An Open Letter to Dave Webb regarding the FDA and Bid Results
11-28-2007, 02:18 PM
#1
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
An Open Letter to Dave Webb regarding the FDA and Bid Results
I was asked by someone to post this on APC. He wants to keep his anonymity on APC, so I am doing it for him.
What follows below are 4 emails between me and Dave Webb regarding the LOA (before it was even published) and the FDAs. These were sent/received in June of 2007. In two places, I have included in [ ] txt that was added in this post which was not present in the original emails. The very bottom of the post is a new email sent to the MEC just today. None of this dialogue is meant to be an attack, it is just my closing thoughts on the subject.
Email One: Me to FedEx ALPA:
June 21, 2007
Dear MEC Negotiating Committee:
Although the LOA concerning the HKG and CDG domiciles has not yet been finalized, I would like to express grave concern over the initial rumors out there.
First and foremost, HKG is the most expensive city in the world with respect to Expat housing. Not “one of the most expensive”, or “among the most expensive”, but the most expensive city in the world for Expat housing. To expect a first officer to live there with a $3500 USD housing allowance is ridiculous, and most of all, embarrassing to FedEx’s reputation as a “Fortune 500 Company”. [for clarification, the 3500 dollar figure was the rumor floating around here in SFS as the housing allowance. Also, I did not know FedEx was a Fortune 100 Company, not 500] As a frame of reference, FedEx should be using Cathay Pacific’s Expat housing allowance and school tuition programs. They have had Expat crewmembers domiciled in HKG for many years, and are experts on the subject of what minimum housing allowance is needed for an acceptable standard of living. As a single guy, with no dependants, I can’t even make do with 3,500 a month for housing in HKG. Imagine a pilot with a wife and kids. What’s FedEx’s solution to the problem of tuition costs that measure over $15,000 per year? FedEx claims to be a “family orientated company”. Are they? I guess we’ll see.
Another issue is the “tax equalization” problem. If pilots based in HKG lose the tax benefit we currently have as Expats in Subic Bay, then there really is no point in bidding the domicile. I can’t imagine anyone in the right seat willing to take a pay cut to live halfway around the world in one of the most polluted, and most expensive cities in the world.
Sincerely,
TA
#608XXX
Email Two: Dave Webb to Me:
Fedex-MECChair, FDXMEC <[email protected]> wrote:
TA,
We are negotiating this LOA for the entire membership.
Based upon your employee number I am guessing you will be no where near senior enough to hold a position in either HKG or CDG.
Fraternally,
Dave Webb
Email Three: Me to Dave Webb:
Friday, June 22, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: RE: HKG LOA
Since I currently hold, and am based in Subic right now, I respectfully disagree. In fact, with the current numbers that are floating around with respect to this LOA, I think you are going to have to find guys a lot junior to me willing to accept a right seat assignment in HKG.
Final Email: Dave Webb to Me:
TA,
I’ll accept your bet.
Fraternally,
Dave Webb
PS Before you find yourself in trouble, you might want to consult a labor attorney about what constitutes illegal concerted activity. [I am still unclear what illegal activity Dave was referring to]
<END OF EMAILS>
November, 28th 2007
Although the temptation is there for this to be simply an “I TOLD YOU SO!” letter, nevertheless I will do my best to ensure it’s something more worthwhile than that (not to mention the fact you could just as easily say “I told YOU so!” to me, since I ended up bidding HKG). I think my question at the end is a legitimate one that merits an answer, or at least some thought on your part.
To start, I guess in a roundabout way, I am thankful the MEC sold such a substandard FDA LOA to the membership that I am able to hold #3 widebody FO in HKG, and would have been 40% in CDG. For a pilot with LESS than 2 years at FedEx to be a senior widebody FO is unprecedented. I’m thankful as well that some other outstanding pilots with roughly 3 years of seniority were able to hold widebody Captain in HKG. Again, a truly remarkable feat. What is the date of hire of the bottom MEM widebody, ANC, and LAX captains? I’m fairly certain it’s a long way from 3 years. Had the LOA actually been civilized, let alone “a good deal”, those other lucky guys and I would not be in the great position we’re in.
However, my serious concern is that the union leadership (except for the one guy who has actually lived in Asia on something other than a military base) is so out of touch with the rank and file here at FedEx, they thought this LOA was so good that the FDA FO seats would be filled by pilots senior to me. Yet I, a regular line pilot, recognized immediately there was absolutely no chance whatsoever the FO seats would be filled even by pilots junior to me. To make matters even worse, I realized this fact in June based on rumors of an LOA that was even better than the actual LOA turned out to be.
It troubles me when the people we are paying to represent/protect us from the company appear to have a substantial lack of understanding in the way we actually think and in what’s important to us. You told me with my employee #, I’d be NO WHERE SENIOR enough to hold HKG or CDG. In response to that, I have just two questions:
TA
608XXX
What follows below are 4 emails between me and Dave Webb regarding the LOA (before it was even published) and the FDAs. These were sent/received in June of 2007. In two places, I have included in [ ] txt that was added in this post which was not present in the original emails. The very bottom of the post is a new email sent to the MEC just today. None of this dialogue is meant to be an attack, it is just my closing thoughts on the subject.
Email One: Me to FedEx ALPA:
June 21, 2007
Dear MEC Negotiating Committee:
Although the LOA concerning the HKG and CDG domiciles has not yet been finalized, I would like to express grave concern over the initial rumors out there.
First and foremost, HKG is the most expensive city in the world with respect to Expat housing. Not “one of the most expensive”, or “among the most expensive”, but the most expensive city in the world for Expat housing. To expect a first officer to live there with a $3500 USD housing allowance is ridiculous, and most of all, embarrassing to FedEx’s reputation as a “Fortune 500 Company”. [for clarification, the 3500 dollar figure was the rumor floating around here in SFS as the housing allowance. Also, I did not know FedEx was a Fortune 100 Company, not 500] As a frame of reference, FedEx should be using Cathay Pacific’s Expat housing allowance and school tuition programs. They have had Expat crewmembers domiciled in HKG for many years, and are experts on the subject of what minimum housing allowance is needed for an acceptable standard of living. As a single guy, with no dependants, I can’t even make do with 3,500 a month for housing in HKG. Imagine a pilot with a wife and kids. What’s FedEx’s solution to the problem of tuition costs that measure over $15,000 per year? FedEx claims to be a “family orientated company”. Are they? I guess we’ll see.
Another issue is the “tax equalization” problem. If pilots based in HKG lose the tax benefit we currently have as Expats in Subic Bay, then there really is no point in bidding the domicile. I can’t imagine anyone in the right seat willing to take a pay cut to live halfway around the world in one of the most polluted, and most expensive cities in the world.
Sincerely,
TA
#608XXX
Email Two: Dave Webb to Me:
Fedex-MECChair, FDXMEC <[email protected]> wrote:
TA,
We are negotiating this LOA for the entire membership.
Based upon your employee number I am guessing you will be no where near senior enough to hold a position in either HKG or CDG.
Fraternally,
Dave Webb
Email Three: Me to Dave Webb:
Friday, June 22, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: RE: HKG LOA
Since I currently hold, and am based in Subic right now, I respectfully disagree. In fact, with the current numbers that are floating around with respect to this LOA, I think you are going to have to find guys a lot junior to me willing to accept a right seat assignment in HKG.
Final Email: Dave Webb to Me:
TA,
I’ll accept your bet.
Fraternally,
Dave Webb
PS Before you find yourself in trouble, you might want to consult a labor attorney about what constitutes illegal concerted activity. [I am still unclear what illegal activity Dave was referring to]
<END OF EMAILS>
<My new letter to Dave Webb>
Although the temptation is there for this to be simply an “I TOLD YOU SO!” letter, nevertheless I will do my best to ensure it’s something more worthwhile than that (not to mention the fact you could just as easily say “I told YOU so!” to me, since I ended up bidding HKG). I think my question at the end is a legitimate one that merits an answer, or at least some thought on your part.
To start, I guess in a roundabout way, I am thankful the MEC sold such a substandard FDA LOA to the membership that I am able to hold #3 widebody FO in HKG, and would have been 40% in CDG. For a pilot with LESS than 2 years at FedEx to be a senior widebody FO is unprecedented. I’m thankful as well that some other outstanding pilots with roughly 3 years of seniority were able to hold widebody Captain in HKG. Again, a truly remarkable feat. What is the date of hire of the bottom MEM widebody, ANC, and LAX captains? I’m fairly certain it’s a long way from 3 years. Had the LOA actually been civilized, let alone “a good deal”, those other lucky guys and I would not be in the great position we’re in.
However, my serious concern is that the union leadership (except for the one guy who has actually lived in Asia on something other than a military base) is so out of touch with the rank and file here at FedEx, they thought this LOA was so good that the FDA FO seats would be filled by pilots senior to me. Yet I, a regular line pilot, recognized immediately there was absolutely no chance whatsoever the FO seats would be filled even by pilots junior to me. To make matters even worse, I realized this fact in June based on rumors of an LOA that was even better than the actual LOA turned out to be.
It troubles me when the people we are paying to represent/protect us from the company appear to have a substantial lack of understanding in the way we actually think and in what’s important to us. You told me with my employee #, I’d be NO WHERE SENIOR enough to hold HKG or CDG. In response to that, I have just two questions:
- Why did 11 members of the MEC so heavily endorse a LOA so bad that I am able to?
- Why did I go from bidding 90% in a domicile in a 3rd world country to bidding 10% in a first world, multi cultural, cosmopolitan, such-a-great-place-to live, city?
TA
608XXX
11-28-2007, 02:55 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
If you vote for the hand picked guys with all the current union officer endorsements, guess what you'll get for the NEXT 4 years? You probably won't have anyone who will challenge that kind of thinking..
We can argue about pay rates, optimizer use, retirement plans, and a host of other issues. However, the smugness and arrogance of our own leadership is galling to me. I think the real issue is fidelity to the ones who sent you. This LOA indicates a failure of leadership and misplaced priorities.
Our goal should be first and foremost to protect the interests of FDX pilots. Anyone read the latest request for help for the comm chairman? I considered it at one point, but then when I re-read the part that said "because of tasking from National...." BM needed the help.
How did we get to the point where DW is on mutliple committees in DC and snubbing his own guys, and our own comm chairman needs help because HE CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH THE BROs? I own a farm, and I can tell you--that is pure hor$e****. The tail is wagging the dog right now. We need to get our own house in order--work on taking care of OUR people--THEN worry about getting ALPA on the property at Colgan or Skywest and worrying about Open Skies. FedEx pilots are not cannon fodder for other national union objectives. We are the best at what we do, and the highest paid (by default) in our profession. We don't need to be groveling or trying to help Prater when we are sending our own people to (or trying to!) FDAs with sub-standard packages. Fix the problem closest first....
The Subic block has a chance to put another horse in the race. I hope they pick a good one. As for LEC 22...the choice is yours.
We can argue about pay rates, optimizer use, retirement plans, and a host of other issues. However, the smugness and arrogance of our own leadership is galling to me. I think the real issue is fidelity to the ones who sent you. This LOA indicates a failure of leadership and misplaced priorities.
Our goal should be first and foremost to protect the interests of FDX pilots. Anyone read the latest request for help for the comm chairman? I considered it at one point, but then when I re-read the part that said "because of tasking from National...." BM needed the help.
How did we get to the point where DW is on mutliple committees in DC and snubbing his own guys, and our own comm chairman needs help because HE CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH THE BROs? I own a farm, and I can tell you--that is pure hor$e****. The tail is wagging the dog right now. We need to get our own house in order--work on taking care of OUR people--THEN worry about getting ALPA on the property at Colgan or Skywest and worrying about Open Skies. FedEx pilots are not cannon fodder for other national union objectives. We are the best at what we do, and the highest paid (by default) in our profession. We don't need to be groveling or trying to help Prater when we are sending our own people to (or trying to!) FDAs with sub-standard packages. Fix the problem closest first....
The Subic block has a chance to put another horse in the race. I hope they pick a good one. As for LEC 22...the choice is yours.
Last edited by Albief15; 11-28-2007 at 03:01 PM.
11-28-2007, 03:20 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
"Based upon your employee number I am guessing you will be no where near senior enough to hold a position in either HKG or CDG."
Nice response, very professional Webb.
This guy truly a piece of work. The sooner he is out of office the better. We can only hope he has a temper tantrum like BC and my 4 year old and quits.
Nice response, very professional Webb.
This guy truly a piece of work. The sooner he is out of office the better. We can only hope he has a temper tantrum like BC and my 4 year old and quits.
11-28-2007, 03:20 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: MD-11/10 Captain
Posts: 533
The tone and arrogance of DW's emails are amazing. And unless I'm missing something here, he threatened one of our members in the second one.
I'm running out of steps on the lower part of my opinion ladder. Time to email my LEC guys.
I'm running out of steps on the lower part of my opinion ladder. Time to email my LEC guys.
11-28-2007, 03:42 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 110
I am in favor of fresh leaders. Having said that, it is quite possible that DW took that tone with TA because of other issues that TA might have been involved with. I am not being a DW apologist, just saying we got one version of the story. I do not know the other version, but maybe someone does.....anyone?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
