Probably hard to get a 3 day turn around on stickers--but I'll try.

Any ideas for some simple stuff to put on?

No LOA!

No SVT!

What can we put that will succintly explain the "why" for those too lazy to read the details?

"E-1"

As in - give us the same money an E-1 would get in the USAF.....

Well...for starters...

confusing those lazy folks with SVT vice STV might do more harm....

How about STV Sucks

OR

LOA the Diet COLA with no kick

Most guys that I have talked to do not know what STV even means!

No point in even reading the LOA if it is not going to affect me...right?

...and the union is for it, so...

We really need to inform these guys, or at least make them read it. I would rather have them not vote if they don't read it, then blindly follow the union.

What's wrong with SVT. We trained using that system for several years. Oh, you mean STV, well why didn't you say so. That's a different story. I heard that sucks!!



Getting your terminology right..............Priceless.

Please ask yourself what would have happened had FDX decided to simply put out the vacancy bid including the new HKG/CDG FDA under the current Contract? A few collective gripes and groans but the positions would be filled. The Company would probably be short in only the F/O seat as we have seen in Subic and Anchorage. Maybe not to the levels they need in HKG but eventually they would fill those over the course of subsequent bids and or new hires. Remember 'Purple Nuggets'? I understand it probably wouldn't be filled by any of us on this forum. However, there are a number of people who would be more than happy to make the move. With that being said why then should you vote no to an overall improvement to our current contract? Just as they had the ability to fly the Postal freight without any contractual changes. And after we asked for 40 pages worth of improvements the Company said, pound sand we'll do it under the current language. And this is exactly just what will happen if this fails to pass...as I think it may if the poll is even close. The Company will say thanks for playing we'll work out the rest ourselves. Then we will only be hurting those folks that wanted to go anyway...even w/o the LOA! Why not take the LOA and try to work on improvements with future negotiations? Is the STV language bad enough to offset the other improvements? I'm not sure it is. Again, the fact that we are even discussing this LOA is because the Company wanted to entice some 'senior' pilots to take the FDA. They may not have made the deal sweet enough to make that happen. Then they will have to deal with unfilled vacancies or very junior manning but at least the pilots that go will be better off with the new FDA process in the LOA than the one we currently have.

I realize there are a few assumptions in this but the facts that have occurred prior to this LOA with the Postal Contract LOA are very similar and will prove to be identical if we fail to recognize legitimate improvements in this LOA, however simple they may be.

What improvements are you referring to?


My Negotiating Comittee Speaks for Someone Else.

Yes, STV is the deal breaker for me. Many of us are former military pilots and one of the worst parts of that life was the unknown TDY. STV simply brings that back to us.

When it comes down to it, the same age old axiom applies: It's all about the work rules.

The MEC knew this when they didn't let us vote on the postal LOA. We left money on the table back then, but we didn't allow our work rules to change which would have resulted in up to two more days of work each month.

The argument can be made that the money in the LOA is better than nothing, but you cannot say the same for STV.