View Poll Results: How will you vote on the proposed FDX FDA LOA?
YES
41
15.89%
NO
217
84.11%
Voters: 258. You may not vote on this poll
Poll - How will you vote on the new FDX FDA LOA?
08-06-2007, 01:22 PM
#191
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
I didn't get to take the poll.
I just voted today after having a problem getting my Activation Code solved.
I voted YES.
Not because the of Housing allowance . It is Low
Not because of Tax Equalization (although it will be necessary).
Not because of Scope and RLA enhancements. (they are slight if any)
And certainly not because of STV although I don't think it will be as Big a deal as people are making it out to be
I voted YES because, there a few alternatives imho.
If it fails does anyone really think the Company will come back and offer more?
If you truely think we can hold out for More, I suggest you re-look at the situation.
If the LOA fails the slots will get filled voluntarily on way or another, albeit by more Junior folks. Since the slots will more than likely get filled (and nobody really disputes that) , why have our Bretheren over there without the extra $2700 especailly if they are New hires. Yes it should be more, but 2700 dollars is $2700 more than we will get if it Fails.
The said part of all this is that the Company is watching with salivating mouths as they see our resolve and Unity being flushed down the toilet. It was already posted on another Forum, but You all are allowing the Company to negotiate directly with you. The "MY Negotiating Committe speaks for ME" isn't just a slogan, it means that if you want something then go talk to THEM not to me.
We have just proved that we really don't mean that, so get ready for a maverlous productive round of Negotiations in 2010.
Either you trust the MEC and NC or you don't. I have no idea of what talks were like at the table specifically with this LOA, but if the Union says "this is all there is", I have no reason no to doubt them. I don't have to be happy about it. So if you really don't trust the MEC or the NC, you better be ready to serve or ensure you have GOOD knowlegable capable folks ready to step in. I have no problem with that either, but change for change sake doens't alwasy pan out the way you think. I've seen it happen too many times. Just look at FDX ALPA 1 here for just one exapmle.
If you think that voting this thing down followed by a suceessful recall of a few MEC members and new Negotiating Committee Chair is going to generate a better LOA offer from the Company, I submit you are naive. personally don't have the desire to be on the Negotiating Committee or the MEC. It's not worth the trouble in my opinion. I hope that all you BIG Talkers are ready to step up, because the company is watching and loving every minute of this.
It is possible to ratify the LOA and and go ahead with recall efforts if folks are really that unhappy. But voting NO thinking that something better is forthcoming is a pipedream. Just one guy's opinion. and a reluctant YES voter.
I just voted today after having a problem getting my Activation Code solved.
I voted YES.
Not because the of Housing allowance . It is Low
Not because of Tax Equalization (although it will be necessary).
Not because of Scope and RLA enhancements. (they are slight if any)
And certainly not because of STV although I don't think it will be as Big a deal as people are making it out to be
I voted YES because, there a few alternatives imho.
If it fails does anyone really think the Company will come back and offer more?
If you truely think we can hold out for More, I suggest you re-look at the situation.
If the LOA fails the slots will get filled voluntarily on way or another, albeit by more Junior folks. Since the slots will more than likely get filled (and nobody really disputes that) , why have our Bretheren over there without the extra $2700 especailly if they are New hires. Yes it should be more, but 2700 dollars is $2700 more than we will get if it Fails.
The said part of all this is that the Company is watching with salivating mouths as they see our resolve and Unity being flushed down the toilet. It was already posted on another Forum, but You all are allowing the Company to negotiate directly with you. The "MY Negotiating Committe speaks for ME" isn't just a slogan, it means that if you want something then go talk to THEM not to me.
We have just proved that we really don't mean that, so get ready for a maverlous productive round of Negotiations in 2010.
Either you trust the MEC and NC or you don't. I have no idea of what talks were like at the table specifically with this LOA, but if the Union says "this is all there is", I have no reason no to doubt them. I don't have to be happy about it. So if you really don't trust the MEC or the NC, you better be ready to serve or ensure you have GOOD knowlegable capable folks ready to step in. I have no problem with that either, but change for change sake doens't alwasy pan out the way you think. I've seen it happen too many times. Just look at FDX ALPA 1 here for just one exapmle.
If you think that voting this thing down followed by a suceessful recall of a few MEC members and new Negotiating Committee Chair is going to generate a better LOA offer from the Company, I submit you are naive. personally don't have the desire to be on the Negotiating Committee or the MEC. It's not worth the trouble in my opinion. I hope that all you BIG Talkers are ready to step up, because the company is watching and loving every minute of this.
It is possible to ratify the LOA and and go ahead with recall efforts if folks are really that unhappy. But voting NO thinking that something better is forthcoming is a pipedream. Just one guy's opinion. and a reluctant YES voter.
He clearly states why he voted yes -- "there are few alternatives." ---followed by a rhetorical question -" If it fails does anyone really think the Company will come back and offer more?" Much of the rest of the post is about how the company will not come back with more money or there will not be a better LOA.
"Vote on the LOA based on the reality of the situation. (Yes or NO that is your choice)
but if you vote NO I would love to hear your strategy to attain more...... But voting NO thinking that something better is forthcoming is a pipedream."
Redeye - I am voting NO because there are concessions to our work rules in the agreement. I am voting NO because the agreement is vague. I am voting no because the money offered by the company is inadequate and does not cover the cost of living in these domiciles. I am voting NO because I will not give back any work rules to allow several hundred pilots to be inadequately compensated. I am voting NO because STV is a huge negative and it is the only portion of the agreement pertaining to me according to the company and union who negotiated it.
You make this seem as if it is nothing but an up or down on whether or not the FDA bidders should get 2700 bucks. It isn't that simple. You are being disingenuous. You offer up the idea of voting NO only as a means to get more later - as if that is really the only argument for voting NO. I gave you a few more. Further, none of us know what will happen after the vote -- not even you.
08-06-2007, 01:40 PM
#192
...Whatever It Is!
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,680
Realizinf my mistakes on the TV issue, small but significant error, still doesn't equate to LOA though.
Correcting my mistakes :
Can invol. send to TVs in seniority order if you have the base in your standing bid. Then if still need to invol, it will go in inverse seniority order regardless of standing bid. I think I have it right! I'm sure I'll be corrected, again!
Correcting my mistakes :
Can invol. send to TVs in seniority order if you have the base in your standing bid. Then if still need to invol, it will go in inverse seniority order regardless of standing bid. I think I have it right! I'm sure I'll be corrected, again!
08-06-2007, 01:50 PM
#194
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,068
I think that was all part of the initial snow job one of the many that didn't survive the initial BS flags. No place in the LOA does it talk about instructors. To invol an instructor for a month they will have to hit everyone below him on the list first. Otherwise it is a senority violation.
08-06-2007, 02:16 PM
#195
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
At one of the hub meetings, they said that they want to do training overseas and that possibly only the initial cadre will train in the states. Locations were not mentioned. Under this deal, couldn't you run a posting for flexes in CDG and if none take it, then invol some over there? Might make the original 3 bid period thing make a little more sense as well. This is all beside the point though, the big point I had in my post was why would throwing this or any other group under the bus make a bad deal (invol STV) acceptable for our union to propose?
08-06-2007, 03:22 PM
#196
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
Like many of you, I have been tracking all of these threads, so I have a pretty good idea where most posters are coming from ---SO, don't let REDEYE sit here and make up your reason for voting NO. THis is a straw man. Look at what he said above............................................Y ou make this seem as if it is nothing but an up or down on whether or not the FDA bidders should get 2700 bucks. It isn't that simple. You are being disingenuous. You offer up the idea of voting NO only as a means to get more later - as if that is really the only argument for voting NO. I gave you a few more. Further, none of us know what will happen after the vote -- not even you.
You say I am being disingenuous. How so?
I asked a simple question of those who plan on voting NO who think we have the ability to get more? How do you plan to get it, assuming the company even choses to re-engage in Negotiations.
You are correct. I don't know what will happen. I have a pretty good idea and have stated very realistic possibilities, but yes they are only an opinion.
If you are unhappy with the LOA that is Fine vote No. I voted yes. Not becasue I think it is a great deal, but we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If you are voting NO because you have NO intention or Bidding CDG or HKG and are afraid that you will be forced over there on STV and could care less about those who want to go , I suppose the same could be said about you. I would rather see the folks who want to go have 2700 extra bucks , sad as they are. I've heard comments like " Anyone who bids over there deserves what they get" . Maybe that is not how you think but many who post on here seem to convey just that. I personally will not be bidding an FDA even if it had more $$. I would like to see our JR folks who end up there with something.
I don't see that as being disingenuous.
As for Bragging about voting NO on the last contract. I don't recall ever Bragging.
I remember during the Contract Vote, I brought up many Scheduling Issues which are now surfacing. The difference from then and now is, we were in Section 6 negotiations and we had some leverage.
This enviroment is different. Like it or not, The company contractually possesses the ability to open up the FDAs with or without the LOA. I submit that there will be enough folks who will bid it either way.
You don't have to agree, and I'm OK with that.
08-06-2007, 04:14 PM
#197
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Posts: 379
Red Eye,
I don't think we are going to get much more, honestly I don't. I think the LOA is going to be somewhat of a baStardized stepping stone to something the guys over there are going to have to insist that in contract negotiations we fix.
On the other hand, I can't vote yes for something that gives up the STV issues. Our current CBA is way more protective of the junior guy. Once every 14 months vice every six per the first two years of opening ANY FDA. If they cover the flying with siba or something similar, I get the added bonus of actually getting paid for the days I work, and days off where I choose, ie home. Instead, the LOA gives up my new trip rig and grid pay that is about to be implemented.
Personnally I feel that is too much of a give of anyone who is junior in ANY seat to give up, the company can cover the flying under our cba, not this loa. And as my block rep told me, you have to be aweful junior and unlucky to get sent more than once. Well, I am junior in my seat, some 20 from the bottom, and I stay out of the casino's even when I feel lucky(if that is any hint about the black cats that run in front of my car with broken mirrors
).
I just try to think of protecting the guys who will be on narrow body pay(maybe even probationary pay) from going over there and "taking one for the team." Protect the players, vote no, get something better for scheduling purposes. FedEx is a for profit company, I understand that, but I would haste to say that every pilot on the payroll is also a for profit pilot. We deserve to get paid if we are sent away from home, and not measly per diem.
Voted no, and continuing to ask every captain I fly with to vote no, to protect me and the other junior folks from the stated above.
HJ
I don't think we are going to get much more, honestly I don't. I think the LOA is going to be somewhat of a baStardized stepping stone to something the guys over there are going to have to insist that in contract negotiations we fix.
On the other hand, I can't vote yes for something that gives up the STV issues. Our current CBA is way more protective of the junior guy. Once every 14 months vice every six per the first two years of opening ANY FDA. If they cover the flying with siba or something similar, I get the added bonus of actually getting paid for the days I work, and days off where I choose, ie home. Instead, the LOA gives up my new trip rig and grid pay that is about to be implemented.
Personnally I feel that is too much of a give of anyone who is junior in ANY seat to give up, the company can cover the flying under our cba, not this loa. And as my block rep told me, you have to be aweful junior and unlucky to get sent more than once. Well, I am junior in my seat, some 20 from the bottom, and I stay out of the casino's even when I feel lucky(if that is any hint about the black cats that run in front of my car with broken mirrors
).I just try to think of protecting the guys who will be on narrow body pay(maybe even probationary pay) from going over there and "taking one for the team." Protect the players, vote no, get something better for scheduling purposes. FedEx is a for profit company, I understand that, but I would haste to say that every pilot on the payroll is also a for profit pilot. We deserve to get paid if we are sent away from home, and not measly per diem.
Voted no, and continuing to ask every captain I fly with to vote no, to protect me and the other junior folks from the stated above.
HJ
08-06-2007, 05:05 PM
#198
gets every day off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Retired MD11 Capt
Posts: 705
This is where your block rep doesn't get it. The LOA specifies that the most junior pilot eligible gets involuntarily sent. If you're the junior guy in the seat, you go first. Six months later, guess what, you go first again, because you just became the junior eligible. Anyone who joined the list below you during that 6 months was junior eligible the day they got to the line, and went the following month, and therefore are not eligible when you hit 6 months. It doesn't keep going up the seniority list, it hits the bottom guys time and time again. And the guy who gets invol'ed over Christmas? Guess who's back in line the following Christmas?
Last edited by Nitefrater; 08-06-2007 at 05:12 PM. Reason: .
08-06-2007, 05:06 PM
#199
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
You say I am being disingenuous. How so?
I asked a simple question of those who plan on voting NO who think we have the ability to get more? How do you plan to get it, assuming the company even choses to re-engage in Negotiations.
You are correct. I don't know what will happen. I have a pretty good idea and have stated very realistic possibilities, but yes they are only an opinion.
If you are unhappy with the LOA that is Fine vote No. I voted yes. Not becasue I think it is a great deal, but we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If you are voting NO because you have NO intention or Bidding CDG or HKG and are afraid that you will be forced over there on STV and could care less about those who want to go , I suppose the same could be said about you. I would rather see the folks who want to go have 2700 extra bucks , sad as they are. I've heard comments like " Anyone who bids over there deserves what they get" . Maybe that is not how you think but many who post on here seem to convey just that. I personally will not be bidding an FDA even if it had more $$. I would like to see our JR folks who end up there with something.
I don't see that as being disingenuous.
As for Bragging about voting NO on the last contract. I don't recall ever Bragging.
I remember during the Contract Vote, I brought up many Scheduling Issues which are now surfacing. The difference from then and now is, we were in Section 6 negotiations and we had some leverage.
This enviroment is different. Like it or not, The company contractually possesses the ability to open up the FDAs with or without the LOA. I submit that there will be enough folks who will bid it either way.
You don't have to agree, and I'm OK with that.
I asked a simple question of those who plan on voting NO who think we have the ability to get more? How do you plan to get it, assuming the company even choses to re-engage in Negotiations.
You are correct. I don't know what will happen. I have a pretty good idea and have stated very realistic possibilities, but yes they are only an opinion.
If you are unhappy with the LOA that is Fine vote No. I voted yes. Not becasue I think it is a great deal, but we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If you are voting NO because you have NO intention or Bidding CDG or HKG and are afraid that you will be forced over there on STV and could care less about those who want to go , I suppose the same could be said about you. I would rather see the folks who want to go have 2700 extra bucks , sad as they are. I've heard comments like " Anyone who bids over there deserves what they get" . Maybe that is not how you think but many who post on here seem to convey just that. I personally will not be bidding an FDA even if it had more $$. I would like to see our JR folks who end up there with something.
I don't see that as being disingenuous.
As for Bragging about voting NO on the last contract. I don't recall ever Bragging.
I remember during the Contract Vote, I brought up many Scheduling Issues which are now surfacing. The difference from then and now is, we were in Section 6 negotiations and we had some leverage.
This enviroment is different. Like it or not, The company contractually possesses the ability to open up the FDAs with or without the LOA. I submit that there will be enough folks who will bid it either way.
You don't have to agree, and I'm OK with that.
When did I say anything about bragging?
08-06-2007, 05:48 PM
#200
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: Who knows...waiting for a bid
Posts: 379
Nite,
That's exactly what I told him, and also why I told him I was sold on the no vote. I am not playing the odds here for myself or anyone else. I like the current language in the cba. I can't go...and that's quite good enough for me
That's exactly what I told him, and also why I told him I was sold on the no vote. I am not playing the odds here for myself or anyone else. I like the current language in the cba. I can't go...and that's quite good enough for me
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
