TonyC

http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/sh...0&postcount=46

The referenced income tax gross up applies to Relocation Expenses -- it is not Tax Equalization.





.

PicklePausePull

What this LOA lacks is appropriate allocation of risk to the party most able to absorb the costs of those risks.

Currently, the risks of executing flights intra Europe and out of Shenzen fall on the company. They fly crews out to the 'domicile', put crews up in hotels, and provide their transportation. This LOA shifts all of that responsibility to the individual crew, and adds MUCH MORE responsibilty, as ellicited on this site.

In any contract neogtiation, there exists the allocation of the risks involved. With the allocation of those risks is the accompaning reward or compensation for the party who assumes the risks. Here, the company wishes to seek great strides in current and future efficiencies through foreign domiciles. But by creating foreign domiciles, the company creates huge risks that heretofor do not exist, and transfers those existing risks to the individual pilot and his family.

What this LOA does not address, are the COSTS associated with the pilots who will take on the majority of the risks involved in improving market efficiences. Those costs may very well end up being transferred to the company due to loss of anticipated efficiences from risks that cannot be adequately absorbed by the individual pilot.

One of the hidden costs that the union and company appear to ignore is the loss of production that follows a reduction in morale. Those of you who have served know full well how reduction in morale in any unit or squadron affects safety and productivity. It can be a factor that spreads faster than influenza in a WWI trench.

I suggest the union get its collective act together and approach this LOA from a standpoint of properly allocating risk, and seeking effective compensation for the party most likely to take on those risks with their inherrent costly manifestations.

prezbear

My mistake Tony. You are correct Sir! YES!

hamfisted

Pickle...the primary flaw in your thesis is that OUR union refuses to assume ANY risk irt this LOA. They don't think it will ever personally impact them and as a result, thay could honestly give a rat's a$$ about how this POS impacts anybody below them on the seniority list. The classic line of ..."well, their kids will just have to catch up" is exemplary of the group think of our senior Union officers who sold this LOA without really putting any effort into it's construction. They figure...."Hey, let the junior guys or new hires take this deal..I got mine". After all.....we protected scope and RLA....I am sooo tired of the senior FDX ALPA clones cr@pping on the bottom 50%!!

Penguin

In response to a letter to the union I sent regarding tuition assistance an MEC member wrote back that he recieved no help for the $30000 it costs him to send his kids to school. I returned his letter saying that in California he has a choice of what school to send his kids to in a foreign domicile we will not have a choice. Also that FedEx already pays the tuition for the school of its overseas employees. A couple letters later it turns out both his kids are in college. Can the MEC be so far out of touch with the hardships and costs associated with living overseas?????

fdx727pilot

And if they based you at CAN, you wouldn't need the $2700 allowance. Of course, you would be living in Communist China.

MaydayMark

I wrote to the MEC about this schooling issue ... received a less than satisfactory response. Essentially:

1. If you already pay for private school (I don't), then it wouldn't cost much more than that?

2. You could home school and avoid the whole language/cost issue?

and ...

3. If I have small kids (K-2), they seem to learn foreign languages quickly and that could benefit them later in life.

So ... they've let us down not addressing this issue. According to the IHT, we might not even be able to pay for American School.

This is sounding more and more like, "This doesn't effect the MEC (especially the NC Chairman) so we're not going to address this issue." GIVE ME A BREAK!


Mark

FDXLAG

So you disagree that the company needs to cough up tax relief (LOA or no LOA) in order to get volunteers at either location?

Or you disagree that the tax savings in HK offset a lot of the costs of basing pilots in HK?

Or were you just exercising you fingers?

fdx727pilot

1 and 3. There will be volunteers, LOA or not. Without the LOA, no tax equalization.

My fingers need exercise. And since you seem to have such a hard-on over tax equalization, and I have worked at a company that did this for their european-based pilots, and it was a great benny, your posts make good fodder for my replies.

As for No. 2, who knows. The company wouldn't need to pay GT from HGK, housing allowance (as based on the post about Mesa and what little I found on the web, housing in china proper is cheap.) They still only cover difference in total tax bill and US tax bill (which would be on 32.4K less with no housing allowance,) so you guess is as good as mine.


And last, but not least, there is enough in this LOA that is bad, without trashing an actual benefit. Because of all the other things, I'm voting no, even though, short of being STVed, it won't affect me.

MX727

Why do those answers sound like something from a bad Saturday Night Live skit?