Just musing here, but...

Filling the CDG seats seems to be the more near term worry. Would a 2 year WB F/O (say purple nugget) bid Paris narrow body Capt? I think most would agree that for a WB F/O to go to CDG NB CAP, no LOA, the $ differential is just not enough for anyone to change, or is it?

That's an hourly rate change of (175-128) $47 an hour . Assume you log 1000 hours over the course of a year, that's $47,000. Throw in French taxes, higher COLA, and possibly tuition.

Oh hell. I'm shooting my argument to hell. Will they fill the left seat? Sure. Take ANY 6 or 7 year Widbody F/O on down to the most recent newhire, that's alot of bodies! The left seat gets filled, no matter what, IMOH.

The right seat of both CDG and HKG is another story. I think the long term issue for the company is can they (and are they willing to) perpetually fill the FDA F/O seats with newhires? I'm not convinced that is do-able, but I will agree there isn't much leverage in that.

However, I think there is a sense of expediancy in the company's actions. And I DO believe there is some leverage somewhere in there. Not sure of the timelines overall. Not sure what it means when they say that "this is contingent on the Chinese approving our FDA plan". Is FDX gaurenteeing our payment of expat taxes? To both China and France?

I am uneasy with the unknowns of foreign tax preperation, show me something from PWC which explains the tax prep package I am REQUIRED to sign on to.

I am INSULTED that the MEC thinks it's OK for them to STV me for even 1 month and not pay me trip rig for the gig.

I am APPALLED with the quality of work drafting this LEGAL document. The LOA looks like Swiss cheese, and smells like Limburger!

NEVER fix it later! Fix in NOW!

Oh yeah, NO, btw.

They also said the ballots would not open unless the Chinese and the company had agreements signed. Nobody seems to be able to answer the question as to whether or not that has occured. Nobody seems to know what might be in that agreement. I'm concerned about this.

For forks sake, vote this thing down and let's slow this process down a bit.

I don't recall the "ballots not opening" statement. That doesn't mean it didn't happen...But, this is all I saw on the LOA:

NOTE: Proposal made with
the assumption that Hong
Kong government authorities
approve a pilot FDA.

I would think that would mean that if it wasn't approved...The LOA is DOA. Vote or no vote.

The reference prompting my question was the cover letter that accompanied the release of the LOA in the June 27 Message Line.

Here's what that thing said :
"The LOA is contingent on the approval by Hong Kong authorities of residency visas and work permits. FedEx management has assured us that this will be completed prior to the July 23 balloting process for the LOA. In the event this does not happen, the balloting process will not go forward until this issue is resolved."

No one has made any mention of that issue being resolved. Just curious.

Why would you be concerned?
If the HKG/Chinese Government doesn't allow it, the company can't open it (with or without an LOA). That is the Company's problem, not ours.
That should alleviate many of your concerns.

Thank you. I agree, that is odd.

Perhaps. But how are we to know that these agreements with the Chinese aren't contingent on us passing this LOA? It's another question of leverage. Could be meaningless, but say for example, the Chinese won't allow this unless the company can assure them, via agreement with us, that they will be able to pay our tax burden to them directly? Or maybe some other item in our LOA that we view as trivial that they mandate in order to approve our work status there? It could be nothing, and probably is, but it makes me wonder.

Anyway, we were told the ballots would not open unless the issue was resolved. Is it resolved?

I doubt very seriously that the HKG/Chinese Gove gives a Rats Ass about our LOA (just my opinion........OK Bus Boy?)

I don't recall hearing the "balloting would not open unless Government approval" was granted I did hear that "The LOA is contingent on FedEx getting government approval"

Now I don't state this as FACT, only what I heard.

In either case, wouldn't it be great if the LOA passed and the Government shot it down? Then we might have some leverage when the company tries again.

[QUOTE=RedeyeAV8r;202823]II don't recall hearing the "balloting would not open unless Government approval" was granted I did hear that "The LOA is contingent on FedEx getting government approval"

Now I don't state this as FACT, only what I heard.
[QUOTE]

Again, The reference prompting my question was the cover letter that accompanied the release of the LOA in the June 27 Message Line.

It's a direct quote.

True. That's one concern. The rest--most of which have been brought up here and I won't regurgitate again--involve items which involve the following:

"You have to assume..."

"I think..."

"I suppose..."

"It seems to me..."

And my favorite: "Trust me."

Historically things don't go well in business--here or otherwise--unless they are written down. The LOA has too many holes that can be exploited. It's best to get answers before some of us get a rude awakening sitting in a crackerbox with a couple of duffel bags of "household goods" and a 3 year sentence ahead of them.