New Bid Out
09-11-2008, 11:03 AM
#101
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Originally Posted by AFW_MD11
the company has stated, in writing, numerous times that they WILL NOT use STV to fill shortfalls in manning due to no one bidding for the vacancies.
so why are all you guys worried about calculating the start date for the STV window?
Am I interpreting that section of the enhanced LOA right?
09-11-2008, 11:19 AM
#102
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Huck
Couldn't the same be said about you? Or any of us?
Ol' Kit Darby must have told you what you were going to make on that panel before you took the job. Why should we get you anything "special" either?
This, I reckon, is the evil rancid backwash we all get to taste after the Great Age Sixty debacle. Balkanization. "Why should we worry about _____(insert pilot sub-group here)?"
An example:
As far as 777 rates - the shadow bids they've run show that all the 777 pilots will be in the top 600 of our list, and the vast majority will be near or over 60. And we're going to go to the mattresses to get them more?
See how it works? "Why should we care about _____?"
My friends, we are royally screwed.
Unless some greatest-union-leader-in-a-generation rises up to fix this.
Ol' Kit Darby must have told you what you were going to make on that panel before you took the job. Why should we get you anything "special" either?
This, I reckon, is the evil rancid backwash we all get to taste after the Great Age Sixty debacle. Balkanization. "Why should we worry about _____(insert pilot sub-group here)?"
An example:
As far as 777 rates - the shadow bids they've run show that all the 777 pilots will be in the top 600 of our list, and the vast majority will be near or over 60. And we're going to go to the mattresses to get them more?
See how it works? "Why should we care about _____?"
My friends, we are royally screwed.
Unless some greatest-union-leader-in-a-generation rises up to fix this.
Would kinda defeat the purpose of negotiations to let the company short change us one time, and let them fix it the next time by taking it from everyone else.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 09-11-2008 at 01:23 PM.
09-11-2008, 11:29 AM
#103
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Interesting discussion.
over 60% of us think it's just fine. I say let them go. I wish we could junior man anyone who votes Yes and teach them a lesson. Unfortunately we can't.
So you say (management) that those 60% don't want to go so I (as a low seniority 40%er) need to watch the DVD and go? Haven't seen the DVD but if it promises a commutable schedule, and we buy it, we deserve what we get when we get there. Scheduling makes no such promise.
I say you shouldn't rely on the 60% you claim legitimizes this bad deal.
over 60% of us think it's just fine. I say let them go. I wish we could junior man anyone who votes Yes and teach them a lesson. Unfortunately we can't.
So you say (management) that those 60% don't want to go so I (as a low seniority 40%er) need to watch the DVD and go? Haven't seen the DVD but if it promises a commutable schedule, and we buy it, we deserve what we get when we get there. Scheduling makes no such promise.
I say you shouldn't rely on the 60% you claim legitimizes this bad deal.
Last edited by Gunter; 09-11-2008 at 11:43 AM.
09-11-2008, 01:19 PM
#105
"blue collar thug"!
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
Originally Posted by Huck
Couldn't the same be said about you? Or any of us?
Ol' Kit Darby must have told you what you were going to make on that panel before you took the job. Why should we get you anything "special" either?
This, I reckon, is the evil rancid backwash we all get to taste after the Great Age Sixty debacle. Balkanization. "Why should we worry about _____(insert pilot sub-group here)?"
An example:
As far as 777 rates - the shadow bids they've run show that all the 777 pilots will be in the top 600 of our list, and the vast majority will be near or over 60. And we're going to go to the mattresses to get them more?
See how it works? "Why should we care about _____?"
My friends, we are royally screwed.
Unless some greatest-union-leader-in-a-generation rises up to fix this.
Ol' Kit Darby must have told you what you were going to make on that panel before you took the job. Why should we get you anything "special" either?
This, I reckon, is the evil rancid backwash we all get to taste after the Great Age Sixty debacle. Balkanization. "Why should we worry about _____(insert pilot sub-group here)?"
An example:
As far as 777 rates - the shadow bids they've run show that all the 777 pilots will be in the top 600 of our list, and the vast majority will be near or over 60. And we're going to go to the mattresses to get them more?
See how it works? "Why should we care about _____?"
My friends, we are royally screwed.
Unless some greatest-union-leader-in-a-generation rises up to fix this.
A great union leader would be nice. But more important would be a crew force that is informed, knowledgeable, and one that has a backbone to say "no way" to some of the things that out union leadership says.
09-11-2008, 01:26 PM
#106
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
I am buying the statement that "O" doesn't intend to use STV to solve the manning shortfall. But, there's no contractual language to prevent it.
{Insert your favorite teen/college age male promise here}
Not a labor lawyer, but, it's hard for me to imagine the labor laws in HKG are more restrictive than those of the US. In the case of CDG, absolutely believe that CDG wouldn't have opened w/out a promise from us to abide by RLA versus French labor laws.
IMO-Tax equalization is there to protect the company, not the company trying to help us out. The taxman doesn't like it when people dodge paying taxes and this is one way to keep the taxman happy from the company's perspective. Absent the LOA, don't know how FedEx would have handled it. But, I can easily see the company giving the govt(s) a list of the pilots domiciled at HKG. I can easily see the PRC comparing the VISA list with a list of those paying taxes. And, not sure how the PRC would handle it-but I am quite confident I wouldn't want to find out.
IMO the PRC wouldn't have allowed us to operate a Hub w/out pilots being domiciled there (eg Keep the SFS domicile open and just DH to/from. Although, I think the manning levels would have been better)
IMO opinion, FedEx was going to open a domicile w/w-out the LOA agreement.
{Insert your favorite teen/college age male promise here}
Not a labor lawyer, but, it's hard for me to imagine the labor laws in HKG are more restrictive than those of the US. In the case of CDG, absolutely believe that CDG wouldn't have opened w/out a promise from us to abide by RLA versus French labor laws.
IMO-Tax equalization is there to protect the company, not the company trying to help us out. The taxman doesn't like it when people dodge paying taxes and this is one way to keep the taxman happy from the company's perspective. Absent the LOA, don't know how FedEx would have handled it. But, I can easily see the company giving the govt(s) a list of the pilots domiciled at HKG. I can easily see the PRC comparing the VISA list with a list of those paying taxes. And, not sure how the PRC would handle it-but I am quite confident I wouldn't want to find out.
IMO the PRC wouldn't have allowed us to operate a Hub w/out pilots being domiciled there (eg Keep the SFS domicile open and just DH to/from. Although, I think the manning levels would have been better)
IMO opinion, FedEx was going to open a domicile w/w-out the LOA agreement.
09-12-2008, 03:09 AM
#107
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Discombobulated
Posts: 155
Like many, I also wondered why the company would put out another bid so soon. Especially since none of the variables have changed. Zero takers, IMO. Perhaps the video would sway folks...I think not. Interestingly though, the bid closes early enough to get folks thru training in a somewhat timely fashion. Currently, a number of Subic F/O's are not scheduled to leave Subic until spring.
Many would agree that hiring off the street or threaten of a furlough, are the only way the slots will be filled. I contend the company may be thinking about offering more money in housing. Perhaps up to the maximum they were willing to give on the LOA. I'm confident that figure was greater than $2700. Hell, O and the SFS chief pilot, at the time, had a meeting with the Subic pilots to "discuss" the possibility of living in Hong Kong. This was well before the LOA. After their 2-3 day fact-finding mission in Hong Kong(more than our own NC, by the way), they threw out the figure of $3500 a month. No, they didn't confirm the company was willing to pay that, however, they threw out that number for over an hour. No doubt, to me at least, they were looking for a reaction. Anybody who has taken negotiations 101, or ever bought anything at the market in PVG, knows you don't throw out your best offer at the outset. I am convinced the company was willing to offer a considerable amount more.
If the company offers more, they will fill it. Actually, if they offered say $5000, you would see a lot of folks wanting to re-open the bid so that they too could bid even the Captain slots. There-in lies the problem. How would you side-step that potential mess? Oh wait, that's right, we wouldn't have to let the membership vote on it. DW has the ability to sign off on anything he wishes. Surely, he wouldn't go against the wishes of the membership...
Many would agree that hiring off the street or threaten of a furlough, are the only way the slots will be filled. I contend the company may be thinking about offering more money in housing. Perhaps up to the maximum they were willing to give on the LOA. I'm confident that figure was greater than $2700. Hell, O and the SFS chief pilot, at the time, had a meeting with the Subic pilots to "discuss" the possibility of living in Hong Kong. This was well before the LOA. After their 2-3 day fact-finding mission in Hong Kong(more than our own NC, by the way), they threw out the figure of $3500 a month. No, they didn't confirm the company was willing to pay that, however, they threw out that number for over an hour. No doubt, to me at least, they were looking for a reaction. Anybody who has taken negotiations 101, or ever bought anything at the market in PVG, knows you don't throw out your best offer at the outset. I am convinced the company was willing to offer a considerable amount more.
If the company offers more, they will fill it. Actually, if they offered say $5000, you would see a lot of folks wanting to re-open the bid so that they too could bid even the Captain slots. There-in lies the problem. How would you side-step that potential mess? Oh wait, that's right, we wouldn't have to let the membership vote on it. DW has the ability to sign off on anything he wishes. Surely, he wouldn't go against the wishes of the membership...
09-12-2008, 03:55 AM
#108
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Posts: 379
The only protection we have is in LOA part one, that would be the time frame limit for the stv. And honestly, no I don't think any of the Memphis folks are going to volunteer for a three month vacation. I think those of us who are jr in the seat are going to get more than one 30 day suitcase of fun. That is why I am wondering about the official start date. Unless they decide to change it the vol one is 3 months, the invol is 1 month.
As for LOA part 2, well if DW and management decide they want to extend the STV, yes they can. As a matter of fact, they can do whatever they deam necessary(we gave them that power). As for leverage, they have it now, we voted for these pos's(no x 2 for me), and that we can't change.
Anyway, I would like to say I have faith, but my light switch is broken and I am afraid of the dark
As for LOA part 2, well if DW and management decide they want to extend the STV, yes they can. As a matter of fact, they can do whatever they deam necessary(we gave them that power). As for leverage, they have it now, we voted for these pos's(no x 2 for me), and that we can't change.
Anyway, I would like to say I have faith, but my light switch is broken and I am afraid of the dark
09-15-2008, 10:28 PM
#109
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by NoHaz
I think they will continue to try to avoid an excess as the benefit package is pretty expensive. Also, the ability to bid to relieve the excess throws off the seniority realignment benefits. Essentially you have senior people doing lateral transfers to grab move package 1 with dislocation allowance, house buying-selling etc.
I put together a excel spreadsheet, and ran multiple scenarios, and the best a realignment does is break even (I did not factor in vacation- that would make it negative)
Two examples for brevity- a 10 yr MD Cap 226/hr + 15 yr 72CAP 205=431
realign those guys for seniority 15yr MDCap 238 + 10 yr72Cap 195= 432
Same margins for a 3 yrMDFO + 7 yr 72fo (135+126=261) (147+115=262)
aggregate those numbers over a large realignment and the company loses $$ once everyone gets realigned- (plus the training cost to execute this folly)
The ONLY benefit to a strict senioritiy alignment is if the company wants an immediate furlough- (no need for excessing & retraining-just cut from the bottom) But there is a HUGE cost to realign, then operating at a comparative loss to the pre-alignment- it does not make sense.
Perhaps there's some other factor... vacation is either an even wash or makes the seniority realignment even more costly(between 10 yr & 19 yr same 29 days, but in 2nd example 3 yr gets 15-7 yr gets 22- a 5 day loss) then throw in the B fund contributions....
You get the point.
09-16-2008, 06:21 AM
#110
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by olly
...
The ONLY benefit to a strict senioritiy alignment is if the company wants an immediate furlough- (no need for excessing & retraining-just cut from the bottom) But there is a HUGE cost to realign, then operating at a comparative loss to the pre-alignment- it does not make sense...
The ONLY benefit to a strict senioritiy alignment is if the company wants an immediate furlough- (no need for excessing & retraining-just cut from the bottom) But there is a HUGE cost to realign, then operating at a comparative loss to the pre-alignment- it does not make sense...
But, I have to question how a strict seniority alignment would be a benefit to the company in case of a furlough. All that would mean is they'd be furloughing everyone from the same seat. Wouldn't that cause an even larger retraining scenario? We'd need cascading excess bids to fill the "junior" furloughed positions.
If we stay with our current alignment...There would at least be the chance that furloughs would happen from different seats. Meaning one less guy would need to be excessed to a more "junior" seat, after the furlough.
All this is assuming that the reduction in flight hours would be spread out amongst all the different bases and A/C.
I personally, think we could furlough all the DC10 and 727 F/Os and no one would even notice. As long as the S/Os carried the folder out.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
