LOA Absolutes
06-30-2007, 01:10 PM
#1
On Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Posts: 14
LOA Absolutes
The information presented as fact is accurate as of today. The opinions following are obviously subject to debate.
Indisputable Facts:
#1. The Company intends to open domicile's in HKG and CDG in the near future.
#2. Pilots will be based at these domiciles whether a) they voluntarily bid them b) they are forced to be there under the CBA.
#3. The LOA provides a) Move packages b) Housing offsets c) Income tax offsets d) Longevity bonus e) Contractual protection and Status for pilots in these domicile's under the RLA.
#4. Every FDX pilot has the opportunity to input a standing bid that reflects their choice of Aircraft and Domicile.
Opinions:
1. The likelihood that either #1 or #2 will not occur with or without this LOA are minimal.
2. If the LOA is voted down; Any pilot who falls under #2 may lose some if not all of those items listed in #3, most importantly #3e.
3. Voting Yes for the LOA does not remove anyones right to #4.
4. The perceived or actual financial benefits that current Subic pilots enjoy will not be mirrored at this time in either CDG or HKG; with the passage or the failure of the LOA.
5. Voting No will not "force" the company to come back with a better offer. Voting Yes does not guarantee that every available seat will be filled with newhires.
6. This LOA is woefully short of expectations and anyone who purposely bids for either of these domiciles with/without the LOA does so knowing full well the financial consequences.
Therefore if this LOA is "voted down", the only people who are truly going to be adversely impacted are those pilots who did not want to go at all!
Indisputable Facts:
#1. The Company intends to open domicile's in HKG and CDG in the near future.
#2. Pilots will be based at these domiciles whether a) they voluntarily bid them b) they are forced to be there under the CBA.
#3. The LOA provides a) Move packages b) Housing offsets c) Income tax offsets d) Longevity bonus e) Contractual protection and Status for pilots in these domicile's under the RLA.
#4. Every FDX pilot has the opportunity to input a standing bid that reflects their choice of Aircraft and Domicile.
Opinions:
1. The likelihood that either #1 or #2 will not occur with or without this LOA are minimal.
2. If the LOA is voted down; Any pilot who falls under #2 may lose some if not all of those items listed in #3, most importantly #3e.
3. Voting Yes for the LOA does not remove anyones right to #4.
4. The perceived or actual financial benefits that current Subic pilots enjoy will not be mirrored at this time in either CDG or HKG; with the passage or the failure of the LOA.
5. Voting No will not "force" the company to come back with a better offer. Voting Yes does not guarantee that every available seat will be filled with newhires.
6. This LOA is woefully short of expectations and anyone who purposely bids for either of these domiciles with/without the LOA does so knowing full well the financial consequences.
Therefore if this LOA is "voted down", the only people who are truly going to be adversely impacted are those pilots who did not want to go at all!
06-30-2007, 01:33 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
The information presented as fact is accurate as of today. The opinions following are obviously subject to debate.
Indisputable Facts:
#1. The Company intends to open domicile's in HKG and CDG in the near future.
#2. Pilots will be based at these domiciles whether a) they voluntarily bid them b) they are forced to be there under the CBA.
#3. The LOA provides a) Move packages b) Housing offsets c) Income tax offsets d) Longevity bonus e) Contractual protection and Status for pilots in these domicile's under the RLA.
#4. Every FDX pilot has the opportunity to input a standing bid that reflects their choice of Aircraft and Domicile.
Opinions:
1. The likelihood that either #1 or #2 will not occur with or without this LOA are minimal.
2. If the LOA is voted down; Any pilot who falls under #2 may lose some if not all of those items listed in #3, most importantly #3e.
3. Voting Yes for the LOA does not remove anyones right to #4.
4. The perceived or actual financial benefits that current Subic pilots enjoy will not be mirrored at this time in either CDG or HKG; with the passage or the failure of the LOA.
5. Voting No will not "force" the company to come back with a better offer. Voting Yes does not guarantee that every available seat will be filled with newhires.
6. This LOA is woefully short of expectations and anyone who purposely bids for either of these domiciles with/without the LOA does so knowing full well the financial consequences.
Therefore if this LOA is "voted down", the only people who are truly going to be adversely impacted are those pilots who did not want to go at all!
Indisputable Facts:
#1. The Company intends to open domicile's in HKG and CDG in the near future.
#2. Pilots will be based at these domiciles whether a) they voluntarily bid them b) they are forced to be there under the CBA.
#3. The LOA provides a) Move packages b) Housing offsets c) Income tax offsets d) Longevity bonus e) Contractual protection and Status for pilots in these domicile's under the RLA.
#4. Every FDX pilot has the opportunity to input a standing bid that reflects their choice of Aircraft and Domicile.
Opinions:
1. The likelihood that either #1 or #2 will not occur with or without this LOA are minimal.
2. If the LOA is voted down; Any pilot who falls under #2 may lose some if not all of those items listed in #3, most importantly #3e.
3. Voting Yes for the LOA does not remove anyones right to #4.
4. The perceived or actual financial benefits that current Subic pilots enjoy will not be mirrored at this time in either CDG or HKG; with the passage or the failure of the LOA.
5. Voting No will not "force" the company to come back with a better offer. Voting Yes does not guarantee that every available seat will be filled with newhires.
6. This LOA is woefully short of expectations and anyone who purposely bids for either of these domiciles with/without the LOA does so knowing full well the financial consequences.
Therefore if this LOA is "voted down", the only people who are truly going to be adversely impacted are those pilots who did not want to go at all!
Are you proposing the logical conclusion is that I should vote FOR the LOA?
06-30-2007, 01:42 PM
#5
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 43
you gotta be 'itten me
From a poolie, who has been floatin' since October, my job search just began in earnest (again....something I thought I'd never say after Kim gave me the good news.... so much for that March 1st class date.)
I fit the profile, mid 30's, kids, good career so far, looking for the job to get me to retirement. Now, I'm not so sure I want to be a part of FDX if the union and membership rolls over on this one too. Let's not even bring up age 60. I'm objective, been around the block, spoken to lots of folks on both sides, my late 50's sponsor (who btw is against the age change), even Albie for goodness sakes...... The MEC and those who are in favor of this crappola should have to go live the lives on those who they are about to scruuuuu over royally.
I hate to see the powerhouse the FDX once was (and still is) begin the downhill race to the bottom like the regionals and lots of legacy carriers. From a poolie, IJMHO. I could go on for days, but I still have to carry on and not let a bunch of senior complacent individuals ruin my career or separate me from my family. They obviously have been under the influence of D. Worthless wayyyy to long. Gee thanks.
I fit the profile, mid 30's, kids, good career so far, looking for the job to get me to retirement. Now, I'm not so sure I want to be a part of FDX if the union and membership rolls over on this one too. Let's not even bring up age 60. I'm objective, been around the block, spoken to lots of folks on both sides, my late 50's sponsor (who btw is against the age change), even Albie for goodness sakes...... The MEC and those who are in favor of this crappola should have to go live the lives on those who they are about to scruuuuu over royally.
I hate to see the powerhouse the FDX once was (and still is) begin the downhill race to the bottom like the regionals and lots of legacy carriers. From a poolie, IJMHO. I could go on for days, but I still have to carry on and not let a bunch of senior complacent individuals ruin my career or separate me from my family. They obviously have been under the influence of D. Worthless wayyyy to long. Gee thanks.
06-30-2007, 01:42 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,804
Why did the company even negotiate an LOA if they don't need to?
Just open the FDAs.
Yet here we have an LOA.
Your opinion 6.
"This LOA is woefully short of expectations and anyone who purposely bids for either of these domiciles with/without the LOA does so knowing full well the financial consequences."
Is FACT!!
Just open the FDAs.
Yet here we have an LOA.
Your opinion 6.
"This LOA is woefully short of expectations and anyone who purposely bids for either of these domiciles with/without the LOA does so knowing full well the financial consequences."
Is FACT!!
06-30-2007, 02:02 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: FDX A300 CPT
Posts: 967
From a poolie, who has been floatin' since October, my job search just began in earnest (again....something I thought I'd never say after Kim gave me the good news.... so much for that March 1st class date.)
I fit the profile, mid 30's, kids, good career so far, looking for the job to get me to retirement. Now, I'm not so sure I want to be a part of FDX if the union and membership rolls over on this one too. Let's not even bring up age 60. I'm objective, been around the block, spoken to lots of folks on both sides, my late 50's sponsor (who btw is against the age change), even Albie for goodness sakes...... The MEC and those who are in favor of this crappola should have to go live the lives on those who they are about to scruuuuu over royally.
I hate to see the powerhouse the FDX once was (and still is) begin the downhill race to the bottom like the regionals and lots of legacy carriers. From a poolie, IJMHO. I could go on for days, but I still have to carry on and not let a bunch of senior complacent individuals ruin my career or separate me from my family. They obviously have been under the influence of D. Worthless wayyyy to long. Gee thanks.
I fit the profile, mid 30's, kids, good career so far, looking for the job to get me to retirement. Now, I'm not so sure I want to be a part of FDX if the union and membership rolls over on this one too. Let's not even bring up age 60. I'm objective, been around the block, spoken to lots of folks on both sides, my late 50's sponsor (who btw is against the age change), even Albie for goodness sakes...... The MEC and those who are in favor of this crappola should have to go live the lives on those who they are about to scruuuuu over royally.
I hate to see the powerhouse the FDX once was (and still is) begin the downhill race to the bottom like the regionals and lots of legacy carriers. From a poolie, IJMHO. I could go on for days, but I still have to carry on and not let a bunch of senior complacent individuals ruin my career or separate me from my family. They obviously have been under the influence of D. Worthless wayyyy to long. Gee thanks.
what profile r u talking about?
Last edited by CaptainMark; 06-30-2007 at 02:07 PM.
06-30-2007, 02:18 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
From a poolie, who has been floatin' since October, my job search just began in earnest (again....something I thought I'd never say after Kim gave me the good news.... so much for that March 1st class date.)
I fit the profile, mid 30's, kids, good career so far, looking for the job to get me to retirement. Now, I'm not so sure I want to be a part of FDX if the union and membership rolls over on this one too. Let's not even bring up age 60. I'm objective, been around the block, spoken to lots of folks on both sides, my late 50's sponsor (who btw is against the age change), even Albie for goodness sakes...... The MEC and those who are in favor of this crappola should have to go live the lives on those who they are about to scruuuuu over royally.
I hate to see the powerhouse the FDX once was (and still is) begin the downhill race to the bottom like the regionals and lots of legacy carriers. From a poolie, IJMHO. I could go on for days, but I still have to carry on and not let a bunch of senior complacent individuals ruin my career or separate me from my family. They obviously have been under the influence of D. Worthless wayyyy to long. Gee thanks.
I fit the profile, mid 30's, kids, good career so far, looking for the job to get me to retirement. Now, I'm not so sure I want to be a part of FDX if the union and membership rolls over on this one too. Let's not even bring up age 60. I'm objective, been around the block, spoken to lots of folks on both sides, my late 50's sponsor (who btw is against the age change), even Albie for goodness sakes...... The MEC and those who are in favor of this crappola should have to go live the lives on those who they are about to scruuuuu over royally.
I hate to see the powerhouse the FDX once was (and still is) begin the downhill race to the bottom like the regionals and lots of legacy carriers. From a poolie, IJMHO. I could go on for days, but I still have to carry on and not let a bunch of senior complacent individuals ruin my career or separate me from my family. They obviously have been under the influence of D. Worthless wayyyy to long. Gee thanks.
06-30-2007, 02:45 PM
#9
Thx Age 65
Joined APC: Jul 2005
Position: MD11CAP
Posts: 1,041
Why ***** at him?
If you applied and got on with FedEx with the assumption that your job starting out would be 27S MEM, and then Age 65 happened pushing everything to the right 5 years, with the added kick in the nuts that you might have to at the very least commute to ANC, CDG, or HKG, or worse live there in a shack, you'd be *****ing too.
If you applied and got on with FedEx with the assumption that your job starting out would be 27S MEM, and then Age 65 happened pushing everything to the right 5 years, with the added kick in the nuts that you might have to at the very least commute to ANC, CDG, or HKG, or worse live there in a shack, you'd be *****ing too.
06-30-2007, 02:47 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Position: MD-11 F/O
Posts: 390
#2. Pilots will be based at these domiciles whether a) they voluntarily bid them b) they are forced to be there under the CBA.
How are they going to force people to the FDA? I can see a SIBA thing, but to they can't force you to the FDA.
As for a new hire, Fedex would be crazy to offer a new hire a low paying 1st year job, have to live in CDG or HKG for 3 years, and not give them anything extra. I know guys would take it, but not a lot. I think they would look at Cathay a little bit closer if you had to live in HKG anyway.
I am still waiting for ssomebody to explain this "better scope" statement also. I see no scope change at all.
As for the NC quitting if this doesn't pass, I hope so, this deal stinks.
How are they going to force people to the FDA? I can see a SIBA thing, but to they can't force you to the FDA.
As for a new hire, Fedex would be crazy to offer a new hire a low paying 1st year job, have to live in CDG or HKG for 3 years, and not give them anything extra. I know guys would take it, but not a lot. I think they would look at Cathay a little bit closer if you had to live in HKG anyway.
I am still waiting for ssomebody to explain this "better scope" statement also. I see no scope change at all.
As for the NC quitting if this doesn't pass, I hope so, this deal stinks.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
