Look, Gunter, you and I have been round and round on this subject - I'm not going over it all again. Do a search on my posts.

But I didn't throw away my vote. I read the LOA, talked to alot of people, did alot of thinking... and came up with a different decision than you.

("Throw up my hands"? "Failed to do research"? Whatever gets you through the night man. Don't know why I wasn't persuaded by such elevated debate here on the ol' board. "Vote like us or you're a dumass!!!")

A correlation was made between flying DP's, flying draft during the summer of love and voting for the LOA. That was a challenge to my honor. And I find it hard not to comment when that happens. Nice trying to talk to you.

Who says I'm not?

Huck,

You worked hard to get here, you most certainly don't need to explain yourself or your vote to anybody.

Let the whiners whine, because when you know-it-all, there's nothing else left to do.

As one who wanted to go, I do.

Of all the people you talked to before you voted, how many of them were currently in an FDA or wanted to go and asked you to vote for it? Just curious.

You said you voted for the LOA because the union said it was good.

Are you going? I'll wager not...

Then you know something I don't. I've got both left seats bid. I wouldn't have voted for the LOA if I wasn't personally willing to accept the terms.

Now... how about laying off the ad hominem attacks. I used to just take my marbles and go home. But I'm not going to anymore. I've been on this forum as long as you, and alot longer than some others. I won't be called stupid, unread, or the equivalent of a DP flyer anymore. SUBIC BAY IS CLOSING. The best expat deal we ever saw or will ever see, brought to you courtesy of the SBMA and the Philippine government. Nothing remotely as good, monetarily, will ever be seen here again. So sad, I agree. And maybe a strategic mistake by Fred Smith. I honestly feel for all involved.

Here... let me help you get the focus off the stupidity of your fellow pilots and on to your brilliance: start by telling us all the mechanism we could have used to achieve a better deal than this LOA - after the MEC, the negotiating committee, and the company had all signed off on it. Rewind the clock, jump in front of the horde with a pitchfork and a torch and tell us how you would have got us something more. Because the way I see it, the vote wasn't "sitting down to negotiate over the sales contract," it was "walking into the closing" - either you sign the papers or you don't, but don't expect to start the process again.

You and I can agree on a lot of the mistakes that got us into that closing room, but the bottom line was - sign or don't sign, but there's one deal on the table.

I disagree with Huck on the house closing anology. I think it was more like a car sales manager saying "this is my FINAL offer", when you know it could still be improved upon.

If you don't sign the contract--you may have to strike to get a better deal. That means you could potentially lose your job. Turning down this LOA was zero risk IMHO. The foreign pilot threat was chaff. I help enough guys get hired by Cathay, Emirates, and other overseas carriers to know the "with you or without you" chat was probably hyperbole. But..."probably" is the key word. A bunch of folks disagreed...which is their RIGHT. I personally thought giving up 2700 bucks and going with the status quo was worth the risk...again...67% didn't.

So--Huck and I agree to disagree on an issue. I would point out, however, that he is in the MAJORITY in this case, and sitting here and nipping at his heels is silly. A bunch of us whipped out our wankers at the bar on a bet, and some of us lost. Get over it and move on. It ain't personal...

The big question is "what next?". Around mid-November, we'll find out if the LOA was "adequate" or not. A full compliment of volunteers for the jobs will let us know "yep--guess it was". A host of vacancies will say "guess not..." Not a whole lot of point in arguing much about it until the chips fall.

But Huck...here WOULD have been my plan.

Reject the LOA.
Suffer the "threat" of farming out the flying, blah blah blah.
Let guys who wanted the FDA do it--but commute or do it however it best worked for them (i.e. forgo the 100 nm rule)
Watch how FDX tried to work around tax laws without equalization...then...

When they came back to try to FORCE an equalization effort via letter...say only if we...

Get the money up to about 4000-5000/month.
Eliminate (in all shapes/forms) any involuntary STV.

We had another trip to the sales manager's office--that's all I'm saying. The cost of skipping the "floor mats and undercoating" was only $2700, or (IMHO) chump change. FedEx COULD have potentially contracted some flying, or COULD have done other stuff....but the difference in costs of my proposal and what we got was only 1) no STVs and 2) 80 x 2000 more bucks for HKG guys (160,000) and 80 x 2000 more bucks for Paris guys (160,000) or about $320,000 a month. Not chump change, but for less than 4 million dollars you get YOUR crews flying YOUR jets in theater and NO backlash. Imagine the cost to the company if a few captains irritated at foreign pilots flying our freight decided to put a dent in the domestic reliablity? We had more power than we realized, at very little downside risk.

I pretty much broke a pledge not to draw up old battles, and my intention wasn't to *****. It was simply to say "okay--this was a plan I thought was reasonable". FWIW...I discussed that same plan with a few folks on the MEC. One of them later voted against the amended (shorter STV) LOA, but for different reasons.

Point is although Huck and I disagreed on this issue, he's a good bro, a solid union guy, and...by the way...in the freakin' majority on this one. So I respectfully suggest we all try to treat each other with a bit of respect and civility so that we can actually use this forum to exchange ideas and suggestions and not just cram the "current mantra" down each other's throats. Remember--we didn't appreciate it when "our" ideas were shut out and we were told WE were the lunatic fringe. Treat Huck (and USNA84, Redeye, and others) with the same courtesy you'd treat them speaking to them in the AOC and I think we'll get a lot more info shared around here.

Well said Albie.

I don't agree with anyone flying DPs voluntarily for any reason :(--- but certainly don't put those who voted for the LOA in the same category (...however, ill advised I thought that was too;)).

I don't beleive Fred was willing to risk foreign pilots because he is justifiably afraid of foreign labor laws and foreign labor unions ---- he doesn't like unions and only wants to deal with a known evil (us) if he's forced to deal with any at all.

Without the LOA he couldn't contractually force those pilots bidding the FDAs to sign the "LOA FDA Agreement" they must sign now ---- that was just one source of our leverage!

...letting the FDAs go unbid due to the inadequacy of Section 6 terms in those new locations.

...also hands on the throttle, review of the ARD and WX, signature on the FPR, etc.

Let's never forget, our key role in sychronicity is a crucial element to the on-time success, productivity and profitability of our wonderful company.:)

I highly disagree Fred Smith is afraid of anything, nevermind being afraid of foreign labor laws. These are both small domiciles, with 76 pilots in CDG and and 90 in HKG, he could have made this work with monkeys.

And Albie, if there is one thing in my airline career that I have learned and will try to avoid at all costs, is "Suffer the "threat" of farming out the flying, blah blah blah". You know how the other carriers made out with that.

I stand by position that FDX would have done what was best in both the short and long term economic interests to the shareholders. For another 4 million, the risk, political backlash, and other ramifications of NOT using FDX pilots was more expensive than just bumping up the benefits a bit.

However--I haven't been at another carrier, and I can see how a lot of folks would not want to play poker on this issue.

As I've said before, most of us agree on what we wanted--FDX pilots, in domiciles, getting a good paycheck for dealing with the costs of living in expensive overseas cities. The disagreement was on the best way to get to that point. And my position was in the minority--so I'm rolling with the crew force on this and staying positive.

....Then why didn't/doesn't he?

Why did Fred fight so hard in the mid-90s when FDX was "temporarily" moved from the RLA to the NLR?

It's all about ensuring there are large legal barriers preventing the other labor groups at FEDEX to organize.

(...there's a myriad of news stories regarding the current legal battles going on in the courts regarding FDX drivers and MX personnel trying to organize locally vs nationally and it all boils down to the RLA)

No argument, Fred has ABSOLUTELY HUGE political pull in D.C with BOTH parties (...he's donated to both handsomely) ---- not so sure it's nearly as big in gay Pari or communist China.;)