Why would there be advantages? You arent telling me it will cost fdx more pilots and money not to have this LOA are you? Make up your mind.

Yes, to pretend so would be naive. And, to look at history and see that it hasnt been done yet at an FDA, and that it might be done in the future, is a little naive IMO.

Things change. I think of all the scenarios, the company outsourcing that flying is not a very likely one. As I said in another thread, continuing SIBA is more probable.

My problem with this whole argument is that many here seem to think that the company must have this FDA deal to operate. If that were the case, I would agree that we had some real leverage with it. However, it is obvious that they can operate that flying in other ways, the proof is in the fact that they have been doing just that for many years now.

So, we have a supposition that we have real leverage with the FDA, and the undeniable FACT that the company has profitably operated without the FDA deal for many, many years. We also know that what ever cost savings there might be with this deal, it is, at least partially, offset by the increase costs of the TA.

I do not have the cost numbers, and neither do you. We have a lot of supposition and just a few facts. Now, I stated the supposition that we have leverage in this scenario. My opinion, absent any official numbers, just based on what we do know, is that the entire FDA issue is probably very close to cost neutral for the company. I do not think it is about that, it is about increasing redundancy. The FDA is a simpler solution to that issue. It is not the only solution, though, and that is why I do not think there is any useful leverage to be found in this issue.

You think FedEx ALPA pilots are flying all those ATR's and Caravan's? FedEx aircraft...non-FedEx pilots. Clear?

I know it is a long winded post, but to adequately respond, I felt that I had to reference the NC letter. Couldnt be done in a shorter way. To many points in the letter that had to be addressed.

And Cujo, thanks for the summary! ;)

But those are not our trunk aircraft flying the volume of freight that our higher lift aircraft could not economically do. And, it is allowed under our scope.

Flying larger aircraft with non FX crews and airplanes generally is not allowed by scope. There are a few exceptions though that I dont think apply to non FX planes doing all of an FDA base flying.

Yes I knew that.

All the flying you reference is covered in the Scope section of our CBA and is not addressed in this TA.

So, just to refresh my memory, what was the point of your original statement?

No most are arguing the company would like the fdas and giving them up as leverage for a 3% cost of living adjustment, a bunch of cost neutral safety programs, and a some of FDA improvements that the company needs to man the fda properly is not worth a yes vote. We have some leverage why give it up so cheaply. Fix one or two other things.

Below is something that was posted on another thread by Skimology. Looks like a leverage point to me. And, to make someone move out of a base for whatever reason the 4 year 9 month clause is in there for, is rubbish........


"People have said FDX would open up the CGN FDA / M11 HKG FDA, weather we voted yes or not. In this new improved FDA LOA there is a part where FDX chince's out on the German Taxes, at 4 years and 9 months, we are required to move out of the FDA so they don't have to pay this. I don't think they will open it without this TA/bridge/FDA LOA/with or without you deal..."

FYI, I am not saying it is required or not to vacate the country after 5 years cause IDK, but this appears to be the reason behind the 4 years 9 months. There is a bilateral deal so that US Citizens can stay in the US Social Security System while being an expat, and not pay both German and US Soc.Sec taxes.

Description of the U.S.-German Social Security Agreement

so looks like I would prefer to accrue and be covered by the US system, accruing benefits in Germany would be confusing at best and I am sure cost is part of the reason. I wonder if this "law" would allow the Company to open an FDA under the regular CBA and still limit people to 5 years? I do not think it is worth arguing over, because the likelihood of them doing that, even if the tax was not a problem, is remote.

I am researching Germany, I have an interest in going.