Haywood JB

As one of those relatively new guys, I can say that this LOA doesn't represent any of us who are married with kids and let our wives work at home taking care of the kids. A big part of coming to FedEx was providing stability for them. Since obviously everyone on the negotiating commitee's kids are long sincs out of school, they've lost touch with that. A new guy in the FDA with kids, on probation...give me a break. It wouldn't work for me now on widebody FO pay. I am just hoping that since I am in the bottom 3rd in my seat that I don't get the not so random inverse senority assignment in Hong Kong for three months. Until I see something that helps the crew force equally, my vote is NO.

CaptainMark

yes i remember all that..i also remember my volunteer time at the union and when it came down to the strike i recall many of those old guys whining to FF that they would not strike at the last minute..a lot of them..all senior..and oddly enough one had the initials...BC...how ironic...i am with you...but this crew force has been a work in progress for a long time and the know-it-alls seem never to take a leadership position..just complain!

PCNUTT

I do not disagree with the points made concerning the expensive nature of cdg/hkg. However, two key points that have I have not seen addressed is the virtual requirement of private school education in the culturally diverse domicile of MEM. (Granted, one doesn't not have to live within 100 miles of MEM, THANK YA JEEESUS!!) 2, What kind of leverage does the Association have negotiating this LOA. We can't strike over this issue. The NMB cannot Mediate this issue. If someone is perceptive enough to see where we have traction on this issue, please teach grasshoppa.

Daniel Larusso

I'll take a stab at it. Big picture is that because it's in the best interest of both ALPA(National/MEC level) and the company. The company is presently overstaffed in their opinion(the one that counts) particularly in the 727 and DC-10. Neither one of those aircraft have had primary vacancies posted for quite some time and will likely never see them again. So we are looking at secondaries and excesses on those planes. Like every other posting lately, we'll see the 'at this time we are anticipating reductions in the 727 and DC-10 positions' line. Let's say that because of this FDA mess, junior 727 FO's and SO's don't bid off the plane b/c they want to stay stateside. The company then will just excess people off of the 727 and DC-10. In the first excess round, the junior folks hired the last 2 years or so who don't wish to go to an FDA will put down ANC MD or MEM A300. In a forced displacement scenario, I expect that the company will flatten or zero out growth on the widebodies in MEM, ANC and LAX. So not everyone will be able to get ANC or MEM 300 and there would be secondary excesses that would force the purple nuggets and the bottom A300 guys off the last posting into excess as well. At this point the only thing that their seniority could hold beyond the FDA's is the 727 panel. However that is getting stocked up with over 60 guys and age 65 won't be settled before the next bid.

So now they are people without a home, who cannot be contractually forced to bid a FDA. Normally the answer would be to hire, but this seems a touch unrealistic in an overstaffed situation . We are basically asking the company to hire people when they already have the people because we (rightfully) don't want to go to these FDA's. I don't see that happening, so they pull out the trump card: furlough. Doesn't mean it will happen or that it makes sense, but the threat of it will cause the MEC to do something. Either they will present us with situation and let us make the call on whether or not to voluntarily change our bids or they make a judgement call and do it for us. I haven't seen our bylaws on this, but most people are unaware that membership ratification isn't necessary for anything other than cba's unless otherwise codified somewhere in the individual airlines MEC bylaws. I've seen pretty big $$$ amendments and deals go down via MEC approval vs. the pilots basically because those MEC's thought they were saving the pilots from themselves. We can go round and round about whether that is right or not, especially in light of what just happened with Age 65, but the fact remains it can happen. I believe UsAir's MEC approved a concessionary deal around the time of their 2nd bk without a vote. United ALPA approved a domestic codeshare and a retirement allocation package without memrat. I'm not sure, but I think Delta's retread Captain deal didn't go through memrat either. Beyond the potential furlough implications, I just cannot see this MEC or ALPA Natl allowing us to set up a situation where foreign pilots could end up with those jobs and force an international scope test. Throw rocks at the wall if you like, but they aren't letting that happen. I'm sure someone will come in and tighten up what I said, but the basic jist of it is between ALPA and the company, some of us are going there bid or no bid. I think the LOA is being offered to maintain system integrity because there would no doubt be operational issues if they just send us over there with nothing.

MaydayMark

One of the rumors on this message board this week was that BC didn't have a problem with the pilots paying for their own FDA schooling costs. His logic (at least as it was stated here?) was that they would have to pay a similar amount for private school in Memphis anyway?

YGTBSM! PLEASE TELL ME THIS ISN"T A GOOD RUMOR!*? PLEASE TELL ME OUR NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN HAS BETTER JUDGEMENT AND COMMON SENSE THAN THIS!*? PLEASE?


Mark

Daniel Larusso

Honestly, I don't know what anyone in the crewforce will do. You may be 100% right. I was just saying that if you gave those jobs to a 25-28 year regional guy with no attachments they'll jump, but if you give it to older regional guys and ex-mil you'll likely see some pause. Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anything in there about giving FDA newhires 2nd year pay to start so it will be tight. I can already envision future threads filled with rage over people who accepted class dates on the hope of getting something stateside and then quitting when they get a FDA slot instead. 'They knew it coming in!', 'Kim called them and explained the situation,' 'Outrageous' we will all say!

prezbear

Mark,

It is absolutely true. According to what I heard (one step from the horse's mouth), Cassel, Maliniak, Maxwell, Lewis, Rosado, Webb, Chimenti and the SFS Status Rep were in Guangzhou to check out its feasibility as a crew base. (By the way, they were there at the end of the March, when they planned to open an FDA bid in May or early June. Is this proper due diligence on the part of the company?) They were assisted by some relocation experts and personnel from Procter & Gamble. When the discussion about schools came up and the cost of schooling was mentioned to be around $15,000, someone asked who paid for it. The answer, like all the previous answers to who pays for the living expenses, was; Procter & Gamble. Apparently, Bob Chimenti spoke up and said, "Fifteen thousand dollars a year? That's not bad. That's what I pay for my children." At this the SFS Status Rep turned to Chimenti and said, "Hold on Bob, that's your choice! If you live in China there won't be a choice."

So, living in China, or Paris for that matter is just like living in Memphis. I guess. Brilliant!!

Busboy

You need a fact checker, my friend.

Current CBA says...Sec 26.W.1.
All pilots assigned to an FDA are fully covered by all provisions of this Agreement.

FDXLAG

This post was a great response I would just like to clarify; the no US Tax number is about $140K in HK assuming about $60K in housing costs. Could go up to 200K with bigger housing expenses. I sure hope we get some tax numbers from our own guys and aren't waiting for fedex to provide them.

And reading the language, if I return to the US for 36 days I could screw FEDEX out of my exclusion (they'll have to pay a lot more to equalize my taxes). Maybe they will split the diff with me.

av8torguy

This is a very fine point, but important; in the LOA it says:

2. In order to be awarded a permanent vacancy in CDG or HKG, a pilot must agree to sign a CDG/HKG FDA Agreement, agreed upon by the parties (Attachment A), which provides, in part, that the pilot’s terms and conditions of employment are governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) and applicable laws of the United States, and not by the laws of the country where the FDA is located.

It's that last part of the sentence; ...and not by the laws of the country where the FDA is located.

You won't find that anywhere in the current CBA.