Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Cargo
Summarize your views.....pro or con >

Summarize your views.....pro or con

Notices
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines

Summarize your views.....pro or con

Old 08-08-2007, 10:43 AM
  #1  
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
 
iarapilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Default Summarize your views.....pro or con

I would like to give my 2 cringles worth on why I think this LOA is bad, bad, bad. I am not going to spin my words, just call it the way I see it.

The knowledge of new FDA's being opened has not been a secret, it has been known for awhile. Because of this fact, the NC should have had a little more due diligence in negotiating it. There have been hundreds that have been based at the Subic FDA since its opening, and the experience of these crew members has not, for the most part, been drawn upon. And, the Union should have been much, much more proactive in their negotiations AND in their communications to the pilots. They should have foreseen the ramifications of the ambiguous language and prepared a list of questions that would be asked over the course of the "debate" for or against the LOA. Then in turn, have answers prepared for those questions that would have alleviated any concerns brought up. This was not done. And, that is not good! To date, there are still many questions that cant be answered. Again, not good! Also, what were our openers. Still no answer to that question.

I dont see why the LOA gives a pilot two choices if someone decides to bid an FDA. First, what is termed as the current option; it is not really the current option if the LOA passes. It requires one to sign the FDA Agreement saying that you have to use tax equalization, among other things. Things that a lot of guys dont like. And, some of the ambiguous language is being used to claim that scope is enhanced. Many dont see that at all. If that were the case, then have SPECIFIC, UNAMBIGUOUS language stating as much. Very simple concept. Otherwise, the lawyers will disavow themselves of any obligation to follow what we think the language means. Way to many grey areas.

The enhanced option has many items that are not enhanced. Just my opinion. And I am certainly not alone. I wont go into all of the reasons. They have been stated here, and on this website... www.airlinepilotforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=63
and this one... www.fdxloa.com

So, why two choices? Why not take what is currently in the CBA and only add to it? And, add only things that are not construed to be concessionary? It really muddies the waters, for some anyway, when you need to decide if the whole package is good, bad, concessionary, etc. It could be viewed that the FDA was designed to divide, conquer, and certainly confuse. This LOA could be the poster boy, so to speak, for Keep It Simple Stupid!

The way it looks now, this might be a close vote. Whether it passes or not, it should not have been so divisive. Anything that is 50/50 is a bad thing. A clear majority is what is needed for this.

The argument that this is a stepping stone for next negotiations is just plain BS! The current section 6 is the baseline we have now; the stepping stone. The LOA should be a gain over what we have. A gain in all areas of section 6. FedEx is not in Chapter 11. They are making $$. They should be shelling out $$ for these FDA's to make even more $$!In many areas it is a step backwards. STV vs SIBA, tax equalization (for HKG anyway), only 500lbs move allowance, and many other things that have been brought up by others. I dont see how one could argue that in our next round of negotiations we will improve on the areas of this LOA that suck. If it will cost the Company, it wont be changed in our favor.....period.

Because of the appearance of a close vote (my belief), we have received quite a few emails from management and our Union officials doing a hard sell in favor of the LOA. This hard sell has been threatening, condescending, and just plain insulting. No way to be trying to convince me to vote yes. If anything, the letters should have clearly and unequivocally addressed the concerns that have been expressed by the membership in all the different mediums that these concerns have been expressed. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. And, how about equal time? Why isnt the SFS Rep allowed to use ALPA email and expand on his views of why he voted against? Our yes officials get free reign to spam us. It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. The BS flag should be waving!

I have not heard of anyone saying that, overall, the majority of the items in the LOA are a real good thing, a step up from what we have. Another amber warning! If it is voted in, we could be dealing with a red warning. Where is the QRH to deal with that scenario?

Even though I truely appreciate the volunteers working on our behalf to secure a good LOA, they have missed their mark, IMO.

Read the CBA, read the LOA, ask questions.....and hopefully receive succinct answers, and then make an informed vote. For all of the ambiguous things in the LOA; plan on them not working in our favor. For me, the whole thing has been a major cluster you know what. I have concluded that if it walks, quacks, and looks like a POS.....it is. Go with your gut feeling.
iarapilot is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 01:07 PM
  #2  
Gets Weekends Off
 
AFW_MD11's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
Default I just voted YES.

My views:

Without re-hashing the details of the last several weeks of posts - I would just like to say that I appreciate everyone who particpated in this discussion. I'm glad we have a forum where information can be discussed.

Having said that, this was an extremely difficult decision for me. I have gone "stop to stop" several times.

In the final analysis, I chose to look beyond the short-term gains/losses and base my decision on the long-term strategic picture.

I believe this is the key to the fact that we even have an LOA (offer from the company) before us in the first place. And, I believe it is the correct perspective to base my vote on.

So......I am voting YES.

To quote Captain Frank Ramsey (Gene Hackman) and Lt. Commander Ron Hunter (Denzel Washington) from Crimson Tide:

Capt. Ramsey: God help you if you're wrong.
Hunter: If I'm wrong, then we're at war; God help us all...........
AFW_MD11 is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 01:14 PM
  #3  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Check 6's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: 777
Posts: 866
Default

My view.

I want to go to CDG as a 757 Capt. I want to bring my family. I want to live like any other middle class european does. I don't want to come back to moldy household goods, a broken car and no equity in a home in the US.

Because this LOA does not provide any of the above I have voted

NO!

And by the way....can I change my vote at any time ...and which of my votes count????

Last edited by Check 6; 08-08-2007 at 02:46 PM.
Check 6 is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 01:30 PM
  #4  
Line Holder
 
290kts's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
Default

Check 6 took the words out of my mouth. When the word came out - my wife and I got exited, but when the details surfaced and we started looking at the cost of living in Paris - we became a little less enthusiastic. We are now taking a "wait and see" approach. Another observation is that Hong Kong and Paris should be two different packages - it appears that Hong Kong will have a higher cost of living. My vote is no and I am not changing it - so quit asking me to. All the comm about changing your vote makes me think that they know something.
290kts is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:00 PM
  #5  
Bourgeoisie
 
MEMFO4Ever's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: 787 SO
Posts: 616
Default

The lowest common denominator in the FedEx FDA pilot crewforce, the future narrowbody First Officer, cannot realistically expect to live in Paris on this. Contracts and LOA's should always address the needs of those at the bottom first. This LOA falls far short and I will continue to lobby for its defeat.

Expat packages are the cost of doing business overseas. The costs associated with opening bases abroad in the interest of furthering company business should in NO WAY be borne by the employee. Last I checked, this company was still making money.
MEMFO4Ever is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:12 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Underdog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Discombobulated
Posts: 155
Default

Price for Fedex to have "their" future client, PW, to come in with sample tax return and brief NC and MEC on "benefits" of tax equalization.......Free

Price for Fedex should PW convince NC and MEC of benefits of equalization......$500-$1000 per pilot or upwards of $200,000 annually to PW for filing returns

Price for Fedex if NC and MEC believe them, and not get an independent source to verify questionable numbers on sample return..........priceless

Last edited by Underdog; 08-08-2007 at 02:19 PM. Reason: clarification
Underdog is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:56 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Haywood JB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Posts: 379
Default

I am junior in the right seat of the bus. I don't want to go away for one month every six bid periods. I don't want 15days of pay for 30 days away from home. I don't want to lose first class DH travel. I don't want any 75 FO's to have to experience that either(especially as a new hire).

STV=NO from(or for) me!
Haywood JB is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 02:58 PM
  #8  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: M77C
Posts: 92
Default

Does the proposed LOA offer us what we deserve - No.

Does the proposed LOA offer us, including those who will bid these FDAs, improved benefits over our current contractual provisions - Yes.

Do we have leverage, outside of section 6 negotiations, to bring the company back to the table on this issue - No.

I'm voting YES.
FDXCapt is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 03:03 PM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Haywood JB's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Posts: 379
Default

Oh yeah, I don't believe the MEC will spend the negotiating capital to improve the lives of 200 pilots, when they can spend it on the other 4500 pilots during the next contract negotiations.

So, NO, NO, NO, NO, and NO!
Haywood JB is offline  
Old 08-08-2007, 03:08 PM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Default

Originally Posted by FDXCapt View Post
Does the proposed LOA offer us what we deserve - No.

Does the proposed LOA offer us, including those who will bid these FDAs, improved benefits over our current contractual provisions - Yes.

Do we have leverage, outside of section 6 negotiations, to bring the company back to the table on this issue - No.

I'm voting YES.
Nah we don't have any leverage. The company came to us because they really really like us. They changed the STV language because they really really really like us.

Voting NO
FDXLAG is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices