FDX HKG pilots fired
03-28-2012, 05:04 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
All of you who justify the outcome based on the fact that you didn't vote on it or you didn't bid it do realize that the company plays by different rules than you do and you are OK with that? This is all based on interpretations of the contract and compliance. The company regularly interprets the contract in their favor and rolls the dice on arbitration/legal action to see if it works for them (4A2B, etc) - the consequence of winning is financial gain and the consequence of losing is backpay at the worst and cease and desist at the least. In this case the employee interpreted the contract and (presumably) felt they met the letter of the contract and the result was termination. There was no arbitration with the option of the employee being found to have acted correctly or to have acted improperly and been required to make the company whole. The company did not treat this as a contract compliance dispute, they treated this as a crime. You automatically agree that this was stealing instead of a simple contract dispute.
03-28-2012, 05:18 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by FoamFlier
Nice post Alaskan!!!
This has been my argument all along!! (except yours is very well written and probably more educated than my usual argument)
This has been a total invasion of privacy and free will, what is to stop them from requiring us to live and spend the majority of our time within 100 mi of MEM in order to receive some benefit of their choosing.
Maybe something will turn the light on with the dim witted soon!!
This has been my argument all along!! (except yours is very well written and probably more educated than my usual argument)
This has been a total invasion of privacy and free will, what is to stop them from requiring us to live and spend the majority of our time within 100 mi of MEM in order to receive some benefit of their choosing.
Maybe something will turn the light on with the dim witted soon!!
Remember who negotiated and agreed to that deal? The pilots.
03-28-2012, 05:23 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by DLax85
Good hypothetical --- qood questions!
And what happens if a FDA pilot's spouse is a military reservist/guardsmen --- and the spouse is required by the military to serve outside the FDA location on a monthly basis, or deployed for an extended period of time?
How would this differ if a spouse had a tele-commuting type job that required a lot of international travel?
I know ex-pat families who live abroad in Europe and Asia, both spouses work, and at least one routinely (...every other month) returns to the US for business.
And what happens if a FDA pilot's spouse is a military reservist/guardsmen --- and the spouse is required by the military to serve outside the FDA location on a monthly basis, or deployed for an extended period of time?
How would this differ if a spouse had a tele-commuting type job that required a lot of international travel?
I know ex-pat families who live abroad in Europe and Asia, both spouses work, and at least one routinely (...every other month) returns to the US for business.
I agree the FDA rules stink, that's why I voted against them every time. It's a completely ridiculous rule, but one that we agreed to.
03-28-2012, 05:25 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Excessed WB Capt.
Posts: 1,061
I have not looked real closely at the FDA LOA recently. Let's say I am a single pilot that takes a full move non-commuter package to HKG. I sign a lease using all my allowance then a few months later get married to the women of my dreams in the united states off of one of those online dating sights. Does she now have to move to HKG? If she does not, then do I have to give money back or change my status and take an allowance hit even though my rent has not changed since I signed a contract for a predetermined period of time. That seems to not be fair.
We should have never signed a FDA LOA that had so many exceptions. The more complex the thing is, the harder it is to abide by. If you move to an FDA, everybody should get the same amount of money. KISS.
We should have never signed a FDA LOA that had so many exceptions. The more complex the thing is, the harder it is to abide by. If you move to an FDA, everybody should get the same amount of money. KISS.
03-28-2012, 05:35 PM
#35
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by MEMA300
Let's say I am a single pilot that takes a full move non-commuter package to HKG. I sign a lease using all my allowance then a few months later get married to the women of my dreams in the united states off of one of those online dating sights. Does she now have to move to HKG? If she does not, then do I have to give money back or change my status and take an allowance hit even though my rent has not changed since I signed a contract for a predetermined period of time. That seems to not be fair.
We should have never signed a FDA LOA that had so many exceptions. The more complex the thing is, the harder it is to abide by. If you move to an FDA, everybody should get the same amount of money. KISS.
We should have never signed a FDA LOA that had so many exceptions. The more complex the thing is, the harder it is to abide by. If you move to an FDA, everybody should get the same amount of money. KISS.
03-28-2012, 06:13 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Originally Posted by MEMA300
I have not looked real closely at the FDA LOA recently. Let's say I am a single pilot that takes a full move non-commuter package to HKG. I sign a lease using all my allowance then a few months later get married to the women of my dreams in the united states off of one of those online dating sights. Does she now have to move to HKG? If she does not, then do I have to give money back or change my status and take an allowance hit even though my rent has not changed since I signed a contract for a predetermined period of time. That seems to not be fair.
We should have never signed a FDA LOA that had so many exceptions. The more complex the thing is, the harder it is to abide by. If you move to an FDA, everybody should get the same amount of money. KISS.
We should have never signed a FDA LOA that had so many exceptions. The more complex the thing is, the harder it is to abide by. If you move to an FDA, everybody should get the same amount of money. KISS.
03-28-2012, 07:12 PM
#38
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Posts: 55
03-29-2012, 10:38 PM
#39
On Reserve
Joined APC: Oct 2010
Position: CAPT
Posts: 16
Just culture
A "Just Culture" is defined as a way of safety thinking that that promotes a questioning attitude, is resistant to complacency, Is committed to excellence, and fosters both Personal accountability, and corporate self-regulation in safety matters.
A "Just" safety culture is, then, both attitudinal as well as structural, relating to both individuals and organizations. Personal attitudes and corporate style can enable or facilitate the unsafe acts and CONDITIONS that are the precursors to accidents and incidents.
To claim the FDX Express operates with the intent of using "Just Culture" is dubious at best.
The blame for the debacle that these 3-5 fired pilots find themselves in is far and wide. The Company negotiators that proffered FDA LOA v 1.0 with a package so far below standard that once the business plan was attempted to be executed, the Company could not attract enough pilots to staff the operation and resorted to dh pilots to theatre in order to run the operation. Even under the 4a2b pay cuts and threats of furlough weren't bad enough to entice crew members to bid HKG.
The former Negotiating Chairman BC and former MEC Chair DW are particularly culpable in taking the flight pay loss from ALPA, yet not performing the proper due diligence to adequately asses the merits (or de-merits) of v 1.0. (The infamouse words of BC & DW, "Don't bother asking questions about the HKG package, you're too junior to ever get awarded HKG.".
The 67% of pilots that voted for FDA LOA v 1.0 and 2.0 with the mentality of, "I'm not going, so it doesn't affect me.". This FDA LOA affects all of us. (I have not bid nor have I been awarded an FDA position).
We, ALPA members, have been expending negotiating capital, money, and resources to improve v 1.0 that could have been used elsewhere had an original worthy deal been agreed to. Now, we will be spending time, money, and resources on defending our terminated brethren because of the short sighted philosophy of "it doesn't affect me".
In this example, both personal attitudes and Corporate style has facilitated the unsafe CONDITIONS that have led up to potential civil rights violations and employment terminations.
Word to the wise, when voting on Contract provisions, think 10 years down the line and how this can come back to haunt us all.
A "Just" safety culture is, then, both attitudinal as well as structural, relating to both individuals and organizations. Personal attitudes and corporate style can enable or facilitate the unsafe acts and CONDITIONS that are the precursors to accidents and incidents.
To claim the FDX Express operates with the intent of using "Just Culture" is dubious at best.
The blame for the debacle that these 3-5 fired pilots find themselves in is far and wide. The Company negotiators that proffered FDA LOA v 1.0 with a package so far below standard that once the business plan was attempted to be executed, the Company could not attract enough pilots to staff the operation and resorted to dh pilots to theatre in order to run the operation. Even under the 4a2b pay cuts and threats of furlough weren't bad enough to entice crew members to bid HKG.
The former Negotiating Chairman BC and former MEC Chair DW are particularly culpable in taking the flight pay loss from ALPA, yet not performing the proper due diligence to adequately asses the merits (or de-merits) of v 1.0. (The infamouse words of BC & DW, "Don't bother asking questions about the HKG package, you're too junior to ever get awarded HKG.".
The 67% of pilots that voted for FDA LOA v 1.0 and 2.0 with the mentality of, "I'm not going, so it doesn't affect me.". This FDA LOA affects all of us. (I have not bid nor have I been awarded an FDA position).
We, ALPA members, have been expending negotiating capital, money, and resources to improve v 1.0 that could have been used elsewhere had an original worthy deal been agreed to. Now, we will be spending time, money, and resources on defending our terminated brethren because of the short sighted philosophy of "it doesn't affect me".
In this example, both personal attitudes and Corporate style has facilitated the unsafe CONDITIONS that have led up to potential civil rights violations and employment terminations.
Word to the wise, when voting on Contract provisions, think 10 years down the line and how this can come back to haunt us all.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
