactis at their disposal. Unfortunately some of our pilots fall for it.

So don't vote out of fear. The world will not end, no matter what happens and for Gods sake, don't bid either FDA if the LOA fails(or passes for that matter). That is the only way we can send a clear message that we need to rethink that LOA.

Good Luck!

 

Spot On! We need to press to test fellas!

 

Amen!!!!!!