FDX: Is the Union fighting this (FDA 10K Problem)
 

This just in from an HKG pilot who tried to get the 10K "Deposit Assistance":

Apparently, it is mandantory to use Proway's people (ie, the FedEx housing vendor in HKG) to obtain the 10 K deposit assistance.

So God forbid you took some intiative and found an apartment on your own, and/or simply chose to use a different rental agency. Well, I guess you don't get the 10K Deposit Assistance. SOL.

This is not written anywhere in the LOA. Well, of course neither is the 10K deposit assistance. But in any event, I don't recall reading anywhere in the LOA Improvement FCIFs that an FDA pilot was required to let FedEx find his apartment to get the 10K deposit assitance. Does anyone else remember reading this? What's next? "We don't like the location you've chosen to live in, so we've decided not to give you the 2700 a month either."

This just came up yesterday, so the Union may be fighting it as we speak (I certainly hope so). I just wanted to make everyone aware of the issue.

PS. IeSpell is not installed on this computer, and I depend on it heavily as I can't spell for s h i t.

Ahh, the plot sickens...

As Darth Vader once said: "Pray I don't alter the agreement further."

Just tell me someone at the Union offices are writing this all down and that we really are going to learn something from all this --- a very painful set of lessons, but please tell me we are going to learn. :o:(:mad:

You are correct that it is not in the contract; therefore, the Company can do as they wish. There still has not been, to my knowledge anyway, a side letter that formally contractualizes the unilateral improvements the Company "gave" us while the bid for the FDA was still open. I do believe the Union is working on that side letter to approve what we werent able to get in negotiations because of the fact that we got the best LOA we could negotiate!!

Iarapilot,

You, Sir, are also correct. The HKG domicile opened this month. We haven't seen any side letter the Union and the Company have been "formalizing" since the Dec 6th 2007 meeting to do just that. I guess I just don't realize how difficult it must be! Albie? Vic? Hope EI is still not the Lone Ranger!!!!!

MEC meeting this week...I'll get an update. I haven't talked to anyone on this particular issue.

I got a few other fires I'm interested in stoking and learning more about. I'll send out a newsletter once the week is done and I've got current info and some time to digest the various issues.

As for complaints about the LOA...you know my take on the issue and the history behind it...why did you bid it?

Albie....Keep up the good work. You're consistently the voice of reason on these threads.

Did you grow a mustache already?

Albie,

I have to agree with you on this...I've seen a bunch of grumbling about the Euro and the LOA on another web site. A lot of "What is ALPA going to do about this?" It really makes me wonder if the people who bid an FDA bothered to read the LOA. If you didn't you are guilty of gross negligence and if you did read it...and bid anyway....how can you possibly be complaining?:mad:

Let's say you were on R-24 and got assigned hotel standby. The only hotel available was the most expensive in the city and the company told you to pay with your credit card and you would be reimbursed. Come expense report time, you are told your $10,000 bill will not be reimbursed due to some previously unspecified technicality. You wouldn't complain?

We've got the first crewmember in Hong Kong out $10,000 because of a previously unspecified technicality and those exposing it are being blasted for complaining....and among others, by our "most consistent voice of reason"?

The mantra, not surprisingly goes from "Secure the flying now, we'll get improvements later" to "screw you, you bid it, why are you complaining?".

The people who bid these FDAs did so for as many reasons as there are people on the list. I think we can all agree none of them did it for the great carrots dangled in front of them in the form of any sweet contractual perks. I only know of one person who bid the thing who actually voted YES to the LOA (and incidently, he was telling everyone not to bid it). Everyone I know who bid it clearly recognizes the shortcomings and concessionary nature of the LOA. They know what they are getting themselves into.

I humbly suggest the majority of people who did not read the LOA were those who voted "YES" at the strenuous urging of most of our union officials.

To suggest those who bid the FDAs didn't read the LOA before bidding is silly. There's always one out there, but tell me, how was our guy who just got stiffed the $10,000 supposed to read the fine print on that part of the agreement when the union and the company haven't seen fit to put it in print?


Finally, those who bid these FDA's did so under the assurance by the union that improvements would be sought once we secured the flying. You can bet your pattootie you'll hear a lot more compaining when more promises aren't kept, regardless of their nature.