Tony . . . . a couple of questions.

1: Didn't you say that the first LOA was the best we were going to get? And (IMO) when you reply to Skypine, don't be condescending or sanctimonious. We all know you haven't missed any FCIFs. It doesn't become you. We follow this closely. The major enhancements to the FDA LOA were done by FCIF and put into LOA2. And you know that too.

2: What do you think about giving the company carte blanche the ability to schedule public ground transportation from HKG to CAN and return? Do you think it would be better if it were the crew member's option?

Thanks, Cos

 

BrownGirls. Excellent post that clearly represents what you believe would be best for you. I wish you the best of luck in HKG under LOA1.
LOA2 can not and should not be represented as simply "more" to a package deal that LOA1 constituted. LOA1 is/was the "best we could get". That was it, no more, do not pass go. You bid it based on that being the final offer.
To ask the crew force to support LOA2 now because it adds more to a package you already agreed upon getting is analagous, in my mind, of buying a ridiculously overpriced car(LOA1). After driving it off the lot as something you decided to buy, you find out the next month they were adding new options and a rebate(LOA2) to try to move the overstock (open pilot slots)of this same car that you were sure was worth the price you paid for it at the time.
When you find out about this, you run back down to the dealer to upgrade your purchase. The dealer then tells you that if you will tell all of his future buyers to buy the car because it will enhance the value of your car, and they agree to buy the remaining inventory, you will get the upgrades. With no malice or dishonesty on your part, you have essentially become a pro-dealer(FDX) negotiator because the results would personally enhance your package.
What you are not considering is that the rest of the crew force is now those potential buyers you are trying to convince to buy the car. We still see it as on overpriced, undervalued, sub-industry standards piece of junk that we do not want to buy. You bought it at the undervalued price because that worked for your individual desires and the dealer(FDX) found your price.
The Dealer(FDX) will not start taking these new enhancements out if they don't get enuogh buyers. They will continue to look for the FAIR MARKET price that they need to offer their cars(FDA LOA) at. If that means continuinig to kick the tires(negotiate aggressively) while looking at other options(not buying a car because you don't NEED one) then that's what we'll do and force the dealer(FDX) to continue to sweeten the pot. They have the cars on the lot(open pilot slots) and they can't get new cars (grow the Asian market as they desire) until they sell the existing inventories(remaining pilot slots). They still haven't provided what I believe are the fundamental pieces of this car before I consider buying it.
Cut to the chase, this LOA2 is still WELL below what any successful Fortune 500 company would offer it's employees to live in a place like HKG and commute to a place like CAN. No COLA, no school and loss of the full tax benefit are the add-ons I need in order to buy me this car.
The NC is on the right track...I say continue to negotiate with MORE leverage AFTER we vote LOA2 down. This is what happens when a company and a union do terribly inferior due-diligence before going in to a new market. Expat packages should not be so inferior that you can not get a simple initial cadre of staff even though for most going it would be a huge promotion. Why take the promotion when your added pay would equal what you would be making without having to commute on smelly, crowded busses and endure the tremendous growing pains of opening a new domicile....on the cheap?
By voting no on LOA2, I am one of those folks who will be helping all future buyers to get a much better deal for their investment. The cars are on the lot(pilots are needed in HKG). Let's continue to kick the tires until we find a FAIR-MARKET price for what we will be buying.
NO TO LOA2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Tony and BGY are correct. There are some improvements in this new LOA which have not been issued via FCIF. An important one that BGY previously mentioned is more flexibility in where your "stuff" ends up. BGY also mentioned the 4 days free house hunting (up from 2 days) and the "Holding" Deposit coverage.

Are those small improvements are worth 2 substantial concessions?

To me, it's No Vote even omitting those two concessions (Para G and Para N), but in the end the small number of people who bother to vote will decide the outcome.

Our Fortune 100 Company can do a bit better with respect to the FDA(s) and hopefully will be forced to do so because of FO vacancies.

(PS I just got home and made this post with a computer that has IESpell installed. WOW! Sorry about all the previous spelling errors!)

 

Big NO on this. Sorry it affects you immediately but the future repurcussions for everyone else are way too big. I don't want to be callous but you bid it under the cr@ppy LOA. No more givebacks to the company on this. As mentioned before there are a lot of follow on dudes to come and they need to sweeten the pot before that will happen. DW negotiating for us without any checks and balances will sell the farm.

 

While I appreciate the position the original poster is in, I think the only answer to this LOA V.20 is "NO". I cannot and will not sign away my bargaining rights. If you're unfamiliar, check out paragraph N in the new and "improved" FDA LOA.

 

I appreciate all the thoughtful replies here. Trust me, they aren't falling on deaf ears. I'm trying to keep an open mind on this thing as much as I can. My support for this, just as EI has stated, is not without serious reservations.

Ham,
Another pretty good analogy, and it fits well with the supply and demand of a car dealership, and what it could take for the company to fill the seats, but it doesn't accurately depict where the HKG seat-holder fits into the story. I'm not trying to convince anyone to buy one of these cars (bid the seat). I don't think anyone is under the illusion that ratification of this amendment will result in any more people bidding HKG.

If the company sees the need to again sweeten the pot to fill those remaining empty seats, they'll do so with or without this amendment signed. My gut just says their plans to fill these seats don't include any more positive incentives.

 

I might have considered bidding an FDA if the original LOA1 has been a professional ex-pat package (instead of "expat packages are for people with special skills"?). It didn't meet (or even come close to) my minimum expectation and I was told by my elected leadership that it was the best we could get?

After the fact, the company tried to sweeten the pot via FCIF. I'm totally against the idea of negotiating via FCIF (it's been said here many times, Anything given by FCIF can be taken away by FCIF). It would be nice to modify the original LOA1 to include the FCIF enhancements but that's not what LOA2 does (paragraphs G & N).

So ... I'm voting a big NO in hopes the company has problems manning the FDA's and will have to totally rethink their position on offering us a sub-par LOA just because they think they might be able to man it anyway.

Other related questions:

- DO we get FIRST CLASS train tickets to CAN? What happens when we get there? Public bus to a flea-bag hotel? Maybe FedEx bicycles (with luggage racks?) to the hotel. Is this public transportation cost savings a future weapon the company can use against us. Maybe we could take a subway from EWR - JFK and save the company limo expenses?

- "Other measures facilitating the operation of the
pilot bases in CDG and HKG and supporting the pilots based there may be
implemented if agreed upon in writing by the Vice President, Labor Relations
Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman." YOU MUST BE KIDDING ME!*?.

 

This is going to be unpopular with a bunch of you guys but here I go. I am 100% against the company discriminating against unmarried, unaccompanied pilots. In my 8 1/2 years overseas in Uncle Sam's Air Corps, we had married housing, married BAS and a bunch of other things that the US Gov't thought were important to encourage male military members to be married (read stable). Well, we ain't there no more. Why should the total compensation for the F/O with 4 kids exceed that of the Capt he's flying with? Everyone has a great idea on how this thing could be approved but when it comes to children there is no entitlement here. Just don't bid the d**m thing. Nobody owes you anything. You could've held ANC, but Mary was in ballet, Johnny has soccer and the wife is working on her degree in Animal Husbandry (sorry, I couldn't help myself).
B***h all you want about this LOA but don't think that you deserve more because you're married with children. (BTW, once Cosnuts gets his Jarhead a** squared away, I'm thinking his HKG place will be primo for a relaxing cocktail).

 

Yeah, because children are a personal choice.

It shouldn't be a winfall for us with kids, but we shouldn't be punished because we have them (more than we already are, that is )

 

Man I hope you are kidding!!!