FedEx LOA First and Final thoughts
07-08-2007, 01:54 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
I didn't take it personally.
Want this to pass? Pull it. Take out SVT. It might then have a chance, despite being (IMHO) quite substandard. However--I'll fight anyone--MGT or Union--who thinks being sent away 3 months from family is acceptable. That is assinine. If--according the Scott Schwartz--nobody thinks it will happen, then WHY did it end up in writing in the LOA.
We can argue about money and allowances. Being sent away against my will is a non-starter--pure and simple.
Not personal--so Rowdy1--if you can fix that--do it and come back to us.
Want this to pass? Pull it. Take out SVT. It might then have a chance, despite being (IMHO) quite substandard. However--I'll fight anyone--MGT or Union--who thinks being sent away 3 months from family is acceptable. That is assinine. If--according the Scott Schwartz--nobody thinks it will happen, then WHY did it end up in writing in the LOA.
We can argue about money and allowances. Being sent away against my will is a non-starter--pure and simple.
Not personal--so Rowdy1--if you can fix that--do it and come back to us.
07-08-2007, 02:02 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Actually there might be some truth here. But, I am OK with FDX hiring straight into the domiciles. If someone on property is dumb enough to bid this with or without the LOA, they can live like crap in HKG or CDG.
I agree about the STD section being a no-go for me. Other than that, if someone wants to voluntarily go to one of the most expensive cities in the world with a 2700 dollar override, go for it. I would consider living abroad but not in either of these cities. But by voting this LOA in, we open ourselves to get nonvol'd for three months. No thanks, I prefer to keep things as they are. Probably won't happen, but hey "it's in the contract" so you have to think of it as a real possibility....
I agree about the STD section being a no-go for me. Other than that, if someone wants to voluntarily go to one of the most expensive cities in the world with a 2700 dollar override, go for it. I would consider living abroad but not in either of these cities. But by voting this LOA in, we open ourselves to get nonvol'd for three months. No thanks, I prefer to keep things as they are. Probably won't happen, but hey "it's in the contract" so you have to think of it as a real possibility....
07-08-2007, 02:08 PM
#14
Just happy to be here
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 163
Rowdy1 must have seen this video. Last edited by Fartknocker; 07-08-2007 at 04:55 PM. Reason: direct link
07-08-2007, 02:09 PM
#15
gets every day off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: Retired MD11 Capt
Posts: 705
Hmmmm...
First Ca$$el tells us that the company needs our help (FCIF, last para), then Rowdy here comes along and says that they don't. Either Ca$$el has bad "intel" or Rowdy does. I'm sure Fred will be along any day now with a red letter to clear all this up.
First Ca$$el tells us that the company needs our help (FCIF, last para), then Rowdy here comes along and says that they don't. Either Ca$$el has bad "intel" or Rowdy does. I'm sure Fred will be along any day now with a red letter to clear all this up.
07-08-2007, 02:18 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
I don't know any other former TASS HOLES from my era that also flew the Eagle, but I got into the OV-10 at the end...89-91. I have no idea who he might be. If the profile is accurate (and who knows?) he might be:
A management guy....
A union guy....
A concerned citizen who really thinks this thing not passing could hurt us.
In any case--I'm not here to call anyone names. I am trying to not sound like a shrill, but I just want to run and jump on a table at the AOC and say "DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOU COULD BE LEGALLY SENT OVERSEAS FOR 3 MONTHS TO HUB TURN IN CHINA AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT IF WE SIGN THIS?"
I really don't care if guys want to go over. If they think 2700 is enough--more power to them. RLA would be nice. Making the company and the union happy at the same time would be nice. Spending less time on the internet stressing about this would be nice.
But--as nicely as I can say it--no. SVT= no. There is no amount of money that will change that. You want input ALPA/MGT? Pull that out. Revise the LOA tomorrow. Then vote. You might get what you want then. I doubt seriously you will now.
A management guy....
A union guy....
A concerned citizen who really thinks this thing not passing could hurt us.
In any case--I'm not here to call anyone names. I am trying to not sound like a shrill, but I just want to run and jump on a table at the AOC and say "DO YOU REALIZE THAT YOU COULD BE LEGALLY SENT OVERSEAS FOR 3 MONTHS TO HUB TURN IN CHINA AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT IF WE SIGN THIS?"
I really don't care if guys want to go over. If they think 2700 is enough--more power to them. RLA would be nice. Making the company and the union happy at the same time would be nice. Spending less time on the internet stressing about this would be nice.
But--as nicely as I can say it--no. SVT= no. There is no amount of money that will change that. You want input ALPA/MGT? Pull that out. Revise the LOA tomorrow. Then vote. You might get what you want then. I doubt seriously you will now.
07-08-2007, 02:24 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2005
Posts: 1,275
But when I voted for this new contract, the union told me that our scope was the tightest in the industry...
07-08-2007, 02:35 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: Window Seat
Posts: 101
Is this a script from the X-Files?
1) I speak as someone that does have “Intel” and others would consider me “in the know”.
Sorry, but I don't take info from a mysterious guy in a trench coat on a dark alley....this ain't the X-files! Our Union doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work this way. State your name, rank and serial number and identify your source on the MEC...or better yet, have your MEC "source" communicate all pertinent info directly through proper channels as the MEC should.
If Negotiations got "heated" as you say then I say good! That tells me a lot...it tells me that the Company really wants this LOA badly...if they didn't, there would have been no "heat" and no negotiations...they simply would have made their offer and left it at that.
2) "The company currently believes we have an excess of 500 pilots..."
Who cares? Pilot staffing levels are irrelevant to a suitable financial package for a foreign domicile.
3) SIBA will be gone
Who cares? The Company can and always had the right/ability to SIBA or not to SIBA. This is just a veiled threat to induce FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). The technique is found in Chapter 1 of The Management Guide to Crushing Those Pesky Unions.
4) When/IF the LOA is voted done, the company has two optionsa. Open the domicile without the LOA. Due to legal and current contractual issues this is not what we want. (TRUST ME)b. Open the bases without FedEx pilots flying FedEx A/C. This will do massive damage to career expectations across the board. And this is not a rumor it has been researched and is a viable alternative that the company is prepared to go through with.
4a) Care to elaborate? Can the MEC elaborate? I can think, reason, analyze, pay dues....oh, and vote too, so pardon me if I don't just "Trust You." Give me the facts and let me decide.
4b) What a weak attempt at a threat....if it is so viable the Company would have done it already and we would find out about it in the Commercial Appeal...period!
5) As a side note the company’s analysis....
Again, if the Company thought it was both cheaper and at least as efficient to hire foreign pilots to protect the FedEx name or hire directly to the left seat, they'd have done so long ago. I don't think I can express it any better than HazCan already did, so I'll just quote him here..."shhhhhyeahhh, and monkeys might fly out of my butt"
6) Being based in CDG or HKG will not be a windfall of finances or living conditions.
On this point I agree with you...this LOA will certainly not be a windfall. Duh!
7) Be Careful what we wish for, because we might just get it.
Another ominous threat from the man in the cloak....so noted.
FINAL THOUGHT : Be ready for the alternative, this is NOT where we want to make our contractual stand, save it for three years when we re-enter negotiations. TRUST ME.
Yes, why take a stand now for the relatively junior guys that will be stuck with this turd sandwich when we can make our stand in a few years for the senior guys' pay rates on the A380, errr B777? And besides, we all know in 3 years we will really, really, really get everything we ask for....no need to unify on this issue which only affects a small percentage of junior guys (sarcasm light-illuminated)
The REAL Final Thought here is this....If the Company didn't need this badly, they would not have offered an extra dime for an LOA. Do you think some Management weenie cooked up this package because he was a humanitarian? The Company is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? This is just business...cold, hard business, nothing personal...it's how this kind of stuff works. If there was "heat" in the negotiations, that speaks volumes about the importance the Company places on having "us" fly the freight over there.
Sorry, but I don't take info from a mysterious guy in a trench coat on a dark alley....this ain't the X-files! Our Union doesn't (or at least shouldn't) work this way. State your name, rank and serial number and identify your source on the MEC...or better yet, have your MEC "source" communicate all pertinent info directly through proper channels as the MEC should.
If Negotiations got "heated" as you say then I say good! That tells me a lot...it tells me that the Company really wants this LOA badly...if they didn't, there would have been no "heat" and no negotiations...they simply would have made their offer and left it at that.
2) "The company currently believes we have an excess of 500 pilots..."
Who cares? Pilot staffing levels are irrelevant to a suitable financial package for a foreign domicile.
3) SIBA will be gone
Who cares? The Company can and always had the right/ability to SIBA or not to SIBA. This is just a veiled threat to induce FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). The technique is found in Chapter 1 of The Management Guide to Crushing Those Pesky Unions.
4) When/IF the LOA is voted done, the company has two optionsa. Open the domicile without the LOA. Due to legal and current contractual issues this is not what we want. (TRUST ME)b. Open the bases without FedEx pilots flying FedEx A/C. This will do massive damage to career expectations across the board. And this is not a rumor it has been researched and is a viable alternative that the company is prepared to go through with.
4a) Care to elaborate? Can the MEC elaborate? I can think, reason, analyze, pay dues....oh, and vote too, so pardon me if I don't just "Trust You." Give me the facts and let me decide.
4b) What a weak attempt at a threat....if it is so viable the Company would have done it already and we would find out about it in the Commercial Appeal...period!
5) As a side note the company’s analysis....
Again, if the Company thought it was both cheaper and at least as efficient to hire foreign pilots to protect the FedEx name or hire directly to the left seat, they'd have done so long ago. I don't think I can express it any better than HazCan already did, so I'll just quote him here..."shhhhhyeahhh, and monkeys might fly out of my butt"
6) Being based in CDG or HKG will not be a windfall of finances or living conditions.
On this point I agree with you...this LOA will certainly not be a windfall. Duh!
7) Be Careful what we wish for, because we might just get it.
Another ominous threat from the man in the cloak....so noted.
FINAL THOUGHT : Be ready for the alternative, this is NOT where we want to make our contractual stand, save it for three years when we re-enter negotiations. TRUST ME.
Yes, why take a stand now for the relatively junior guys that will be stuck with this turd sandwich when we can make our stand in a few years for the senior guys' pay rates on the A380, errr B777? And besides, we all know in 3 years we will really, really, really get everything we ask for....no need to unify on this issue which only affects a small percentage of junior guys (sarcasm light-illuminated)
The REAL Final Thought here is this....If the Company didn't need this badly, they would not have offered an extra dime for an LOA. Do you think some Management weenie cooked up this package because he was a humanitarian? The Company is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? This is just business...cold, hard business, nothing personal...it's how this kind of stuff works. If there was "heat" in the negotiations, that speaks volumes about the importance the Company places on having "us" fly the freight over there.
Last edited by JB130; 07-08-2007 at 04:42 PM. Reason: typo
