There is always going to be a cost at some point that makes that happen. Personally, I think they are more likely to go with the SIBA type option before they do that. My point is that it just does not cost that much more to do that.

The company does want to open a EMEA FDA. And while they can do it using SIBA at the current service level (They are already doing this), how much will it cost to use SIBA and grow service? New cities, new routes all on the current SIBA system........probably too costly.

I think doing a SIBA operation does cost quite a bit. Average $5000 per DH per trip. It adds up. Also, more pilots needed for SIBA for hotel standby, and hotel costs in base with SIBA as opposed to an FDA. As far as Irish pilots flying our international stuff; it would already have been done.

My point is that I do think it will cost much more to do it with SIBA. Is the company willing to do it? I dont know, but I would rather them do SIBA than us sign off on a deal that doesnt address the multitude of things that need to be addressed now, at the same time as the FDA and payraise offers.

Everyone has their opinions, which is good. Only in the end will we see which opinion had more validity. Life in general, and the last FDA LOA in particular, bear that out. And I would say that the 32% guys last time were correct in their "no" opinions.

Agree with you 100%. The LOA benefits the company more than it does the pilots by allowing them more efficiencies in manning and scheduling, plus regulatory benefits through tax equalization and the ability to involuntarily move pilots.

If they choose to not open the FDA and continue with SIBA, I think that's a win for us because it will require more pilots to operate, especially as they expand the Euro markets. However, if that option is too expensive and they chose to open the FDA under the CBA, I think that wouldn't be bad for us either. The Section 6 move package is a much better deal than the LOA. Plus you can live anywhere you like. As far as taxes, you're on your own but I've talked to some expats and they said it's not that bad especially since you get the US exclusion.

Once again, we don't need the LOA; they do. They came to us wanting to improve the current LOA. And that gives us leverage to keep negotiating a better contract for EVERYONE.

SG

I'm not sure how you come up with the idea that SIBA doesn't cost that much more than the FDA proposal.

Have you actually looked at the SIBA lines? The inefficiency of SIBA is staggering. Why do you think it goes so senior? I added up all the A300 SIBA Euro trips(Asia SIBA trips not included) and came up with some numbers to chew on from the MAR A300 SIBA lines:

Highest paying trip 78hrs, with 6 days of actual flying.

AVG trip value = 65hrs
AVG trip length = 10.16 days
Avg days actually operate FDX flt = 4.43 days

On average, that's 65 hrs of pay for working 4.43 days!!

So as you can see, a crew works less than 1/2 the days on the average SIBA trip. The other 56% of the time, is spent D/Hing and recovering(?) in hotels. Those averages don't even include the CDG STBY trips.

We're talking about an operation that could probably be done with at least 40-45% less pilots, with an FDA. THAT is where the big savings to the company comes from. Not, just the $6,500 avg in D/H fares, the cost of hotels, per-diem, ground transportation, etc. that alone, will more than pay for the allowances offered in this TA.

The new FDA LOA for SIBA flying is not even close to cost neutral. Again, we're giving much more than we're getting.