FDX - Enhancements to LOA
06-05-2008, 11:15 AM
#71
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
06-05-2008, 11:32 AM
#72
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
but my real point in the NO=, YES= post was that no matter what, we're still stuck with LOA version 1.0 - we can't ERASE that mistake by voting NO now.....that was all I was trying to confirm in my mind.
so, to restate - voting NO on LOA version 2.0 will NOT erase LOA version 1.0 and we will NOT be starting over from scratch on the whole FDA LOA thing.......right? right.
06-05-2008, 12:54 PM
#73
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,193
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
...now should we be thinking about this "tactically" or "strategically"?....hmmmm...I think we need to answer that question first.
...still pondering.
Last edited by DLax85; 06-05-2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason: clarity
06-05-2008, 01:15 PM
#74
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,193
Interesting article today re: FDX expansion in Europe:
How will our decisions today affect our QOL at all the FDAs in the future?
http://www.aircargonews.net/article.asp?art_id=3403
FedEx accelerates European hub projects
05-Jun-2008 : FEDEX Express has announced two major European hub projects to meet the growing demands of European business – a major expansion to its European hub in Roissy Charles de Gaulle, Paris, and a state-of-the-art environmentally friendly facility in Cologne.
The expansion at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle by September 2009 and the building of a major new facility at Cologne by spring 2010, will dramatically increase capacity at the two hubs – ensuring that FedEx Express can continue to provide a seamless service for customers who wish to access European and global markets while minimising impact on the environment.
The European Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said that in 2007 the European zone recorded its fastest economic growth rate since 2000, and that Europe was sharing in the benefits of the trend towards greater globalisation.
“These major developments of hubs at the very heart of our European operations, demonstrate our commitment to playing a central role in the future growth of the continent as a whole,” said Robert Elliott, president, Europe, Middle East, Indian subcontinent and Africa, FedEx Express. “At both Roissy-Charles de Gaulle and Cologne, we believe we have found innovative and practical solutions to our need to expand our operations that are good for business and the environment.”
The relocation of FedEx Express main hub for Central and Eastern Europe from Frankfurt to Cologne will allow FedEx Express to create a state-of-the-art facility with the very latest environmental design to meet the rapidly growing demand for express services in Germany and Eastern Europe.
How will our decisions today affect our QOL at all the FDAs in the future?
http://www.aircargonews.net/article.asp?art_id=3403
FedEx accelerates European hub projects
05-Jun-2008 : FEDEX Express has announced two major European hub projects to meet the growing demands of European business – a major expansion to its European hub in Roissy Charles de Gaulle, Paris, and a state-of-the-art environmentally friendly facility in Cologne.
The expansion at Roissy-Charles de Gaulle by September 2009 and the building of a major new facility at Cologne by spring 2010, will dramatically increase capacity at the two hubs – ensuring that FedEx Express can continue to provide a seamless service for customers who wish to access European and global markets while minimising impact on the environment.
The European Commissioner for economic and monetary affairs, said that in 2007 the European zone recorded its fastest economic growth rate since 2000, and that Europe was sharing in the benefits of the trend towards greater globalisation.
“These major developments of hubs at the very heart of our European operations, demonstrate our commitment to playing a central role in the future growth of the continent as a whole,” said Robert Elliott, president, Europe, Middle East, Indian subcontinent and Africa, FedEx Express. “At both Roissy-Charles de Gaulle and Cologne, we believe we have found innovative and practical solutions to our need to expand our operations that are good for business and the environment.”
The relocation of FedEx Express main hub for Central and Eastern Europe from Frankfurt to Cologne will allow FedEx Express to create a state-of-the-art facility with the very latest environmental design to meet the rapidly growing demand for express services in Germany and Eastern Europe.
Last edited by DLax85; 06-05-2008 at 01:16 PM. Reason: added link
06-05-2008, 04:17 PM
#77
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Originally Posted by Coachise
Voting yes is just putting lipstick on a pig. Voting no will hopefully keep the other fo seats empty. Then maybe the company will come up with a serious fix for this POS.
06-05-2008, 05:59 PM
#78
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 356
I will vote "yes" for LOA II as soon as DW or any member of the MEC bids HKG. Until then, they are a bunch of detached, uninformed politicians and my vote will REMAIN NO, NO, NO!!! It's gonna go senior eventually, trust me!!!
06-05-2008, 09:57 PM
#79
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Discombobulated
Posts: 155
Can anybody explain to me why we need to vote on LOA(enhanced version II), yet there was no vote on the "settlement agreement"? Can the union agree to something which abrogates my rights under our CBA...without a vote? I'm confused as to why we need to vote on something which is an enhancement, yet no vote is needed for something that diminishes a members contractual rights.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
