Predictions for the Purple Poolies
#21
...of course, the 32%-ers that post here would have you believe that ALL 68% yes-voters only voted yes out of apathy and/or ignorance, and didn't really understand or care about the merits (or lack thereof) of the LOA
.....not necessarily true either - how could anyone possibly know what motivated anyone to vote how they did unless they know them personally and talked about it with them?...
.....not necessarily true either - how could anyone possibly know what motivated anyone to vote how they did unless they know them personally and talked about it with them?...
...Maybe by looking at the seniority levels and the vacancy levels in the past two practice bids.
#22
I can only hope we are able to continue to attract good folks like Whale Pilot.
We can't assume to know why 68% of those who voted chose YES. I am sure the reasons vary. Some even chose not vote at all. The fact it was voted in and by a small margin is important, but I would rather consider what it means going forward.
What we are left with is a mess. Each individual helping himself/herself. This favors the more senior as they tend to run things. Age 60 guys offered VEBA and retro at the earliest opportunity. Newhires offered nothing but a Euro debt package to Paris. International guys gained grid penalties while domestic guys got the wonderful soft parameter solve with same day deadhead and accepted fare enhancements.
I'm sure someone will ask me to leave if I don't like it. Or ask me why I'm here. But you don't get it if you do. I like it here. But this isn't your father's FedEx anymore. Those hired behind me will not have the same benefits I have.
If you choose to critique my analysis, first tell me why we are degrading the futures of those who aren't here yet with such ease.
We can't assume to know why 68% of those who voted chose YES. I am sure the reasons vary. Some even chose not vote at all. The fact it was voted in and by a small margin is important, but I would rather consider what it means going forward.
What we are left with is a mess. Each individual helping himself/herself. This favors the more senior as they tend to run things. Age 60 guys offered VEBA and retro at the earliest opportunity. Newhires offered nothing but a Euro debt package to Paris. International guys gained grid penalties while domestic guys got the wonderful soft parameter solve with same day deadhead and accepted fare enhancements.
I'm sure someone will ask me to leave if I don't like it. Or ask me why I'm here. But you don't get it if you do. I like it here. But this isn't your father's FedEx anymore. Those hired behind me will not have the same benefits I have.
If you choose to critique my analysis, first tell me why we are degrading the futures of those who aren't here yet with such ease.
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Oh course we can assume to know.
Roughly 23% thought we had no leverage so this was the best deal we could get. Roughly 23% said my NC speaks for me and I don't want to undercut them. And Roughly 22% said what is STV.
Are there any other possible reasons for voting yes? Granted 1 or 2% may have voted yes just to torque someone off.
Roughly 23% thought we had no leverage so this was the best deal we could get. Roughly 23% said my NC speaks for me and I don't want to undercut them. And Roughly 22% said what is STV.
Are there any other possible reasons for voting yes? Granted 1 or 2% may have voted yes just to torque someone off.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 11-12-2007 at 06:24 AM.
#24
And you could also say that 10% of the NO (32%) voters have BID HKG and CDG on the last 2 practice BIDS. Go Figure? I guess the rubber meets the road in 7 days.
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
The comments in my previous post were not made to disparage anyone. I am guilty of using all of the same excuses in past elections. It would be nice if some of the yes voters (any of the MEC 11 in particular) would admit they were wrong when they said we had no leverage, but then I have never admitted being wrong in voting for the last contract.
#26
If you are insinuating that the "NO" voters are invalidated in their arguments, because not many of them are "actually" going, I would say that you are off diametrically.
If the "No" voters recognize this as "Not a good deal", then of course, they are under no obligation to bid a bad deal, and probably won't. I am surprised at how few (zero to my knowledge) proponents of the LOA have bid it. I think this is the real measure of their veracity.
The problem Redeye, is that it appears that the assumption is a "No" voter would bid the FDA anyway. There seems to be the forgone conclusion that any "normal" person wouldn't bid the FDA, and only those that would be expats at any price would actually consider it in the first place. This viewpoint is promoted by individuals within the MEC, when they openly speak about the Subic folks will bid Hong Kong anyway, and "how most of them can't come back to the States anyway". I have heard this from the mouths of 2 Members of the MEC and one negotiator personally.
Plenty of people (not just those defective and pesky Subic guys) would be willing to bid an FDA if they didn't take a financial hit to do so.
Surprisingly enough, I voted "no" because it was a bad deal, and since it carried, and is dictating the terms of the FDA, I am not going to bid a bad deal.
My wife and I were anxiously awaiting the opportunity to go to either Hong Kong or Paris. We saw the LOA, ran the numbers and said, "NO". This is not a deal that I would accept to go to either FDA. I voted no, because I actually want to go to an FDA given a competitive offer. Since the LOA is not (IMO)a reasonable compensation package, and it carried, I am not bidding it. It is not in my economic interest to do so. The fact that I voted "NO" and am not bidding it, validates my position.
Those that encouraged the LOA to pass...well, the fact that they didn't bid it , belies their claims of the LOA's economic benefit.
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
10% of the "NO" voters bid the FDAs? That would make 105 "NO" pilots bidding for the 165 slots. Since the practice bid showed a total of only 118 takers, actually bid these beloved FDAs...That would mean only 13 of your "YES" brothers that thought it was a worthy LOA, actually bid it.
Just think...If your 10% theory is accurate, we only need 2.7% of the "YES" voters to fill the other 60 slots. Wow! That is going to go senior!
I voted no, because I wanted to go. But, I'm not one of your 10%.
#28
Whale
I voted for the LOA because it was an increase in benefits from our current Contract (I’m sure others at this post will disagree). And, this LOA is a starting point for future negotiations. There was no guarantee the company would return with a better product if we had refused this LOA because we already had a move package in our contract.
I’m also one of the pilots bidding Captain in Paris which it looks like I’ll be able to hold.
Yes, Paris will be expensive …hopefully I’ll break-even going from Wide Body FO to 757 Captain. Yes, I wouldn't bid Paris if I couldn't hold Captain..but I can and I'm looking forward to living overseas again. I lived in Germany during my AF career for 6 years so I’m not going over totally blind.
As far as who FedEx hires, no one comes onto our property without numerous years of flying experience. We probably have one of the highest time requirements in the industry. And, I know other cargo operators hire guys off the street without international experience and they seem to do just fine (I was at World and saw this first hand).
Also, from past discussions on this post, they’re plenty of pilots at Reserve/Guard units that will jump at the opportunity to volunteer for one of these FDAs just to get hired. Hopefully their sponsor/company will brief them on the possibility of extended tour of duty since they'll need to bid to return back to the CONUS/ANC.
As far as when you might start training if you’re hired into the HGK FDA, that all depends on how many pilots senior to you need to go through training. Also, from what I understand, the SFS pilots bidding back to the CONUS/ANC will be required to continue to fly Asia until Dec08.
Good luck
I’m also one of the pilots bidding Captain in Paris which it looks like I’ll be able to hold.
Yes, Paris will be expensive …hopefully I’ll break-even going from Wide Body FO to 757 Captain. Yes, I wouldn't bid Paris if I couldn't hold Captain..but I can and I'm looking forward to living overseas again. I lived in Germany during my AF career for 6 years so I’m not going over totally blind.
As far as who FedEx hires, no one comes onto our property without numerous years of flying experience. We probably have one of the highest time requirements in the industry. And, I know other cargo operators hire guys off the street without international experience and they seem to do just fine (I was at World and saw this first hand).
Also, from past discussions on this post, they’re plenty of pilots at Reserve/Guard units that will jump at the opportunity to volunteer for one of these FDAs just to get hired. Hopefully their sponsor/company will brief them on the possibility of extended tour of duty since they'll need to bid to return back to the CONUS/ANC.
As far as when you might start training if you’re hired into the HGK FDA, that all depends on how many pilots senior to you need to go through training. Also, from what I understand, the SFS pilots bidding back to the CONUS/ANC will be required to continue to fly Asia until Dec08.
Good luck
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
That's great. Gosh, it would be even better for you if the company only offered $1000 living allowance. That way, you could be an even more senior captain over there.
You should be embarrassed that a company this profitable would have to look for newhires that, "will jump at the opportunity to volunteer for one of these FDAs just to get hired."
I hope you enjoy your out of seniority upgrade.
You should be embarrassed that a company this profitable would have to look for newhires that, "will jump at the opportunity to volunteer for one of these FDAs just to get hired."
I hope you enjoy your out of seniority upgrade.
#30
That's great. Gosh, it would be even better for you if the company only offered $1000 living allowance. That way, you could be an even more senior captain over there.
You should be embarrassed that a company this profitable would have to look for newhires that, "will jump at the opportunity to volunteer for one of these FDAs just to get hired."
I hope you enjoy your out of seniority upgrade.
You should be embarrassed that a company this profitable would have to look for newhires that, "will jump at the opportunity to volunteer for one of these FDAs just to get hired."
I hope you enjoy your out of seniority upgrade.
Give these guys a break, just looking out for number 1 while the Company shoves #2 down our throats and we keep telling them how good it tastes...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post