Wood prop,

Right here you've touched on the crux of the problem.

DEFINE "Relocate."

The FDA LOA doesn't.

The company won't.

Since the company is using "their interpretation" of the term, but isn't SHARING their interpretation of the term, it becomes very hard for someone to bid the domicile HOPING that the company agrees with what they think "relocating" means. And their job is forfeit if they hope/guess wrong.

It used to be that "communicate with management" would steer you clear of a lot of problems, but in this case, management refuses to communicate with the crew force.

Welcome to the new FedEx "culture."

 

First of all, yes I know one was a woman. Married to a Cathay guy, is that you?

And, no, I don't get it. In your state, married military members get more money from their housing allowance than single members. In fact, they make more in every state that I know of.

They don't give the housing allowance to people in any domicile but HKG and CGN. I don't find it discriminatory, but if you can get us all the money, that would be great! It's not discriminatory to pay international per diem to some and domestic per diem to others. If you fly to an international location, you get the extra per diem. It is a contractually agreed upon item. We agreed (actually I voted against both LOA 1 and the new contract) to these items. I agree that it shouldn't matter if a spouse moves to the domicile, but these are terms that our union (us) agreed to.

Married people can get the allowance if they move their families to HKG. Single people get it, but since they have no family to move, they obviously just have to move themselves. There is no discrimination. Black pilots, white pilots, Asian, female pilots, etc., get the money if they move there.

Your right, I just don't get your argument.

I believe the argument is figuring out what constitutes residency. Can a wife leave the country to have a baby? Can you take vacation? How many days does your spouse have to stay annually in Hong Kong? These are questions without answers. From what I've heard, the terminated pilots had unique situations. They weren't cut and dry cases where they were just trying to take the money and had no intention of moving their families to Hong Kong.

 

I would be more careful in your assumptions, wood prop.

I realize that FedEx has generally been a good and fair place to work in the past. That's why when pilots hear of other pilots getting terminated, they assume "just cause" must exist, since they have seen fairness in the past, and only the most egregious acts got penalized so severely.

This time it is different. Pilots got into trouble because management decided to change the rules (or arbitrarily "interpret" them) 4 years after the fact. The FDA LOA (and part of Section 6) is the root of the problem, as it is simply not clear. Remember, the company had 21 people already targeted, plus 7 more they actively went after, plus an unknown quantity they alluded to, leading most to suspect there were, at a minimum, 40 pilots the company considered to be not in compliance. They only backed down from this once the backlash hit, and perhaps it became apparent to them that they were making a mistake. The letter that came out about dropping further investigations (while still burning 4 pilots who were no more guilty than the others) implicitly stated that management still thinks many HK pilots are not in compliance.

I can only refer to the case you claim "showed a serious lack of judgment." That is unfounded. That pilot had a specific family situation which WAS brought to the attention of FedEx management from BEFORE moving to Hong Kong and then consistently over the course of the next 4 years. Management in HK was fully supportive the entire time. Full stop. At some point management in Memphis decided they had a different interpretation, and the resulting investigation and accusations were anything but fair.

There are a number of serious transgressions the company took to retroactively engineer their own predetermined decision in this case. Perhaps some details will come out soon now that the Appeal Hearings are complete. Suffice to say, the company went way overboard in this case, both in deciding to terminate and especially in the flagrant misuse of facts in building their so-called case.

The approach you rightfully recommend in communicating to management WAS taken. Unfortunately, there were different interpretations of FDA compliance by different managers/lawyers. That is why the language MUST BE FIXED before this problem will go away. This pilot realized the family situation was unusual, brought it to the attention of the CP before moving to HK, communicated pertinent information many times in the intervening years, and had the full support of the CP even after the investigation was complete. Knowing these details, what would you expect? Would you expect to be terminated?

What constitutes FDA compliance is unknown. Many HK pilots have similar unusual family situations, or new issues arise, causing the situation to be anything but black and white. The company refuses to acknowledge the shortcomings of the agreement, or to provide clear guidelines so that pilots do know if they are complying. It is simply not a fair setup.

There is a lot more I could say, but obviously this message board is limiting. Wood prop, I would respectfully suggest that you go to the true source - each of the terminated pilots - to get your information for their side. (ALPA “may” not be the most accurate place to go, and “may” have their own slant on things.) I suspect you will find a receptive audience.

For those wondering, “Alaskan” does not seem to be who you think they are.

 

PS. For the new hires considering HK, it’s a great place. But housing is wildly is expensive, and on first year pay, you will probably spend nearly all of it on your housing if you opt not to take the housing allowance. If you are married, I would consider some of the issues regarding your spouse that have come up in the past and are still a completely unknown element as far as the company’s interpretation of FDA compliance goes. What if:
Your spouse goes for 6 months, then decides she hates HK and moves back to the US? (Currently, you lose your housing allowance)
Separates from you but the divorce is not finalized? (Currently, you lose your housing allowance until the date the divorce papers are signed)
Your kid develops asthma or another air-pollutant type condition (common in HK) and you have to move your family back to the US? (Currently, you lose your housing allowance)
You go single, but then get married but your spouse cannot relocate? (Currently, you will lose your housing allowance from your wedding date onward.)
Your kids are about to go to high school/college and you really want them to go to a school in the US? (Currently, you lose your housing allowance)
Your spouse already works in an industry that provides great mobility, but is/will be based somewhere other than HK? (Currently, you may or may not get your housing allowance, but nobody knows the criteria)
Your spouse has a schedule where they can be in HK a month or so at a time, but then will be away for a month or so. (Currently, nobody knows what duration of time is sufficient for the spouse to be in HK because the company refuses to say, so roll the dice to see if you get your housing allowance, and if you do, maybe some day you too will join the ranks of unfairly terminated FedEx pilots.)

 

Is resume consultation/interview prep/DC-10 sim time with EC a worthwhile investment for improving chances of being called by Fed Ex for an interview?

The answer is clear when called. However, since I can't do much about type/hours, I am looking for a way to make my application more competitive and meet some Fed Ex folks along the way.

Thanks for the insight.

 

No it will not bring to any closer to the top of the stack.

 

I went through the EC interview prep (over the phone), and the DC10 sim prep. EC told me that in fact it would be best to not volunteer that I had gotten interview prep, unless I was specifically asked about it at the interview. Well, they did ask, and obviously it didn't matter that I, or 5 of 6 of us interviewing, had gotten the prep. We were all hired. They were just keeping stats for some reason. Anyway, long answer to your question, but no, getting the prep will not help in getting you the interview, IMO. However, as you noted, as soon as you get the call, get the prep set up ASAP.

Good luck.

 

It would be in your best interest to start preparing now. EC has some online audio that'll get you started and partially spooled up, preparation wise.
Then when the interview at FedEx, or wherever, happens, you'll be ahead of the game and not scrambling to get prepared.
Also, I've been told OBAP conference attendance is equal to having a Primary Endorsement (sponsor) at FedEx.

 

Several new hire slots for July in the 11 and 300

 

I attended OBAP last year and Women in Aviation in March. I haven't heard a peep yet. However, I did recently obtain a sponsor (Primary Endorsement), so I'm hoping the ball gets rolling on things before too long.