MD11Fr8Dog

You are correct!

FDXLAG

That is why prefer a "no vote", as opposed to voting no.

Underdog

(Red lettering added for emphasis) Sounds familiar. Were they members of our last NC?

FlybyKnite

I was just wondering the same thing. I was a 32%er, but the ignorant masses prevailed and now . . .

LOA1 is a signed and sealed permanent part of the contract.

The Title of LOA2 is "Amendments to the Letter of Agreement Regarding FDA Assignments in CDG and HKG". The way I see it, voting NO on LOA2 will not rescind and/or revoke LOA1. Voting NO will only memorialize the many inadequacies of LOA1 (and prove we are the ignorant masses). LOA2 is a sign that we, the proponents of hysteria, were right in the first place. And it is a small step in the proper direction.

Since I was against LOA1 but don't want to shaft my fellow pilots, I will respectfully abstain from voting on LOA2. Like FDXLAG, I believe those that need it, should be the only ones to vote for it.

Haywood JB

The problem with the abstaining vote will be the same oblivious folks who voted yes on the first one will get a ballot. They will say that the NC says this is a good deal and an improvement. And you are back to your 68%.

AFW_MD11

except in that case it'll be closer to a 100% YES vote since the only ones voting would be purposeful YES voters (HKG bound) and oblivious/lemming YES voters - everyone else has or will have wised up by the time the votes are cast this time and abstain vs. voting NO.

y'all have convinced me the way to go is to just NOT VOTE - let the ones who actually want this or don't care (again) vote.

P.S. and remind me again why we still have an increasing number of people bidding HKG FO on these practice bids? why is this a good plan again?

fdxflyer

Actually, NO. I (personally) do not think you are correct. I believe you are making the same argument that the MEC made last time with #1. We can look at that argument now and say the were definitely wrong.

Voting NO doesn't mean we want to keep #1. It means we don't approve of the fix.

I find this line of thinking very disruptive to our ability to fix our contract of any deficiency in the future. As long as any area is "improved", people can always use this line of argument to vote "yes", even if it doesn't meet the minimum standard with which we entered negotiations. Will you vote for the next contract if it has a .05 pay raise? Why not (if not)? It would be turning down additional compensation that some people could use. Would voting no on that .05 pay raise be saying we would rather just keep our current contract (as you suggest with the LOA above)?

I will vote NO on 2 because (like 1) it does not meet the minimum standard of which I would approve a Foreign Duty Assignment Letter of Agreement. That is what I am saying when I vote NO!

Yes, there are "enhancements." Vote however you want. I don't believe this vote is nearly as significant as the last. The MEC blew it on #1. They pressed hard. They didn't understand the wants/needs of the crew force. They didn't understand how the seniority would play out.

We really hurt ourselves by voting in an LOA that couldn't fill the base. By passing the first LOA, the company could incrementally add small "enhancements" to find the minimum possible expense required to fill this base. Poor negotiating strategy to say the least.

I don't blame FE. He just showed up at the card table with a poor hand. But, we better hope we do better on the next contract with our leverage even if we don't think we have it.

HoursHore

The only message voting no on these amendments to the existing LOA
will send is you are willing to cut of your nose to spite your face. You will not be getting rid of the original POS, just eliminating the very modest enhancements to it.

There is nothing new in there that hasn't come out via FCIF, it just codifies it. No one will be further enticed to bid overseas because of it. If you are waiting for more before you go overseas, keep waiting. I think the Company already knows that the LOA won't get any body over there, thus the excess bids to reshuffle the seniority list.

Eventually they think they will fill it with junior guys willing to go over there to keep their wide body seat Maybe the ANC golden nuggets are who they have in mind, since they could bump all the way back to 72 so's. A HKG commute might be more palatable to than a 40 grand pay cut.

Just a theory into the ultimate goal of this whole excess crap.

FlyByNite

I've figured out how we can get a 100% yes vote on LOA II.....just insert that if the LOA passes, DW has agreeded to resign as MEC chair and bid HK to show us what a great deal it is. (Sorry Albie, I couldn't resist)

HDawg

LOA1, Swift kick in the nads.
LOA2, We are surprised that more guys didn't request a kick in the nads. So we'll say sorry after the kick and give you a bag of frozen peas.