It is not required to vacate the country, under the with or without you attitude, current contract, you can stay and FDX has to pony up, that is why FDX wants this worse than a virgin on prom night. Under the NEW BETTER contract, oops TA/bridge, you have to leave at 4 years 9 months, if we sign it away in the contract, we die by the contract. Just like we signed away our Expat status in the current FDA LOA.

Don't want to confuse the issue with facts, these folks minds are made up!

Years ago I read an interview with the president if Air France. Hidden in the small print he was asked his opinion of FedEx building a large new hub in CDG. He stated that a larger FedEx presence at CDG would mean MORE business for Air France. I always assumed that statement meant that Air France is carrying FedEx freight to the many destinations that Air France flies and FedEx does not (maybe many African destinations and many in Europe?).

I imagine that most of us are aware that they move a large amount of freight as belly freight on other airlines, not only to places we do not go, but also to supplement our own capacity. This has never been a secret.

To answer your question, I have only flown CONUS for 3 years out of my 14 here at FX. So yes, I do get out much. And I think the other responders have made the counter points to your post quite nicely.

It is OK to have your mind made up. That is the point of researching the info and having a vote. You make it sound like having made a decision already is a negative! And, it sounds like your mind is made up like many other posters.

The issue is whether or not this TA is a yes or no vote. The facts can be hard to attain. Perceptions are subjective, so we all have to dig some to see the long term ramifications this deal offers.

Fair enough. Actually, though, my mind is not made up. If it was, I wouldn't bother posting my concerns about voting it down. I would just go vote "yes". By posting my concerns, I can test my thoughts. If my theory fails, then I change it.

[QUOTE=Opposing View;953010]....The facts can be hard to attain. Perceptions are subjective, so we all have to dig some to see the long term ramifications this deal offers.[/QUOTE]

+1....worth repeating.:)

So...What exactly are your concerns, if we vote this down?:confused:

P9,

I don't think most people believe that the company MUST have the FDA LOA to operate. I think most people believe that the company really wants the FDA LOA. The Company has said that domestic growth is flat and that international is where it is at. They came to us about the original FDA, they ran and subsequently cancelled one (or was it two??) bids for CDG. If they really want to grow internationally does it make sense to do it via SIBA? More planes, more people, more destinations and very limited productivity due to the nature of SIBA.

I am fully in favor of giving them the tools they need to grow the company. I want to see a giant domicile in CGN or CDG. I also want to see our entire crew force taken care of in this LOA/Bridge/TA. My question is how were we able to negotiate so many minor things the company wanted (extended probation, new FDA stuff, the ability to remove someone from that FDA at a certain time limit) while we couldn't get around to fixing 4A2B entry language, accepted fares, 3% raises until we have a new full contract and many more things like that. Could we not have waited another month or 2 to work those things out? And why do we get penalized if we re-open negotiations?

I personally don't think any of the things most guys want to see fixed will drive the company away from the table or cause them to balk at the FDA's. We are not asking for crazy money or anything totally unreasonable. Just clean house a little and put some lipstick on this thing. Then we can go forward and await the NPRM FTDT law and see what we need to work on next. Just my opinion, but what do I know??:D