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?
06-30-2007, 11:15 PM
#81
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: B-777 F/O
Posts: 65
How I see it:
Bad LOA / NO LOA = Junior manned
Good LOA = Senior manned
A good LOA is good for all of us. It is good for the guy who wants the FDA and it is good for those who want to stay stateside and have guys senior to them in there seat move off the base’s seniority list to CDG or HKG.
I was certain the 757 to Paris would have an international override increase to offset narrow body pay, in addition to an adequate COLA and Housing package--wow, what a joke.
The company NEEDS a LOA to be protected from French labor laws.
The company NEEDS a new bid soon, and will put one out regardless of our vote because the company NEEDS it. The company needs this LOA but they are smart enough to know our pilot group has a very large minority who only care about themselves and will not fight for the whole. The company will continue to treat us like dogs if we keep rolling over! The LOA is a POS—I vote NO!
I think the wind in the air calls for an extra 2700 lbs of fuel for every sortie.
Bad LOA / NO LOA = Junior manned
Good LOA = Senior manned
A good LOA is good for all of us. It is good for the guy who wants the FDA and it is good for those who want to stay stateside and have guys senior to them in there seat move off the base’s seniority list to CDG or HKG.
I was certain the 757 to Paris would have an international override increase to offset narrow body pay, in addition to an adequate COLA and Housing package--wow, what a joke.
The company NEEDS a LOA to be protected from French labor laws.
The company NEEDS a new bid soon, and will put one out regardless of our vote because the company NEEDS it. The company needs this LOA but they are smart enough to know our pilot group has a very large minority who only care about themselves and will not fight for the whole. The company will continue to treat us like dogs if we keep rolling over! The LOA is a POS—I vote NO!
I think the wind in the air calls for an extra 2700 lbs of fuel for every sortie.
07-01-2007, 04:09 AM
#83
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Posts: 34
T Montana
After reading your thread you should be call T Whimptana. SFS opened with no protections/contract nor enhancements. SFS has been a good deal and it is a shame that it is closing down. But it made Financial sense to the gurus. This LOA has nothing good about it. Why are some individuals so afraid to have nothing if the LOA gets voted down. Can't loose what you never had. Under the current contract you still get everything that is already in place.
After reading your thread you should be call T Whimptana. SFS opened with no protections/contract nor enhancements. SFS has been a good deal and it is a shame that it is closing down. But it made Financial sense to the gurus. This LOA has nothing good about it. Why are some individuals so afraid to have nothing if the LOA gets voted down. Can't loose what you never had. Under the current contract you still get everything that is already in place.
07-01-2007, 04:56 AM
#84
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Why is this LOA coming to us with 11-1 support from the MEC?
The MEC wants to protect the guys who are about to make Captain with a little (emphasis on little) extra pay for the trouble.
Without the LOA the MEC fears fewer Captains (read pilots) on the property.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like nor support this LOA. But that is what I believe they are thinking.
What MEC is not thinking about--
The newhire that has to go to a foreign domicile with $54/hr and $40K too little in COLA.
The junior FO that has 2 or 3 kids wanting to go to a FDA.
The MEC wants to protect the guys who are about to make Captain with a little (emphasis on little) extra pay for the trouble.
Without the LOA the MEC fears fewer Captains (read pilots) on the property.
Don't get me wrong, I do not like nor support this LOA. But that is what I believe they are thinking.
What MEC is not thinking about--
The newhire that has to go to a foreign domicile with $54/hr and $40K too little in COLA.
The junior FO that has 2 or 3 kids wanting to go to a FDA.
07-01-2007, 05:54 AM
#85
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
Does anyone think that wb capt. in HK would be a good deal? WB FO MEM would make similar money after expenses wouldn't they?
Then, add in family. With kids - schools will kill you. If no kids in the house, will your spouse be able to maintain an income?
Then, add in family. With kids - schools will kill you. If no kids in the house, will your spouse be able to maintain an income?
07-01-2007, 06:13 AM
#86
Line Holder
Joined APC: Apr 2007
Posts: 40
T Montana
After reading your thread you should be call T Whimptana. SFS opened with no protections/contract nor enhancements. SFS has been a good deal and it is a shame that it is closing down. But it made Financial sense to the gurus. This LOA has nothing good about it. Why are some individuals so afraid to have nothing if the LOA gets voted down. Can't loose what you never had. Under the current contract you still get everything that is already in place.
After reading your thread you should be call T Whimptana. SFS opened with no protections/contract nor enhancements. SFS has been a good deal and it is a shame that it is closing down. But it made Financial sense to the gurus. This LOA has nothing good about it. Why are some individuals so afraid to have nothing if the LOA gets voted down. Can't loose what you never had. Under the current contract you still get everything that is already in place.
07-01-2007, 06:21 AM
#87
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: Excessed WB Capt.
Posts: 1,084
I have briefly read this LOA and have not noticed anything about aircraft specific positions. What is to keep them from sending some MD, some 757 and some Airbus crews to all of these FDA sites. With FEDEX you have to think of worse case scenario, what are they going to be ABLE to do LEGALLY with this document. This thing opens up pandoras box. Now they cant force TDY somebody to a FDA. This document will now allow them to do that. That is a beg gain for them. Also if your going to inverse SVT me for one to three months(means three) a least send my conjugal visitor first class so she might me in the mood when she gets there.
07-01-2007, 12:09 PM
#90
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 CA
Posts: 150
I would appreciate it if you'd refrain from calling people you don't even know stupid, or anything else derogatory. I don't know for sure, but the person you are disparaging has probably been living in Subic longer than you have been working at this company.
Actually, you make the point that this LOA is a net gain. You believe that the if the LOA doesn't pass, then the company will open the domiciles anyway. You go on to say that this will hurt the new hires and those that bid it. Furthermore, you said that you voted against the current contract because you thought you had leverage.
ECQLO is saying that there is nothing good in this contract and that pilots won't miss what they've never had. Additionally, whether you bid this or not, you'll still receive the relocation benefits under Section 6 of the current contract.
You both are on to the point: Leverage. Our leverage is our unity. Vote the LOA down. If the company doesn't return to the table to sweeten the deal, then don't bid either FDA. Let the company threaten to use new hires. I think that would be a worthless bluff.
T Montana, I have to take a shot at you. In your previous thread you said,
"People saying that they won't bid a FDA, that this won't affect themselves come across to me as self serving, I got mine- so what? " Talk about incoherent.
Prez
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
