Falconjet

Some more extraneous info. My brother was an exec for ATT and lived in HK for a few years (1994-1999 or so). I sent him an email to find out what his override was for living over there. Here is part of his reply:

"The bottom line was that we received about $160-180K per year in payments, plus about $50K per year in tax gross-ups. The biggest impact was real estate... as I recall, our apartment cost about $12K per month. A car and insurance cost about $1K per month. The COLA was about $2K per month. I don't remember what the school cost was. Also, the move over was expensive... I received payments for over $50K (for enroute travel, exploratory trip, furniture allowance, temp living, etc.)."

So they bumped his salary, paid for his apartment, car, and school to the tune of an extra 15K per month, and that was nearly 10 years ago. I realize that we aren't executives but hey we still have to survive on the economy over there.

Just some more fuel for the fire to help us decide if the LOA is adequate.

FJ

fdx727pilot

Actually, I think Redeye hit the mark. An LOA is one instance where we all get to vote. A real vote, not a poll. And the majority does rule. I think making fun of that puts your vision in the bat catagory. And no matter what the vote, someone won't be happy.

Falconjet

Hey, I am all in favor of the vote. I would like to see the MEC follow the will of the majority on this and EVERY other issue.

Just because you agree with them on the Age 60 doesn't mean you don't feel they should represent the will of the majority, does it? Of course not.

And yeah, quit stalking me, its creepy.

FJ

MEMFO4Ever

Now that's what I'm talking about. I guess ATT values the sacrifice an employee will make on behalf of the company for living in a foreign nation.

Sadly, FedEx does not.

RedeyeAV8r

Won't argue with that, but there are 2 points to remember.

ATT or othe Corps doesn't send their labor force over to ASIA or Europe and if they did, I doubt they would pay large COLA's and allowances.

They do send a few (not 80 to 120) folks like FedEx is planning on doing.

Secondly and most important. FedEx does not because contractually they do not have to. Sure they could just offer more than the contract currently says..........and it appears that they plan on it........just not as much as many think is enough.

Now there are 2 ways to look at this................but this is just My opinion.

We will look at whatever they offer in the (LOA) and vote yes or no.

1. If we vote NO, the company might come back with a higher offer but I doubt it, since they don't contractually have to offer anything above the current FDA package, which is very minimal.
It is not like we have tons of leverage. I wish we had current contractual language that states "Before any new FDA is opened, the Company must negotiate with the Union on COLA and Housing stipends"....but the fact is we don't.

FedEx MGT could ( and probably will IMHO) post a bid to see who bids it , but if they don't fill slots, they can hire directly into those seats...........and don't think for a minute they wouldn't find some very qualified pilots from USAir, NWA or United or Dragon Air, Air Hong Kong and EVA Air all have American , expats who would jump on it in a minute.

2. We can Vote yes and accept what many consider to be an insufficent package. ( although no one has actually seen the package yet).
Insufficent is a relative term though........Insufficent to what? To what we currently get in the contract now or insufficient to what an ATT Senior Exceutive gets.

Now don't get me wrong, If $2,700/ month (rumor du jour) is the monetary bonus. It will not cover what most of us would consider adequte housing, but again $2700 is $2700 more than we currently get.

If we vote YES, it now becomes part of the contract. Lowball yes but no matter how you slice it it is an additional gain. We will begin negotiations for our next contract in approx 3 years......that is propbaly 2 after these new domiciles actually open. The LOA will have the language and it will become part of this contract. It would be a better staring point than if the company just posted a bid like I mentioned above.

Again, don't get me wrong. I am not here trying to tell you all what to do or how to vote. That is your individual choice.

I am just looking at the reality of the situation and when I read some of these posts about voting NO just to spite the MEC, I shake my head.

Wait until there is a document. Read it for yourself. Re-read the current FDA move package language in the contract. If you think we are better off under the current language, than by all means vote no. If it is a gain free and clear(albeit a small one) atleast give it an honest look.

What if the Company offered via an LOA to increase our 401K matching funds by $250.00/year.Contracually they only have to match up to $500 but if They offerd $750 per year instead of $500. Many would say "thats only 250 more". Would you vote NO?

FDXLAG

I understand and agree with your logic. But, presumably the MEC has been talking to the company. So my question is why pensionable and not cola?

MEMFO4Ever

Points well taken Redeye.

A NB FO will lose money living/working in Europa. A newhire will get smoked. Glad this crap is happening a decade after I got hired. No thanks.

There is no upside.

Micro

It is not like we have tons of leverage. I wish we had current contractual language that states "Before any new FDA is opened, the Company must negotiate with the Union on COLA and Housing stipends"....but the fact is we don't.

Wait until there is a document. Read it for yourself. Re-read the current FDA move package language in the contract. If you think we are better off under the current language, than by all means vote no. If it is a gain free and clear(albeit a small one) at least give it an honest look.

I agree. Take a look and vote what you feel is best. However, my question come to your point of contract language. I can't believe that the MEC didn't have a clue that the company wanted to open these FDA's BEFORE our contract negotiations closed. We have no leverage because it seems they made no effort to fix the language and now we'll pay the price by accepting whatever meager offer the company offers.

RedeyeAV8r

I certainly can't speak for the MEC. Did you vote for the current contract? If not, 93% of the other current Pilots did......................apparently they didn't forecast the company opening up a foriegn domicile either or didn't care what the current language said, or were happy with it.

Hypothetically, would have given up something in other areas to have better FDA language? Would you have kept the B fund at 6% vice 7% or forgone the signing bonus to pay a monthly stipend to FDA in excess of $2700? Would have given up a percentage of pay rates? More importatly do you think the 4750 pilots that won't Bid an FDA would have?

All water under the bridge anyway.........

FDXLAG

Or trusted the leadership when they were told that a no vote would be disasterous and disloyal to the NC.

I voted yes because it was a good contract not a perfect one. I voted no on the purple nugget move package because I thought it set a bad precedent.