DLax85

A very interesting idea ---- that gets the LOA passed for those that "need it", BUT sends an absolutely HUGE message to both the MEC and the company, about solidarity and our future positions regarding "real improvements" needed in the FDAs.

I'm still digesting all the discussion on this issue, but if you stop and think about it, this approach to the FDA Enhancement LOA is very, very astute --- and might actually satisfy many different tactical and strategic goals simulataneously.

USMCFDX

Once again from the MEC "It's better than what we have now"

What exactly did we negotiate?

Voting NO again.

DLax85

What are the short term and long term benefits/negative effects to all crewmembers of this FDA Enhancement LOA passing/not passing?

I think the "short term" benefits to those who have bid it are obvious --- but are they in the "long term" benefit of those who will live in HKG far beyond the initial FDA startup? (...remember folks, this is still where our future (only) growth is forecast to occur)

...is continuing to add very minor tweaks to the LOA, to barely get the FO slots filled, a tangible benefit to those not bidding HKG? (i.e....allowing the company to keep it extremely junior and therefore stagnate domestic progression)

...at what point in time will we have leverage to actually negotiate significant enhancements to the LOA? (e.g. COLA, increased housing allowance, educational benefits, increased weight allowances, etc)

I guess what I'm getting at is --- how should we view our stance on this issue --- tactically or stragtegically?

Won't our manning/hiring situation change in 3-5 yrs as the over age 60 guys hit 65 and they really do retire?

Aren't there short-term and long-term benefits to all the crew force if the company is forced to hire into the FDAs now to get them filled? (i.e. difficult to furlough, future or perhaps even immediate negogiation leverage)

I think there are many angles to this issue that warrant discussion/reflection before we take a position.

Coachise

I'm with Jakal and the vomit. Or, to use another analogy, we're spraying perfume on a turd. You can still see what it is, it just stinks in a different way.

The company keeps offering small bs increases until they get enough people to fill the seats. I say vote no and make the company come back with something that really helps the pilots going there.

By the way, does anyone know if the packages for "highly skilled workers" as JL put it, has changed since the dollar has fallen, or are they still getting the package they were originally offered? I ask that seriously and not rhetorically .

Albief15

I don't put anything Chunky says seriously until he pays his royalty checks for my gut photo...

AerisArmis

So...if you're single... or....you have a marriage not worth saving, a good time could be had? Ought to be enough in that demographic to fill 10 Hong Kongs. Truth be told, a couple of our single guys, sharing a nice pad, could run the tourist booty like rock stars. But then, it would be just that cheap, unfullfilling , physical stuff.

nightfreight

Is any marriage worth saving???

machz990

Sure there is a demographic that could make this work. They will still be subsidizing the company with their pay but if everyone is happy so be it. Unfortunately that isn't why I made the comment. I recently jumpseated on a 727 and the very junior F/O and S/O were talking about their options with the excess bid and everything else going on. They were actually considering HKG with a family and kids as a possible option due to their low seniority. They have never been there and from the conversation I could tell they had done little to NO research on HKG and the cost of living.

iarapilot

I first must say Albie, that is good to have someone on the MEC whom one seems to know where he is coming from. Having said that, I tend to disagree on some points.

I too, was against the first LOA. So therefore I am against the second one. Neither is what any of us deserves. I didnt bid HKG because the deal sucked, among other reasons. Although LOA2 helps those that are going there, they bid it without the "memorialized enhancements".....(major sarcastic tone!) So, they bid it knowing what they were getting under version 1.

When the Company started sweetening things unilaterally, the Union should have raised the BS flag and stopped it. That is direct dealing.....unsat. But, of course I realize they couldnt have raised a stink; they wanted LOA1. Even if the Company acted illegally and nefariously during the vote AND bidding. Pathetic, if you ask me. (I know you didnt ask me )

This LOA2 did cost us! It cost us because it allowed the Company to give us a cr@ppy deal on LOA1, and then when that didnt work to well, we got version 2. It cost us in unity due to the hard sell from those that pushed hard for it, when now I think a lot more folks realize what a piece of junk it is....and was.

There is a much bigger picture here. The Company are experts at divide and conquer. They have honed their skills this time around. Giving our NC committee a crappy deal, sweetening things unilaterally when they want more crewmembers to "bite", then getting away with all of this is just plain wrong.....AFU! This goes against my grain, sense of fair play, and other things I wont mention. And of course I realize it is business.

Hope you the best in your work with the MEC. I would suggest that when we are offered a deal by the Company, you will ask yourself (if you already dont) what their profit will be, what we get out of it (nothing taken away like this LOA), and if it is all fair. And what their motivations are.

AFW_MD11

Someone please correct me if my thinking is wrong here.....(I know someone will)

Voting NO = we'd rather just keep LOA version 1.0 (since it's already the law now)

Voting YES = we want LOA version 1.0 + "enhancements" (aka LOA version 2.0)

from what I read, LOA version 2.0 doesn't subtract anything from version 1.0 - it just adds the "enhancements"

and, if we vote NO, LOA version 1.0 has already passed and will stay in place?