Trapav8r

Jolly,
I also voted no, but not because I like seeing the company bleed financially. I just didn't think it was a fair agreement between the company and its employees. (I obviously wasn't in the majority, shame on us as a crew force).

There is a significant issue of perspective that is important to point out, and one that I think the entire crew force needs to consider in order to strengthen us as a union (and a company quite frankly). We are all a team. FedEx's future is our future and Mr. Smith is interested in FedEx's future. He is a visionary and I am thankful for his leadership. Still, when our negotiating commitee sits down with company reps, they do so with the intent of delivering the best contract the COMPANY is willing to offer. THEY ARE NOT delivering the best contract we would like. They do their best to communicate our desires to the company, but in the end there is only so far the company is willing to go. When the NC gets to the point where they feel they have negotiated the best contract the company is willing to offer, then they turn it over to us.

It is then OUR RESPONSIBILITY to vote it down if it is not acceptable. I believe the NC speaks for me, but that does not mean it is anarchy if I vote it down. It just means that the "best" LOA or contract the company was willing to offer was not good enough.

With this LOA I think we failed by voting it in. However, as fate would have it we sort of got a do-over with the poor bid. Now, the ball goes back to the company and they have to up the Ante in order to make it an acceptable offer.

Nitefrater

I doubt that the meeting will result any significant improvements to the LOA. I think we'll see manglement present DW et. al. with a revised LOA that includes the $10,000 deposit loan to HK landlords. The MEC will approve the revision. DW et. al. will then start thumping their chest about how they forced manglement to use the proper process rather than direct dealing via FCIF.

Trapav8r

We need to avoid putting a band aid on the open wound. We need to have the leadership and foresight to look at our future in the overseas market and negotiate an acceptable LOA for at least the 3 years to come before the next contract is negotiated.

STV needs to go away. If they are worried about not having enough manning then put more folks over there on reserve.

The trips need to be improved. I still can't wait to see what pilots are going to be expected to do. From the example trips it looks like 12 hour duty times with long middle of the night drools with a 3 hour drive before and after a trip on a school bus.

Housing allowance needs to be increased. I understand their argument of pilots not making money on housing, but $2700 (+standard U.S. mortgage of $2000) doesn't even come close to providing a safe housing alternative for their families.

Some sort of an education allowance for kids needs to be added.

A cost of living adjustment needs to be included. It is unthinkable to expect current exchange rates to be maintained.

Etc. Etc

NoHaz

Is the Union demanding canceling the bid and improving the LOA or are we not allowed to know their position?

Canyonman

I know the definitions are in the contract (but in simple terms). Two 2 senior mec reps said the company cannot use STV to open a FDA, hence the Dec. 6th meeting? It has to be manned through bidding or new hires or out source. Do you guys agree? I hear the definition of a domicile is another can of worms--can you spell excess. BTW I voted against the LOA, the contract and I hate STV

CM

USMCFDX

Two words: Rubber Stamp

Bohica

Ditto, nothing substantive will come of the meeting.

Scope, however, will be improved. Iron clad.

Really.

noguardbaby

What block are you running for, when is the election, and where is the election schedule posted?

I checked the alpa site, couldnt find it anywhere.

Thanks, and good luck!

HIFLYR

I can see it now, for unspecified soft scheduling enhancements and for further scope protections. The MEC is approving a side letter allowing the company to
alter the CBA to allow for a crew member to be involuntary excessed "junior manned" to a FDA. But not to worry it will go senior so this will not happen.

Micro

Although we can only guess what the meeting will be about (as our MEC only tells us about the mtg but not what is about), I think the meeting will only discuss the LCA problem the company has. It appears no one wants to be a 757 LCA and NOT get widebody passover pay. Hopefully, our union will not just roll-over again and give the company what they want for "peanuts" for us.