BrownGirls YUM

From a guy who IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HKG;

I've mostly sat back, read all the ideas brought forth and thought long and hard on this, mostly because it does immediately and directly affect me.

What I've seen are a lot of understandably loud exclamations of displeasure with section N and section G. I appreciate the spirit with which Skypine presents the case for voting it down, and I understand the reasoning, but I respectfully disagree with a number of points. I'm pretty displeased with section N, not so much by what it says or does, but that it just seems to be a tactical blunder in an effort to get these improvements in place. 18 months ago, nobody would have batted an eye at section N and this amendment would be an easy addition. In light of the events of the past year, I think the reaction of folks to this is understandable and could have/should have been predicted.

I hate section N. I wish it weren't in there, but consider what we got last year when we did have a vote on LOA1....having a vote in no way stopped the will of the majority of the MEC to get that thing in place. I'm fighting hard to imagine us getting hosed any harder than we did with LOA1 just by having section N included in the amendment.

If this document were the original LOA last year, the improvements in there would not be enough for me to have changed my vote from NO to YES back then. This would still be a NO vote for me. But the impression I get from people posting here is that they don't understand that if this gets voted down, LOA1 has just been re-elected. There won't be any going back to the table. The HKG base is already open. People are already there. There is no incentive for the company to come back to the table with more. The choice is LOA1 or the amended LOA1.

Again...A "NO" vote for this amendment is a "YES" vote for LOA1.

When I look at my personal situation, the LOA Amendment is a considerable improvement on LOA1. It makes an enormous difference in how I complete my relocation both before and after my assignment. The amount of money it is going to cost me to relocate is substantially less with the amendment(in the 5-digits range).

I'm a Subic guy, and I have a houseful of stuff here. Under the amendment, I am free to move ALL of my stuff to HKG (my return FDA move) and anyone who does 3 years in HKG is entitled to a full, section 6, option #2 move. I would therefore be able to take all my stuff there and have it shipped home upon completion. That's a big difference over 3000 pounds.

Adding the freedom to choose your return location is a nice option as well....and that's not just for the HKG domicile, it's a option added to section 6.

Now, the difference between 500-1000 pounds for a person coming from a non-FDA might seem like a small difference..and it is...but the ability to buy a household full of furniture while assigned to Asia and ship it all back at the end--to wherever you like-- is pretty nice (and unavailable if voted down).

If LOA1 is re-elected, I will be forced to move my stuff back to the US-ONLY TO THE PLACE OF ORIGIN (the optional location is an amendment item)--then have my stuff packed up, I get only 500 pounds to send to HKG(the packing of which will be at my expense) and most of my stuff will need to be stored. The cost of packing and transporting my goods from my home to the storage facitility would also be my responsibility as opposed to if the amendment were ratified.

Without this amendment:
-I get to open my checkbook again to pay a realtor's finders fee, that's a half-months rent.

-I'll get to open my checkbook again for the deposit..that's two months rent.

-I'll only have two days to locate a home as opposed to 4 days extendable, if needed.

-I'll be limited to 30 days in the hotel, which will suck because my stuff will have to make a journey to the US, be separated, stored, and some of it shipped back to HKG. The amendment allows for over 30 days in situations like this.

Has anyone gotten an estimate for how much it costs to pack up a house and move the stuff into a storage facility? I have...for a 10k pound house, I was quoted $5000-5500. The company doesn't pick up that tab if this is voted down...its on us.

To say this amendment contains only non-monetary improvements is simply innacurate.

If LOA1 is re-elected, section G.1. will still be there. That wont change. So voting this down does nothing to "convert this base to an all double deadhead base". It already is, and any of those DH's to CAN are currently legal in a car. And incidently, as it stands, the deviation requirement to be in CAN 12 hours prior to your operating flight doesn't go away under the current LOA. That G/T is a deadhead, and if you deviate from it, you are required to be in CAN 12 hours prior. Cars/trains/space shuttle....it's all a DH subject to the same deviation rules.

Allowing that DH to be in a train doesnt change any of that. It means you can be scheduled to show at Hung Hom station, already identified as a probably pickup point, and today, they put you in a car and drive you to to the hotel to crew rest prior to flying....OR....send you straight to the plane. HKG ACP has said this is undesirable, but that doesn't make it any less legal.

The express train is 1 hour, 40 minutes. The proposed plan as briefed by BS and JP is to take the train to guangzhou, crew rest for 12 hours, then operate. If this gets voted down, I imagine it will be the 3-4 hour car ride from the same place to guangzhou, crew rest for 12 hours, then operate.

Seems to me, it comes down to how you want to get to CAN. Car or train? From a guy who has taken the express train from Hung Hom to Guangzhou East, it's fine. From a guy who got on a regular train at the border, it sucked. Nobody has said the car ride has been anything but unpleasant..and there's the issue of getting out of the car at the border, clearing customs/immigration, loading the car back up, etc. One HKG resident told me of a trip from Shenzen to HKG that took him 9 hours due to border computers crapping out....nice.

This is the train:
MTR Intercity Through Train e-Ticketing Services

As far as putting someone on an amtrak from DTW to EWR, I can't envision the SIG approving something like that.

If we vote this down, to whom are we sending what message? Are we sticking it to DW by not giving him the big gift of section N? I doubt he cares much one way or the other...and he's gone within the year, so voting it down to spite DW seems silly and useless.

What message to we send to the company if we vote it down? I doubt they would care much either....probably will have another celebration party like they did last August when we elected LOA1 to its first term. They'll save a lot of cash on the move packages, although I suppose the amount of money they'll save on train vs auto G/T will offset that. I don't think the company cares one way or another whether this gets approved.

In fact, I'm sure their negotiators will be tickled to hear that in 2010, stuff that could easily be contractual now, will be in our openers...if we are even that lucky. I say take the improvements now, that way our openers for this section can focus on scratching just to get rental assistance to rise with inflation. Rent customarily rises 10%/year in HKG which means that $2700 agreed to last year is worth about $2500 today.

Consider the amount of improvements the Subic folks saw over the 13 years this base has been open and then figure the odds of us ever seeing any of these proposed additions ever making it back into a contract--pretty long odds, in my estimation.

Someone suggested that since tax equalization is still there, he's still voting no. Well, that no vote won't change tax equalization....it's there and it ain't going anywhere by voting this down.

So yeah, I hate section N, don't really see G.2 as that big of a deal, but when I consider how big of a check I would have to write just to keep section N from being included, it's not worth it to me.

I'm not willing to write a 5-digit check just to keep DW or his successor from being allowed to sign an agreement with flt ops. Besides, after paying a bit more attention lately, I am with Albie on this....if there's a big change, I actually have a little faith that the ratification process would be invoked....call me crazy.

So, to all of you folks voting no just to stick it to DW or the company, I submit the only folks you'll be sticking it to are the people who actually have to live under the rule of this document in its entirety.

I will lose a substantial amount of money by this being voted down and will have to put many thousands more out of reach for my entire stay in HKG(deposits).

I'd appreciate reconsideration of your vote to yes for the reasons I've laid out. I'd also ask you to consider that people who have already relocated there have had the benefit of some of these improvements. Voting this down means the second half of the folks going there potentially won't be getting the same benefits as those who went before them.

As "O" would say....Flame away!!!! I'm taking cover

DLax85

When the HKG FO slots don't fill there will be....

When all the future MD-11 Slots to HKG don't fill there will be...

When the STV option runs out there will be...

Yes, it may take a while --- but we can get there --- together!

The company started slowly laying the $1 bills on the table after LOA #1 was signed, and this LOA merely formalizes those extra benefits...with a few more $$...some givebacks...and absolutely NONE of the mechanisms we need in a FDA LOA to intice the vast majority of FDX pilots to bid it.

(e.g. ...a COLA mechanism, a FDA-specific housing allowance vs a blanket FDA housing allowance, some school benefit (even if capped by percentage and total value), etc...)

It is relatively apparent to me that we will only have "true leverage" in the FDAs when there is a risk they won't be filled, and thus the freight may not move as desired.

If not now ---- when?

When will be the correct time to try to negogiate the proper mechanisms we need in FDAs to make it desirable for the majority to work there?

Certianly not when the company has given "just enough" to entice "just the right#" of a "specific demographic" to bid it.

I believe how we vote on this LOA makes a strong statement to both management and the MEC.

They are listening.....what msg will we send?

BrownGirls YUM

Last August


Seriously, all reasonable points, but I just don't see it happening. They don't have very many more slots to fill, and they are far from playing all the cards in their deck on those last few slots. The point about future MD slots is a good one, however.

I really want to be wrong about this, but my gut says otherwise. We gave up our true leverage by voting for version 1.

Hope I'm wrong.

FoamFlier

Brown Girl Aficionado,

I wish I knew where I was going, those decision makers who are impaired or simply incompetents, have alot of us in limbo.

You do make a good argument and raise some good points. However, a ******* sandwich is still full of ******* no matter what you call it. I have to agree with the 'send a message point', this history of taking in the shorts because there are a couple of things that might be agreeable is setting a damaging precedence. All I have seen in my short time here is capitulation by the crew force (union), from the inadequate contract to the LOA disaster to only name the major ones. I think this is a time when we need to get our act together and act together!

Most opinions for the no are well documented and be redundant to list.

-- cut and paste here as necessary--

Finally, I believe the items in the LOA #2 have already been agreed to and will continue to be available. That would be a pretty bad morale move on the company's part to not give everyone fair treatment. They can't make the guys that have already gone there pay back or send back the improvements they already received.

It's time we grow a pair and stand up for what is right!!

Laughing_Jakal

Browngirls.....you blinked.

Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, but you bid to go under the currrent LOA. You made the MEC's point when they said "Subic guys will bid it anyway, they can't come back to the US.

I understand your points. My bottom line is that this is the tip of the iceberg. We already know that even if they fill HKG this time, they also have to eventually fill an MD domicile.

The company already knows what your price is (LOA I). They simply are doing it out of the goodness of their heart...or more likely they realized that some of the terms of LOA I were untenable. My "no" vote means my price is much higher.

I don't offer more for a car just because the salesman scares me into thinking I can't get a deal "like this again". Nor does an overpriced car suddenly become good business because the price is lowered slightly to be less overpriced. A bad deal is a bad deal regardless. Though you voted "No", on the first LOA, you bid it at the current deal.

By voting "NO", I am not hurting the guys who are going anymore than they hurt themselves by voluntarily accepting the deal that was offered (LOA I). The argument can be made that by bidding it in the first place, you undermined my ability to negotiate you more benefits. You set the market by creating demand at a price which I believe was far too low. Another dollar on the table is an "improvement".....and you'd still be working too cheaply. The LCC pilot who works for less money than TSA payscales affected the industry as a whole....there is not a whole lot of sympathy for their desire for a marginal pay raise because they "lowered the bar" in the first place. Likewise, you set a low bar for the future growth at FedEx.....essentially, you substantially underbid us all, and we will all be affected (damaged) by that for the foreseeable future.

I won't vote for an LOA just because it is "better than what we have now." If it is not good enough for me (my family wanted to go), then I won't vote for it for anyone else. If someone wants to go at that cheap of a price, I wish them luck, but as they underbid me, I am not going to lose sleep wondering if they'll be all right. I'm assuming you knew what you were getting yourself into. (I'd say it was "self-inflicted", but I'd sound too much like Albie's view on addiction)

Good luck....and don't take my response as a personal attack. I feel the same way about those who bid 777 without a pay rate.

skypine27

Brown Girls:

Thanks for expressing your opinions. There's certainly going to be differences in a touchy subject like this. All you can do at the end of the day is do what you think is right.

Having said that...

I'll start by disagreeing with your opener. A No vote does not equal a Yes vote for the current LOA. A simple and easy to relate to example:

• Your airline's contract is up.
• After negotiation, a TA comes out.
• If you vote No to the TA, does that mean you are voting Yes to the contract already in place?

Nope. What's already in place is already in place and you're never "re-voting" on an old contract. It just means you don't think the new TA is good enough. Plain and simple.

I agree with the guys above about incentive. There is incentive to come back and renegotiate a better LOA:

• They haven't filled the right seat in HKG yet. (Though we don't know how close they were since the last bid cancelled).
• An MD-11 HKG base is looming on the horizon. They need to fill that right seat too.
• A European base may be coming, gotta fill that right seat too.
• Lousy economy/fat pilots = Can't hire new guys to fill those seats. Must use existing pilots. We actually have leverage because we know they can't hire anyone in the near future.

Also keep in mind many of the improvments in this new LOA (1000lb move weight and $10,000 deposit assistance are already in place via FCIF). I highly doubt the company can remove these. They can't fill the right seat now, how are they going to fill it by making the deal worse? Let's say they actually do remove those two improvements via more FCIFs. That's fine. Refuse to sign the letter and then don't go. You'd have a totally vaild case there.

The ground trans thing? If this LOA fails, you can still take the train if you want to. The original car/van ground trans will have an accepted fare. Don't want to take it? Then deviate and take the train yourself. You'd still end up in the same layover hotel at 1pm for your 12 hours of rest. But don't give the company the right to force guys to use public transportation. Dangerous precedent for everyone.

Bottom line, I vote based on the core belief behind the voting process: It does not matter what's currently in place. It does not matter what I end up with if I vote No. Only one thing matters to me. Is the thing sitting in front me adquare. Yes or No.

I don't think this LOA is good enough, and I have never nor will ever vote Yes to something I don't think is adequate. (And I'm also more than likely going to end up in HKG).

BrownGirls YUM

No nest stirred....I understand the sentiment, although that's not the case I made. I'm one of the dudes who bid it for the upgrade, not the location. Not a chance I'd have gone under the current LOA to the right seat.

Everyone was also told that we should take the original LOA and that gains would be obtained later. Are we supposed to turn down those gains just because we bid our current seats under an earlier set of rules?

Should I have voted down the ANC move package LOA because the people up there bid it without one?

Who are you helping by voting no?


The question should not be whether you would go or not. Would your decision be any different if you evaluated the packages not by whether they are good enough for you to go, but as if you were going, which one you would rather be going under.

It's a choice between two packages. If they are both lousy packages, doesn't logic follow to take the better of the two?

I don't. I understand the reasoning behind all of the arguments against my points, I just don't agree with them all.
Maybe I've taken complete leave of my senses, but I'm looking at this as a guy who's going there. I'm wondering if everyone were doing the same, if their vote would differ. I welcome any attempt you guys make at helping me pull my head out of my arse for finding myself seeing this so much differently than the rest of the crowd.

I can clearly see the benefits in ratifying this.

I'm trying REAL hard and using a lot of imagination to see how anyone could be worse off by ratifying it and I'm coming up nearly empty.

(throwing on another layer of flame-retardant protective gear)

skypine27

Gotta keep this one short, time constraints

Worse off if this thing passes? Yup.

Paragraph G. Paragraph N.

No BS, if I gotta go to HKG, Id rather go under the LOA + FCIFs currently in place.

MaxKts

BrownGirls
The company offered all the pluses in LOA Rev 2. Then they come to the table to make them formal and ask us to give up something? It just aint right!!! Why do we have to give them paragraphs G and N to formalize what was already given? Sorry but in good conscience I cannot vote for the amended LOA.

The comment about 18 months ago we would have agreed to give the MEC Chair an open license is not true. I would have voted against that at any time. If the company and the MEC would have done their jobs, all the questions and pop up problems would have been solved before this was ever presented to the crew force. They used scare tactics the first time around to push LOA 1 through and I suspect they will start soon on this one.

skypine27

MaxKts just said it.

All the pluses have already been offered, and are currently in place, via FCIF.

So I need to make 2 huge concessions simply to formalize them??

Nope.