Somewhere, not exactly sure where :rolleyes:, I have heard this statement, or similar, before: "Never let a good crisis go to waste." :(

It takes two to tango
 

Hard to tell if you are talking about the Ops or the MEC. I need more information.

Pipe -
If you look at each individual item through a straw, there might be some validity in your observation. However, consider this:

The FDA LOA is what it is. We don't need to augment it, the Company does. In retrospect, it might have been more worth our while to not do an FDA LOA, establishing the FDAs and the moves using the procedures established in the CBA (chapter 6). The Company absolutely needed the scope wording for CDG so our crews wouldn't be subject to the EU and French labor laws/restrictions, and monthly strikes. I believe the wording is something like - MEM domiciled crew members residing in Paris subject to the RLA. In HKG, the Company needed the G/T waiver to allow the movement of crews between HKG-CAN. The company is asking for a 'carte-blanche' waiver to the CBA with ground transportation for EVERYBODY between HKG and CAN. This will migrate to everyplace where there's a long G/T, and an arbitrator will allow it if we agree to it now. If we agree to public transportation between HKG and CAN (train), the next thing you know we'll be on BART from OAK to SFO. Don't go there! Additionally, I don't believe the SIBA/STV crews are subject to the LOA, so they can't do the 3 hour G/T. Remember, the STD crews are the ones that get the 'family' ticket and will stay in a HKG hotel.

The Purple Nugget program was a product of the Company's greed in the CBA. The Company could not man Anchorage! In fact, 4 or 5 years ago 7 Captain vacancies were cancelled when insufficient F/Os bid to ANC (they were short 17 as I recall). ANC has the most efficient pairings in the system - based on hard time or near hard time legs. Growing ANC is cost effective and the fiscally correct thing to do. So, without enough MEM crews bidding to ANC, the option was to hire off the street. Until the PN bid, there also wasn't a move package for ANC. Crews that bid to ANC either commuted, or paid for their own move - which is much more expensive than packing your 'stuff' and heading for MEM. ANC doesn't enjoy no-harm, no-foul. ANC crews aren't able to commute into a trip without a legal rest, including the afternoon turns to OAK, IND, EWR, AFW, or MEM. This means you lose an extra day. This isn't necessarily an ALPA issue - it's what the Company wanted - and was comfortable with. After this debacle, I doubt the Company will ever get a MEM or LAX crew member to bid to ANC without significant incentives. As efficient as the Anchorage domicile is, pairings have been optimized to a point that 25% of the crews have a sick event monthly. The Company (crew force) average is around 4%. When the optimizer is turned on to build pairings, ultimately a LOT of hours are pulled back out of ANC because ANC isn't manned to fly it all. So . . . we're downsizing it?

Congress passed, and the President signed the age 60/65 legislation. Implementation of the age 60 rule was bad on both sides of the table. But it is what it is. As questioned in earlier posts - is a bid to the panel at age 60 a down-bid-in-lieu-of retirement, subjecting the crew member to a two year freeze? Remember - crews did have an option to NOT go to the panel - called retirement!

You didn't mention the B-777 issue, so I will. The Company is using 26.K.1 to operate the aircraft, with reference to 21.A.4. Unfortunately, I don't believe the System Board isn't allowed to establish or adjust pay rates. The B-777 isn't listed on the A-380 pay scale - nor is it listed on the MD-11/DC-10/A-300 pay scale. I'm not so sure I'd be willing to operate an aircraft without an established and agreed on pay rate. Today, it's conceivable the pay rate could start at narrow-body pay, and when a pay scale is established, the difference is paid . . . or not! And I haven't seen anything with regards to FLAG Ops. What happens when the B-777 crew does a domestic leg subjecting themselves to the 30/7 limitation? Will that be significant?

When the Company threatens to hire foreign crew members, consider our basic hiring requirements - FAA ATP, FE Written, 4 year degree from an accredited college/university, resided in the US for 5 years unless in the military, able to get a clearance (back ground investigation) to carry the USPS stuff, English proficient, and of course the verifiable flight hour minimums. Heck - we couldn't even verify the ages of the Chinese Olympic Women's Gymnastic Team! But, when we do find those crew members, our training department gets to train them. Hey - were any of you around when the Navy trained the Iranians in Pensacola, or the Air Force trained the Ethiopians? Can anybody spell 1,000 percent training?

Pipe - I think we are that good! I think we're headed in the correct direction, and I think we can develop the momentum to drive this ship! Trust and confidence are a HUGE factor, and as we move forward, the new MEC and NC will gain your trust and instill confidence.

Nakazawa

I think the surface transportation clause in the LOA amended the CBA. As such, it applies to everyone, international only. My take anyway. Surface transportation from HKG to CAN is estimated to be slightly over three hours. The limitations contained within Section 8.B.1. of the basic Agreement are waived for purposes of this LOA. Section 8.B.2., of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows:2. The surface transportation shall be provided on a non-public commercial operator; provided, however, that between international locations specifically approved by the SIG, (e.g., HKG-CAN), a pilot may be scheduled for ground transportation on a public commercial operator (e.g., train, hydrofoil).

Good post, I think pipe was addressing the company not the union but I am not sure.

One thing to add. The company needed Tax Equalization. Everything else was just chatter. And yes we would have been better off with out the LOAs.

Subic -
I just talked with 'enforcement' - and the LOA is for the FDA folks. There have been 'discussions' about the rest of the international crews and G/T between CAN-HKG, but so far - we're not part of it. We need to explain clearly to the SIG we're not interested! An amendment to the CBA would impact the entire crew force.
The next 'curve-ball' to field will be the STV crews when that begins. They will be authorized 'family' tickets to stay in a HKG hotel. Will those crews be subject to the LOA? Will they be limited to the CBA 2 hour G/T limit? As I've mentioned before, the Company is going to need some help, and the 4.A.2.b., 26.K.1., 5.B.2, 25.D.1.a-e, and excess bid issues aren't winning them any friends right now.

Just my opinion, but if we are subject to a 3 hour Asian ground transport, there should be only LIMO's allowed and they should be stocked with at least 3 fine looking Chinese hotties.

Can we get an LOA on this, please?

Don't think we need an LOA.:(

Remember, one of our recent votes now allows the MEC Chairman to work out these pesky details directly with the Company.:eek::mad:

Nakazawa for MEC Vice!