SFS Rep email
08-09-2007 | 09:33 AM
#1
Thread Starter
"blue collar thug"!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,614
Likes: 0
From: A proponent of...
SFS Rep email
August 9, 2007
LEC 99 Update
Ladies and Gentlemen of LEC 99,
I would like to share a few thoughts with you prior to the closing of the balloting for the FDA LOA. First and foremost, VOTE! If you have not, please take the time to do it.
I disagree with the pessimistic scenarios of what will happen if we turn this LOA down. The company is on the record saying they want FedEx pilots to fly the freight and they are also on the record saying that they will go ahead and open the FDAs regardless of the outcome of the vote. To me, that means that FedEx pilots will be doing the flying. We have a relocation section in our contract and the company can certainly go ahead and open up the bids for the new FDAs using the current contract.
I also have heard the argument of voting for this LOA now and then work on it in the next round of negotiations. That is not a credible option. SFS has been open for 12 years and we are working under our second contract and substantial improvements were not made to improve the FDA package in Section 6. There will always be bigger items to take care off. Believe me, ‘200’ pilots in 2 FDAs is not much different than “80” guys in SFS.” It is a fact that the ’incremental gains’ theory has not worked for SFS. Why would it work for HKG or CDG?
Your vote should be on the merits of the proposal. If you think that this LOA is an improvement to what we currently have in the CBA then I think you should vote yes. The facts are clear. The company wants to open FDAs in two of the most expensive cities in the world. In this LOA the company is offering a below average housing allowance, limited transportation options and no tuition assistance. In the same LOA they are also saying that if you choose the enhanced option, which contains the housing allowance, you will have to give up most of the other relocation benefits in Section 6 of the contract. How can that be considered a ‘quantifiable gain?’ In my opinion it is not and that is why I voted against it. I have said it before but I think is worth repeating. If this is not a gain for 4,800 pilots we need to turn it down.
This Friday the voting will close and we will move on.
Thank you very much for your support.
Fraternally,
Edgar Irizarry
Chairman, LEC 99
LEC 99 Update
Ladies and Gentlemen of LEC 99,
I would like to share a few thoughts with you prior to the closing of the balloting for the FDA LOA. First and foremost, VOTE! If you have not, please take the time to do it.
I disagree with the pessimistic scenarios of what will happen if we turn this LOA down. The company is on the record saying they want FedEx pilots to fly the freight and they are also on the record saying that they will go ahead and open the FDAs regardless of the outcome of the vote. To me, that means that FedEx pilots will be doing the flying. We have a relocation section in our contract and the company can certainly go ahead and open up the bids for the new FDAs using the current contract.
I also have heard the argument of voting for this LOA now and then work on it in the next round of negotiations. That is not a credible option. SFS has been open for 12 years and we are working under our second contract and substantial improvements were not made to improve the FDA package in Section 6. There will always be bigger items to take care off. Believe me, ‘200’ pilots in 2 FDAs is not much different than “80” guys in SFS.” It is a fact that the ’incremental gains’ theory has not worked for SFS. Why would it work for HKG or CDG?
Your vote should be on the merits of the proposal. If you think that this LOA is an improvement to what we currently have in the CBA then I think you should vote yes. The facts are clear. The company wants to open FDAs in two of the most expensive cities in the world. In this LOA the company is offering a below average housing allowance, limited transportation options and no tuition assistance. In the same LOA they are also saying that if you choose the enhanced option, which contains the housing allowance, you will have to give up most of the other relocation benefits in Section 6 of the contract. How can that be considered a ‘quantifiable gain?’ In my opinion it is not and that is why I voted against it. I have said it before but I think is worth repeating. If this is not a gain for 4,800 pilots we need to turn it down.
This Friday the voting will close and we will move on.
Thank you very much for your support.
Fraternally,
Edgar Irizarry
Chairman, LEC 99
08-09-2007 | 10:20 AM
#6
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 917
Likes: 2
Union? What Union?
Why is it that our "union" leadership is divided on this LOA? It is either good or bad, period! The fact that I read different opinions on how to vote, from essentially THE SAME ENTITY makes me roll my eyes and say WTF is going on?!! It's either yes or no!!
Does ANYBODY else see the irony is this? We all wear the same lanyards...we're not Pilot Union vs Company Union, were supposed to be one! THEREFORE, what's coming down the pike from our elected officals SHOULD be the same. They should be on the same page.
We're not a union, if we were, our MEC would all be on the same page!!
AND to make matters worse, first the vote was 11-1, now it's 7-4 AFTER they made change 1 to the LOA?!! WTF?!! It was good then, but now it just got worse?!
What a *********g joke!!
Does ANYBODY else see the irony is this? We all wear the same lanyards...we're not Pilot Union vs Company Union, were supposed to be one! THEREFORE, what's coming down the pike from our elected officals SHOULD be the same. They should be on the same page.
We're not a union, if we were, our MEC would all be on the same page!!
AND to make matters worse, first the vote was 11-1, now it's 7-4 AFTER they made change 1 to the LOA?!! WTF?!! It was good then, but now it just got worse?!
What a *********g joke!!
Last edited by magic rat; 08-09-2007 at 10:25 AM.
08-09-2007 | 10:25 AM
#7
Bourgeoisie
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 620
Likes: 0
From: 787 SO
Why is it that our "union" leadership is divided on this LOA? It is either good or bad, period! The fact that I read different opinions on how to vote, from essentially THE SAME ENTITY makes me roll my eyes and say WTF is going on?!! It's either yes or no!!
Does ANYBODY else see the irony is this? We all wear the same lanyards...we're not Pilot Union vs Company Union, were supposed to be one! THEREFORE, what's coming down the pike from our elected officals SHOULD be the same. They should be on the same page.
We're not a union, if we were, our MEC would all be on the same page!!
AND to make matters worse, first the vote was 11-1, now it's 7-4 AFTER they made change 1 to the LOA?!! WTF?!! It was good then, but now it just got worse?!
What a *********g joke!!
Does ANYBODY else see the irony is this? We all wear the same lanyards...we're not Pilot Union vs Company Union, were supposed to be one! THEREFORE, what's coming down the pike from our elected officals SHOULD be the same. They should be on the same page.
We're not a union, if we were, our MEC would all be on the same page!!
AND to make matters worse, first the vote was 11-1, now it's 7-4 AFTER they made change 1 to the LOA?!! WTF?!! It was good then, but now it just got worse?!
What a *********g joke!!
Yes, it's a no.
08-09-2007 | 10:33 AM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
From: 777 Capt
Personally, I don't want everyone on the MEC to be a bunch of "yes" men. They are all intelligent individuals who are capable of independent analysis and thought (not that they all exercised this on the LOA, IMO). I'm thankful that Edgar stood up to the prevailing opinion, and stated his reasons for disagreeing with the masses. It's just a shame that more of the MEC members didn't listen to his advice and experience.
08-09-2007 | 10:37 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
The 7-4 vote was on letting them add the 1 month limit on SVT if inversed. Which in my book constitutes negotiating.
The 11-1 was on the complete LOA.
The package was "take it or leave it" until the company saw over 50% of the pilot group with frowns on their faces. Well, hang on guys we will only send you for one month if you are inversed, OK now that we have made that one change we will not make any more, period. If you don't take it now we will do it without you.
My vote is no and I am not changing it (that was for the MEC folks reading the board).
The 11-1 was on the complete LOA.
The package was "take it or leave it" until the company saw over 50% of the pilot group with frowns on their faces. Well, hang on guys we will only send you for one month if you are inversed, OK now that we have made that one change we will not make any more, period. If you don't take it now we will do it without you.
My vote is no and I am not changing it (that was for the MEC folks reading the board).
08-09-2007 | 10:37 AM
#10
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 5
From: "Part of the problem." : JL
Anyone else here think that our union totally failed to do its job, from Day One?
A Union's (for airline pilots) "job" is essentially this:
Ask the pilots what they want, and then take that information to the company and "sell" it to them as best they can.
Our Union did the exact opposite. They went to the company, asked them what THEY wanted, and then did the best they could to sell it to the pilots.
The have failed miserably to do what they were elected to do, with one exception. Edgar.
A Union's (for airline pilots) "job" is essentially this:
Ask the pilots what they want, and then take that information to the company and "sell" it to them as best they can.
Our Union did the exact opposite. They went to the company, asked them what THEY wanted, and then did the best they could to sell it to the pilots.
The have failed miserably to do what they were elected to do, with one exception. Edgar.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
