FDX1 , 07-16-2007 06:59 PM
Contract 2021
Additional e-mail from prior LEC Block Rep
Thought you guys might want to take a look at the following e-mail. If you don't know Gary, I can tell you that he has been one of the strongest block reps I have every seen and cares a great deal about the crew force. He has submitted the following e-mail to almost every Union rep/chairman/volunteer that has accumulated in his adress book over the past few years.
HERE IT IS:
Hello to everyone at FedEx for whom I have a personal email address record - (a large list, and that is why you are getting this as a BCC.)
(This email and its attachment may be forwarded without limitation to airline pilot forums and to the e-list -- both of which I am not a
subscriber/member)
It is my opinion that the LOA for the FDAs in CDG and HKG should be rejected by FDX ALPA members. I will outline my reasons for opposition to this LOA in brief, and the attached file expands on my reasons with a great deal more detail, along with web links for your own research.
As you consider your vote, the main question I ask everyone to assess in their decision is "could you move your household/family to the FDA and live there under the proposed LOA without incurring financial hardship?" While my wife and I would like to consider moving overseas, the answer for us, as I believe the answer is for the majority of us, especially those with families is a resounding "NO".
As the minority opinion by Subic rep discussed, if you elect to take the "enhanced option", the areas which are considerably deficient are the meager housing allowance, cheap-o airline ticket for visits back to the USA and the miniscule move/storage packages. If you stay with the current CBA FDA package, you get a similar, but different, amount of nothing to live in two of the most expensive locales in the world for expat employees.
The one area that is totally deficient (nothing there) for either option is the educational allowance for your kids to go to international schools (none). I guess for FedEx this means that singles and empty-nesters only need consider bidding for a FDA assignment.
Management did get a few things right in the LOA. The tax equalization provision (called tax neutrality by some companies) is completely industry standard. The travel provisions from HKG to Guangzhou and the Special Temporary Vacancy sections also seem reasonable (see attachment).
BTW my attachment also outlines my opinion on the following intangibles, all of which I reject as good arguments for this flawed LOA (HOOK to look at the
attachment!)
>> "The company could use the current CBA and open the FDA anyway if we
reject the LOA." -- True, but could they fill the seats?
>> "This LOA is better than the current CBA and should be viewed as an
incremental step in the process. We can fix or build on this LOA in the next negotiations." -- True, but $5 would be more and that would (hopefully) have been rejected as insufficient.
>> "The LOA contains an incremental improvement to RLA language for FDA
assigned pilots" -- Doesn't change the fact that you can't live overseas under its provisions.
>> "If we don't accept the LOA, FedEx could use foreign pilots to do the
flying" -- Doubtful. Between unreliability, lack of control and scope, won't happen.
After we reject this LOA, what would be a fair FDA LOA? We should not expect to either have a package that would be offered to corporate executives moving to HKG or the $1M pay and benefit package paid to the recent CDG chief pilot husband/wife duo. But it is entirely reasonable for us to expect a package commensurate with management's need to have qualified professional employees live and work, without financial hardship, from an expensive (i.e., not Subic!) foreign domicile.
Bottom Line >> Should the reasonable ability to bid and move to a FDA be limited by management to singles and "empty nesters" alone? Or should ALL FedEx pilots have the chance to bid and move to a foreign domicile without financial hardship?
It does not matter if you personally would consider moving under this LOA or not - we are all making a collective decision on the suitability of this proposal. I urge you to measure not whether or not you would bid, but whether or not you COULD bid and live under this LOA. Clearly the answer is NO.
Vote NO on the FDA LOA. I encourage each of you to fully explore the issues surrounding this LOA with Capt Bob Chimenti during the short-notice LEC79 meeting in Anchorage this Thursday July 19 at the Snowgoose Restaurant.
Fraternally,
Capt Gary Roeder
ALPA MEC 2004-2007 as ANC Council 79 Chairman FPA BOD 2000-2002 as ANC Status Block Representative
ALPA-1 1995-1996 SPC Committee and ANC Local Council Officer
Cc: FDX ALPA elected officers and volunteers