magic rat

Good thoughts subicpilot. I agree, that's how they most likely will proceed.

What I am concerned about is that is where the future is (like you said), and we're tripping over ourselves getting that region up and running. It's gotta have our boss and those persons in the big silver buildings scratching their heads on how to speed things up and seal the deal.

It shouldn't be this hard.

Gunter

IMHO, the timeline on this will be years. They're trying whip up hysteria but it is really only a hurry up and wait situation. The company is not REALLY in a hurry. Slots may go unfilled for a year or two as the asian shedule gets ramped up. Perhaps the same in Europe.

Wild Bill

FedEx said on their website that they intend to hire into any unfilled FDA slots on the question and answer section of the LOA. When FedEx edited down the size of the LOA section this verbage was not included. FedEx has consistently said that they only intend to use STV for shortfalls in training while opening each FDA.

Here is the current STV/FDA info on the FedEx site:
"The Special Temporary Vacancy (STV) piece was developed to allow build up of the base during its initial start-up. Notice it can only be used in the first two years of opening the base and only for 18 months once it is started. ALPA wanted these controls so STVs are not used to man the base with temporaries for the next 10 years. Any STV bid can last up to 3 months. If you bid on it, whatever the time specified is what you’ll serve. However, if no one wants to go, then the inverse portion will be kept to a minimum. The standard term for inversing will be one month. Also, extenuating circumstances will be considered, as always….military, special needs children, etc. We don’t need to have no-shows and late sick calls because someone doesn’t want to be there."

There is no agreement locking in the additional perks added during and after the LOA ratification.

There is no agreement that would preclude FedEx from using STV to fill FDA vacancies.

FedEx has said they are currently overmanned.

Hope that the facts above help any decision you have to make.

My best guess is that FedEx may say that they were forced to use STV to fill FDA vacancies due to high fuel prices, economic slowdown, and rapid and unforseen changes in the retirement age although that was not their original intent.

I'll also predict that FedEx will continue throw around the furlough word while pilots have the opportunity to bid for open FDA slots in order to help entice some junior members into accepting foreign domcile assignments. FedEx may say they are considering furlough or deny that they will furlough, but in any event they are using the word which creates the desired effect. FedEx's true intentions can be gleaned if they actually notify the union of their intention to furlough as required by contract, which would also impact the company's bottom line, image, and stock price.

These are only one man's opinion, however.

AerisArmis

For what it's worth....During RGS, the VP Training said that STV is intended as a way to man the FDAs to take advantage of "market conditions". i.e., they see an opportunity to start a new city pairing but can't man the FDA for that without a bid and training so they STV during that period. STV is more expensive than SIBA and that is what this is all about ($$$) so I would think they would want to avoid it. It made sense and he wasn't wearing a mustache, but his lips were moving so who knows?

MaydayMark

I've thought for some time that the entire "F" word strategy was a tactic for the company to negotiate an avenue to be able to excess folks to an FDA (remember that the LOA says that no one can be sent there involuntarily).

I see it playing out like this. PC comes to the union leadrship (that bought off on the FDA POS) and says, "I really don't want to furlough, but we're over manned with vacancies in the FDA. Do you guys have any suggestions for solving this problem?" Our leadership them thinks that displacing pilots to the FDA's is their own idea???? I know it would never happen but then again, I never thought our union would sell us a substandard LOA? YMMV

Mark

FDXLAG

There is no way that STV is more expensive then SIBA. Manpower alone, SIBA takes at least 2.5 times the pilots. That does not count the deadhead savings. They must put on a heck of a power point show.

MD11Fr8Dog

Make that two men's opinions!

MD11Fr8Dog

You know that's the whole purpose for the mustaches...so you can't see the lips moving!!

AerisArmis

I don't follow. Let's take line #1, crewed by 1 Capt and 1 F/O. SIBA is a DDH for both and hotels for the 12-13 days they fly. STV requires a DDH for both, plus an apartment for one month plus per diem for the month and a ticket for a spouse if wanted. Int'l override is a wash. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something here but I don't get the 2.5 times as many crews. How'd ja figger it?

MD11Fr8Dog

I don't buy the 2.5 times either, but another thing to consider is that any layovers in CDG during SIBA count as work days, not necessarily so for STV. There will be some savings for Fred on that, just not sure how much?