Predictions for the Purple Poolies
11-15-2007, 07:56 AM
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by JDriver
IMO, there should be a side letter for new hires into a FDA. Anchorage was different b/c it is a state in the union. There are not as many of the major concers in ANC as there are in CDG or HGK. No foreign taxes, pubic (english speaking) schools, same laws, driving, renting/buying is practically the same as in CONUS, etc....
Additionally, I think that it would be unfair to poolies to expect them to make that decision over the phone. Since most do not have access to the company and alpa provided info, they may be very ignorant towards the challenges that they may face in an FDA.
Hypothetically, add on a poolie who's sponsor is a guy who doent know much about the LOA and what the term STV is, and you could get a person who may be blindly walking into a very tough situation.
Additionally, I think that it would be unfair to poolies to expect them to make that decision over the phone. Since most do not have access to the company and alpa provided info, they may be very ignorant towards the challenges that they may face in an FDA.
Hypothetically, add on a poolie who's sponsor is a guy who doent know much about the LOA and what the term STV is, and you could get a person who may be blindly walking into a very tough situation.
Wow, then the company would really be able to put the dollar bills on the table one-by-one and see the absolute minimum they need to offer to get the FDAs filled.
Extremely dangerous precedent IMHO.
Other thoughts??
11-15-2007, 08:11 AM
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by DLax85
Nuttin against new hires...and certainly don't want them starving over in FDAs, but do you really think we should let the company off the hook by making a "side letter" agreement for new hires in FDAs because they couldn't fill the FDAs with the compensation offer to all pilots already on the property in the current LOA..???
Wow, then the company would really be able to put the dollar bills on the table one-by-one and see the absolute minimum they need to offer to get the FDAs filled.
Extremely dangerous precedent IMHO.
Other thoughts??
Wow, then the company would really be able to put the dollar bills on the table one-by-one and see the absolute minimum they need to offer to get the FDAs filled.
Extremely dangerous precedent IMHO.
Other thoughts??
11-15-2007, 08:39 AM
#123
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 767 Trunk Monkey
Posts: 562
One way out of the jungle
IMHO, an error in judgement was made when both parties believed that any LOA addressing two FDAs could exist as a fixed-in-stone document. In my belief, the LOA had to be a starting point, from which to build. And both parties needed to state that up front. So where do we go from here? I'm not paid by the union, but I would suggest a formalized FDA Working Group be established. Maybe this exists already between ALPA & FDX, but if so, I'm not aware. (I have heard from my rep "well, we talk all the time, about a lot of things, including the FDAs." Well, that ain't workin'.) One of the working group members should be JL. I've always known exactly where he stood, and he has a sense of humor. Another should be a member--possibly the chairman--of the NC. Other members should include those with a vested interest in the FDAs--maybe a junior pilot awarded a bid to each FDA. This working group could formalize the sweeteners already stated, and not just by some lame FCIF with an expiration date or whim to change AFTER the bid is closed. Meet on a regular basis TBD. Publish the minutes, and make this work--both for FDX and for the pilots. I'm not running the company, just flying boxes. But this would be my way out of this jungle.
11-15-2007, 08:43 AM
#124
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: MD10 FO
Posts: 307
Originally Posted by Dadof6
IMHO, an error in judgement was made when both parties believed that any LOA addressing two FDAs could exist as a fixed-in-stone document. In my belief, the LOA had to be a starting point, from which to build. And both parties needed to state that up front. So where do we go from here? I'm not paid by the union, but I would suggest a formalized FDA Working Group be established. Maybe this exists already between ALPA & FDX, but if so, I'm not aware. (I have heard from my rep "well, we talk all the time, about a lot of things, including the FDAs." Well, that ain't workin'.) One of the working group members should be JL. I've always known exactly where he stood, and he has a sense of humor. Another should be a member--possibly the chairman--of the NC. Other members should include those with a vested interest in the FDAs--maybe a junior pilot awarded a bid to each FDA. This working group could formalize the sweeteners already stated, and not just by some lame FCIF with an expiration date or whim to change AFTER the bid is closed. Meet on a regular basis TBD. Publish the minutes, and make this work--both for FDX and for the pilots. I'm not running the company, just flying boxes. But this would be my way out of this jungle.
Wow, that makes a lot of sense..........It will never happen
11-15-2007, 09:32 AM
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Originally Posted by Dadof6
So where do we go from here? I'm not paid by the union, but I would suggest a formalized FDA Working Group be established.
There are NO good ideas that they haven't already thought of ... just ask them! I could give several examples but I've probably made my point ...
Mark
11-15-2007, 03:06 PM
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,191
Originally Posted by Dadof6
IMHO, an error in judgement was made when both parties believed that any LOA addressing two FDAs could exist as a fixed-in-stone document. In my belief, the LOA had to be a starting point, from which to build. And both parties needed to state that up front. So where do we go from here? I'm not paid by the union, but I would suggest a formalized FDA Working Group be established. Maybe this exists already between ALPA & FDX, but if so, I'm not aware. (I have heard from my rep "well, we talk all the time, about a lot of things, including the FDAs." Well, that ain't workin'.) One of the working group members should be JL. I've always known exactly where he stood, and he has a sense of humor. Another should be a member--possibly the chairman--of the NC. Other members should include those with a vested interest in the FDAs--maybe a junior pilot awarded a bid to each FDA. This working group could formalize the sweeteners already stated, and not just by some lame FCIF with an expiration date or whim to change AFTER the bid is closed. Meet on a regular basis TBD. Publish the minutes, and make this work--both for FDX and for the pilots. I'm not running the company, just flying boxes. But this would be my way out of this jungle.
I believe there were many members of the "lunatic fringe" on this board that were suggesting more calm, measured discussion/negogiation back in July and Aug when the deficiencies in the LOA were very quickly becoming apparent.
If it takes a faild bid to drive a formal LOA revision --- so be it.
As Albie is always smart to point out, our goal is for a "win-win" for us and the company!
Last edited by DLax85; 11-16-2007 at 09:29 AM. Reason: spelling
11-16-2007, 06:16 AM
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: In the Purple Haze
Posts: 321
It seems that the MEC, based on info recieved from my sponsor, is requesting an extension of the bids for the FDA and side letters to protect those in the FDA's. I assume that this would include "new hires" as it is stated in the latest MEC message that came out on 11/15/07.
Based on this information, what is the current bidding in VIPS for F/Os for HKG and CDG?
Any "WAG's" on when the poolies might get called?
Thanks....
Whale
Based on this information, what is the current bidding in VIPS for F/Os for HKG and CDG?
Any "WAG's" on when the poolies might get called?
Thanks....
Whale
11-16-2007, 06:23 AM
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Last practice bid numbers have not changed. No publicly announced changes to the bid close on Monday yet.
I admire your perserverance but I would not expect anything before spring. New hires would start training after people on property.
I admire your perserverance but I would not expect anything before spring. New hires would start training after people on property.
11-16-2007, 06:33 AM
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 Captain
Posts: 4,304
Whale.
The email we received from the MEC on this subject is posted on another thread (titled "MEC msg ...'). I don't see a reference to extending the closing date on the bid, although it does sort of hint that an extension might be necessary in order to formalize some of the "sweeteners" not already in the LOA.
Personally, I think the FDA bid looks like a huge embarrassment to both the company and the union. We were told it will go VERY senior, thus no real need for STV? And ... The Subic guys WILL bid it! Only the VERY junior are bidding it and not enough of them to man the base (but maybe that was the company plan all along?). Regardless, I'm disappointed in both my (highly profitable) company and my union for not making the FDA package a better deal. If it had been, I would have bid it myself.
The email we received from the MEC on this subject is posted on another thread (titled "MEC msg ...'). I don't see a reference to extending the closing date on the bid, although it does sort of hint that an extension might be necessary in order to formalize some of the "sweeteners" not already in the LOA.
Personally, I think the FDA bid looks like a huge embarrassment to both the company and the union. We were told it will go VERY senior, thus no real need for STV? And ... The Subic guys WILL bid it! Only the VERY junior are bidding it and not enough of them to man the base (but maybe that was the company plan all along?). Regardless, I'm disappointed in both my (highly profitable) company and my union for not making the FDA package a better deal. If it had been, I would have bid it myself.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
