FDX'ers on LOA
07-07-2007, 12:06 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: Michael Vick's favorite animal
Posts: 267
Meas has a contract to bring American pilots over to China to fly CRJs. Cathay hires expats from all over the world to come to HKG and work--and gives them a great deal. Yet our company wants a "concessonary" LOA to get guys to go over? Forget it. They are bluffing. If they wanted Chinese pilots they'd have them already.
This RLA thing seems to be what the union wants. It seems to be worth whatever price the company asks. I disagree.
I had a long talk with the block 3 rep yesterday. Kudos to him and the MEC guys for being around to take spears and attempt to answer questions. While I respect his effort, his answers in my opinion are woefully short.
Specfically--he pointed out that STVs are only 3 months--and we already get sent non-vol'd to TRAINING for 3 months. I told him I didn' think those two points related at all. First of all--being in MEM, DAL, MCO or MIA for 3 months means I'm a jumpseat await from home--not on another continent. Also--I BID for that. SVT is not voluntary! Scott indicated he might bid over just for the adventure of it. I commend him and his spirit. His family situation is different. However--he's got a choice. They guy who gets sent non-vol'd may not be able to get home to visit due to trip arrangements in the bidpack, and his family may not be able to join him (after flying coach around the world) due to school, work, or other family obligations.
Again--and I may be wrong but here goes.... If SCOPE is such a scary issue, and losing this to foreign pilots, why do I make so much money helping American pilots get jobs for countries overseas? IMHO--10 years from now a Chinese airline might be a threat--but not today--and its not worth sacrificing our family lives or working for a very substandard deal to mitigate a threat that isn't there. When that threat does arrive--if they can fly cheaper and more effectively than we can it will take more than our LOA to stop FedEx from using them. Why hasn't Cathay hired up all those local pilots? They'd save a TON in domicile costs.
Tuck--if guys want to bid overseas now the current CBA isn't that terrible. If they get inversed, they fly SIBA type lines and get home every month--first class--and get a hotel provided. Tax equalization is NOT a benefit--its a break even proposition--and $2700 won't pay the rent. Voting NO will send a message--like you and your -11 FOs did last year--that we aren't going to take crap deals and throw outselves under a bus because we are scared of the "unknowns".
Your MEC is fighting hard for this because they know THEIR credibility is at stake. How much do you think they are working to help the junior guys out? What is their track record on that?
Another point that came up in our discussion was "trust". As Check 6 pointed out, the company CAN use ANY plane in the FDA they see fit. Scott's answer was it comes down to trust--we have to believe the company will do what they say they will do for meaningful dialog to take place. His point is valid--but here is some food for thought.
What happened when an ACP and forum regular went to the mat for some 'acceptable fares" issues?
What happened to our new A300 ACP--the former grievance rep who's appointment "sent a signal" that we could all work together now professionally? (Hint: He's not in the AOC ACP offices...)
Who recently was selected as the MEM CP even though he has a reputation for being one of the "least pilot friendly" ACPs when it comes to sick leave, mil leave, etc?
In other words--what kind of handwriting is on the wall right now about the culture and climate our management wants to create the next couple years? They are steamrolling our MEC, optimizing schedules, and asking for the ability to send you AGAINST YOU WILL overseas for months at a time away from our families.
Our MEC says "yeah...but if you don't sign it will be worse".
Dudes--vote your own heart. But I'll take my chances. I dont' want to be negotiating with RT, DM, OR, or any other flight manager over what will happen if I don't accept this 3 month separation from my family. If you really believe that will never happen, and that somehow those folks will allow you to stay home and send someone else senior to you--I wish you luck. If you think your union--which signed off the LOA--will grieve you going for family reasons and they accept sending some SENIOR TO YOU abroad against their will because of your particular hardship--again--I wish you luck.
I don't want to trust my luck. I want to be able to control my schedule under the current CBA. I want to bid what I want to fly and not be forced to live in squalor in an overseas location halfway around the world from my family.
I do not trust the company. I do not trust this MEC. So I am voting no. I hope you vote no too.
This RLA thing seems to be what the union wants. It seems to be worth whatever price the company asks. I disagree.
I had a long talk with the block 3 rep yesterday. Kudos to him and the MEC guys for being around to take spears and attempt to answer questions. While I respect his effort, his answers in my opinion are woefully short.
Specfically--he pointed out that STVs are only 3 months--and we already get sent non-vol'd to TRAINING for 3 months. I told him I didn' think those two points related at all. First of all--being in MEM, DAL, MCO or MIA for 3 months means I'm a jumpseat await from home--not on another continent. Also--I BID for that. SVT is not voluntary! Scott indicated he might bid over just for the adventure of it. I commend him and his spirit. His family situation is different. However--he's got a choice. They guy who gets sent non-vol'd may not be able to get home to visit due to trip arrangements in the bidpack, and his family may not be able to join him (after flying coach around the world) due to school, work, or other family obligations.
Again--and I may be wrong but here goes.... If SCOPE is such a scary issue, and losing this to foreign pilots, why do I make so much money helping American pilots get jobs for countries overseas? IMHO--10 years from now a Chinese airline might be a threat--but not today--and its not worth sacrificing our family lives or working for a very substandard deal to mitigate a threat that isn't there. When that threat does arrive--if they can fly cheaper and more effectively than we can it will take more than our LOA to stop FedEx from using them. Why hasn't Cathay hired up all those local pilots? They'd save a TON in domicile costs.
Tuck--if guys want to bid overseas now the current CBA isn't that terrible. If they get inversed, they fly SIBA type lines and get home every month--first class--and get a hotel provided. Tax equalization is NOT a benefit--its a break even proposition--and $2700 won't pay the rent. Voting NO will send a message--like you and your -11 FOs did last year--that we aren't going to take crap deals and throw outselves under a bus because we are scared of the "unknowns".
Your MEC is fighting hard for this because they know THEIR credibility is at stake. How much do you think they are working to help the junior guys out? What is their track record on that?
Another point that came up in our discussion was "trust". As Check 6 pointed out, the company CAN use ANY plane in the FDA they see fit. Scott's answer was it comes down to trust--we have to believe the company will do what they say they will do for meaningful dialog to take place. His point is valid--but here is some food for thought.
What happened when an ACP and forum regular went to the mat for some 'acceptable fares" issues?
What happened to our new A300 ACP--the former grievance rep who's appointment "sent a signal" that we could all work together now professionally? (Hint: He's not in the AOC ACP offices...)
Who recently was selected as the MEM CP even though he has a reputation for being one of the "least pilot friendly" ACPs when it comes to sick leave, mil leave, etc?
In other words--what kind of handwriting is on the wall right now about the culture and climate our management wants to create the next couple years? They are steamrolling our MEC, optimizing schedules, and asking for the ability to send you AGAINST YOU WILL overseas for months at a time away from our families.
Our MEC says "yeah...but if you don't sign it will be worse".
Dudes--vote your own heart. But I'll take my chances. I dont' want to be negotiating with RT, DM, OR, or any other flight manager over what will happen if I don't accept this 3 month separation from my family. If you really believe that will never happen, and that somehow those folks will allow you to stay home and send someone else senior to you--I wish you luck. If you think your union--which signed off the LOA--will grieve you going for family reasons and they accept sending some SENIOR TO YOU abroad against their will because of your particular hardship--again--I wish you luck.
I don't want to trust my luck. I want to be able to control my schedule under the current CBA. I want to bid what I want to fly and not be forced to live in squalor in an overseas location halfway around the world from my family.
I do not trust the company. I do not trust this MEC. So I am voting no. I hope you vote no too.
EXCELLENT POST MAN.
07-07-2007, 01:03 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
This is Quoted from Gunter (I don't know why it will not let me box it in)
SIBA does not equal STV!Under our current CBA we can go on STV??? I disagree.
All I see is no FDA unless you bid for it. Then I see SIBA, which is a month's flying (15-18 days) overseas, come back home, then back for 3 bid periods total.
STV is travel overseas, stay up to 90 days, then come back.
BTW, I have talked with more than a couple of senior CA's who think this STV is no bid deal then it comes out they really don't understand SIBA or the new STV being proposed. WOW! I find it hard to believe people can form such solid opinions on what they learn by rumor over dinner. They refuse to read portions of the CBA or the LOA to get the real scoop.
But since they are senior I am sure they know a lot more about which resturant to go to than about some "obscure" contract provision they don't have to worry about anymore.
It must be good to be senior.[/QUOTE]
I guess that I was unclear in my statement to Tony. What I meant was that under the current LOA in conjunction with our current CBA. I was responding to Tony's quotes from the CBA of the definition of an FDA and a Base, in reference to it being aircraft specific.
I agree with everyone that no STV, or no LOA. I was just further expounding on the fact that with both of these documents together, the company could STV pilots of different aircraft, regardless of which specific aircraft that an FDA has assigned to it.
This LOA is woefully short of benefit to the pilots, and inadequately worded to protect us from the company. Personally, I wouldn't vote for any LOA that leaves so much to interpretation, even if it had the money required, and no STV option available to the company.
SIBA does not equal STV!Under our current CBA we can go on STV??? I disagree.
All I see is no FDA unless you bid for it. Then I see SIBA, which is a month's flying (15-18 days) overseas, come back home, then back for 3 bid periods total.
STV is travel overseas, stay up to 90 days, then come back.
BTW, I have talked with more than a couple of senior CA's who think this STV is no bid deal then it comes out they really don't understand SIBA or the new STV being proposed. WOW! I find it hard to believe people can form such solid opinions on what they learn by rumor over dinner. They refuse to read portions of the CBA or the LOA to get the real scoop.
But since they are senior I am sure they know a lot more about which resturant to go to than about some "obscure" contract provision they don't have to worry about anymore.
It must be good to be senior.[/QUOTE]
I guess that I was unclear in my statement to Tony. What I meant was that under the current LOA in conjunction with our current CBA. I was responding to Tony's quotes from the CBA of the definition of an FDA and a Base, in reference to it being aircraft specific.
I agree with everyone that no STV, or no LOA. I was just further expounding on the fact that with both of these documents together, the company could STV pilots of different aircraft, regardless of which specific aircraft that an FDA has assigned to it.
This LOA is woefully short of benefit to the pilots, and inadequately worded to protect us from the company. Personally, I wouldn't vote for any LOA that leaves so much to interpretation, even if it had the money required, and no STV option available to the company.
Last edited by fedupbusdriver; 07-07-2007 at 01:09 PM.
07-07-2007, 02:00 PM
#43
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 777
Posts: 35
Rumor - Just heard it thrown around today that DW believes that this LOA might fail. 
Something to smile about. Have not talked to him personally or anyone on the MEC for that matter. If that is even halfway true its being talked up and if your planning on voting NO the momentum may be picking up. Lift up your arms and start the wave.
NO Vote - 50% plus 1
Be the 1
Something to smile about. Have not talked to him personally or anyone on the MEC for that matter. If that is even halfway true its being talked up and if your planning on voting NO the momentum may be picking up. Lift up your arms and start the wave.NO Vote - 50% plus 1
Be the 1
07-07-2007, 02:31 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: A300/310 Capt
Posts: 1,642
Rumor - Just heard it thrown around today that DW believes that this LOA might fail. Something to smile about. Have not talked to him personally or anyone on the MEC for that matter. If that is even halfway true its being talked up and if your planning on voting NO the momentum may be picking up. Lift up your arms and start the wave.
NO Vote - 50% plus 1 Be the 1
Something to smile about. Have not talked to him personally or anyone on the MEC for that matter. If that is even halfway true its being talked up and if your planning on voting NO the momentum may be picking up. Lift up your arms and start the wave.NO Vote - 50% plus 1
Be the 1Pass the word.
07-07-2007, 02:43 PM
#46
Organizational Learning
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Directly behind the combiner
Posts: 4,948
Albie
Great post especially liked the tax equalization is not a benefit part. Would just like to add Income Tax Gross Up* is already in the current CBA and may be better then Tax Equalization. So Tax Equalization could be a give back.
*would love to find a Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual (3-86) dated October 2003.
From Section 3-86 Relocation (Last revised June 25, 2006):
Policy
FedEx Express provides a package of benefits designed to help eligible employees relocate their permanent residence to their new domicile to meet operational and specific career development requirements with a minimum of disruption to the employee and operation. FedEx Express intends to provide a competitive and flexible program in meeting the employee’s needs as well as those of the Company.
GuidelinesIncome Tax
Most relocation expenses and allowances paid by the Company to an employee or on behalf of the employee are considered taxable wages for federal and state income tax purposes at the time the payment is made. A portion of the amounts expended during a relocation may be deductible on the tax return(s) of an employee. Nondeductible expenditures, or allowances not spent, are subject to federal and state income taxation.
FedEx Express may offset this additional tax liability by means of a tax “gross-up” or “protection” calculation. This gross-up calculation does not apply to payments made under the Cost of Living Adjustment or Mortgage Interest Differential Plans. The gross-up does not apply to the Relocation Allowance or the 1-month salary payment if not used for relocation expense items defined by this policy.
Gross-up calculation is accomplished by a formula that takes the following into consideration:
- Total relocation expenses, as defined by this policy, paid by the employee or on behalf of the employee
- Deductible expenses
- Relocation-related expenses that are not tax deductible
- Increased tax brackets, loss of exemptions, and loss of standard deductions or itemized deductions
- Additional federal and state taxes that are incurred as a result of relocation
Any additional federal income tax liability incurred by an employee as a result of a relocation and determined to be covered under the gross-up provisions as defined by this policy will be paid either directly to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or reimbursed to the employee. The employee must show proof of payment of the tax.
All state taxes are subject to a maximum combined tax gross-up of 5%.
At the end of a year in which an employee receives any relocation benefits, the employee’s W-2 reflects the amounts paid to the employee or on behalf of the employee by the Company. In addition, the employee receives an itemization which identifies the relocation expenses and allowances paid by the Company (e.g., relocation allowance, household goods movement, closing costs). The itemization is provided in order to assist the employee identifying expenditures that may be treated as deductible. The employee must file an IRS Form 3903 with his tax return in order to claim moving expense deductions. Where applicable, some relocation expenditures may be deductible in determining state and local taxable income.
If an employee believes that an additional tax liability was incurred as a result of a reimbursement of relocation expenses, the employee must provide the following information to the Relocation Department by April 30 of the following year in which the relocation/income was incurred in order to determine the amount of the additional tax liability:
- Detailed information concerning how any relocation allowances and payments were spent. Receipts must be included in this detail.
- A copy of the employee’s tax return(s) for the year(s) in which the additional tax liability was incurred
Acceptable relocation-related expenses include
-
- Report to work trip.
- Housing search trip.
- Move to the new location trip.
- Pet transportation.
- Closing cost for permanent residence not covered by this policy.
- Lease cancellation penalties not covered by this policy.
- Temporary living expenses.
- Household goods movement/storage costs not covered by this policy.
- Long distance telephone calls, tips.
- Babysitting costs while on housing search trip.
The potential tax gross-up is calculated based upon the income and deductions actually reported in the employee’s income tax return(s), expenditures made by the employee that are not considered deductible, but are considered reasonable by the Company, and the additional income reported in the employee’s Form W-2.
Because of the complexity of income tax rules and regulations related to moving expenses, the Company urges employees to seek professional tax assistance in the preparation of the income tax return.
The following relocation expenses are considered taxable:
- Payments made to some third parties on behalf of the employee
- Taxes paid by the Company on behalf of the employee
- Mortgage Interest Differential and Living Cost Adjustment payments
- Certain relocation expenses reimbursed to the employee
- Relocation Allowance used by the employee for expenses incurred during the relocation
Employees are responsible for maintaining adequate documentation in order to support any amounts claimed as deductions on their income tax return(s) and/or reported as relocation expenditures. Amounts that may be considered deductible are shown in Table 4.
07-07-2007, 02:50 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Thanks Tony,
So Income tax gross up is not as good as Tax Equalization (although for a new hire to HK it could be). Now can you tell me why they took away the FDA bonus (or 79CH) if I take the CBA option.
So Income tax gross up is not as good as Tax Equalization (although for a new hire to HK it could be). Now can you tell me why they took away the FDA bonus (or 79CH) if I take the CBA option.
07-07-2007, 05:51 PM
#49
Proponent of Hysteria
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,054
Guys:
I think most people here (on this forum) agree on a couple of key points:
1. This LOA is far, far substandard to any other company's Pilot (let alone executive) Ex-Pat Package.
2. The Company can definitely afford a better package.
3. Of the much touted " Hooray guys, $ 40,000 per year extra for each pilot!", absolutely NONE of it will end up in the pilot's pocket because of taking away the Ex-Pat tax exemption, as well as having to spend a huge amount out-of-pocket for rent. In fact, it will be both a real and perceived pay CUT for the pilot. And again, this is for RENT. The individual pilot will end up with equity in absolutely nothing. How many FedEX pilots state-side rent an apartment vs owning a home??
4. By omitting tuition coverage, FedEX, the "family orientated company that it is", has COMPLETELY excluded anyone with a school age child from bidding an FDA, both present and future FDA's
5. In the years to come, this LOA will affect FAR more than the approx. 160 pilots (80 in HKG, 80 in CDG), as FedEX continues a huge portion of its growth overseas. You think these bases won't get any bigger? You think these will be the only 2 FDA's? We need to set a legit precedent.
6. The argument, "we need to pass this because if we turn it down, they will just run a bid anyway..." is completely invalid. Let 'em, see what happens. The MEC wants you to think that, so they don't look bad by presenting a substandard package to the voters that gets turned down.
The people who read these boards are only a very small percentage of our pilot group. This information is not reaching the masses of eligible voters. There was an MD-11 Captain here in Subic on a layover who said he was not going to vote at all because this LOA would not affect him. Ridiculous.
Please guys, spread the word among the rest of the pilot group. Use emails, word of mouth, whatever you can.
I think most people here (on this forum) agree on a couple of key points:
1. This LOA is far, far substandard to any other company's Pilot (let alone executive) Ex-Pat Package.
2. The Company can definitely afford a better package.
3. Of the much touted " Hooray guys, $ 40,000 per year extra for each pilot!", absolutely NONE of it will end up in the pilot's pocket because of taking away the Ex-Pat tax exemption, as well as having to spend a huge amount out-of-pocket for rent. In fact, it will be both a real and perceived pay CUT for the pilot. And again, this is for RENT. The individual pilot will end up with equity in absolutely nothing. How many FedEX pilots state-side rent an apartment vs owning a home??
4. By omitting tuition coverage, FedEX, the "family orientated company that it is", has COMPLETELY excluded anyone with a school age child from bidding an FDA, both present and future FDA's
5. In the years to come, this LOA will affect FAR more than the approx. 160 pilots (80 in HKG, 80 in CDG), as FedEX continues a huge portion of its growth overseas. You think these bases won't get any bigger? You think these will be the only 2 FDA's? We need to set a legit precedent.
6. The argument, "we need to pass this because if we turn it down, they will just run a bid anyway..." is completely invalid. Let 'em, see what happens. The MEC wants you to think that, so they don't look bad by presenting a substandard package to the voters that gets turned down.
The people who read these boards are only a very small percentage of our pilot group. This information is not reaching the masses of eligible voters. There was an MD-11 Captain here in Subic on a layover who said he was not going to vote at all because this LOA would not affect him. Ridiculous.
Please guys, spread the word among the rest of the pilot group. Use emails, word of mouth, whatever you can.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
