New FCIF regarding 1 month STV max.
07-25-2007, 04:11 PM
#131
done, gone skiing
Joined APC: May 2005
Position: Rocking chair
Posts: 1,602
Never wait for tomorrow, it may never come
fdxflyer,
Voting this LOA down is a bad decision. Voting yes puts some additional money on the table. It's not adequate for everyone, but I'd rather have $2700 to cover some costs in HKG or CDG then nothing. I would also rather have 320 FedEx pilots doing this flying in 2010 with some housing compensation than having nothing and having to go to the negotiating table trying to work up from $0. There's more leverage that way.
Voting this LOA down is a bad decision. Voting yes puts some additional money on the table. It's not adequate for everyone, but I'd rather have $2700 to cover some costs in HKG or CDG then nothing. I would also rather have 320 FedEx pilots doing this flying in 2010 with some housing compensation than having nothing and having to go to the negotiating table trying to work up from $0. There's more leverage that way.
07-25-2007, 04:31 PM
#133
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: MD11
Posts: 49
Why STV and not SIBA? It appears to me the only reason for STV is to allow the company flexibility to build schedules that do not offer any significant breaks. In other words, the "vacation" the NC alluded to will be like 1 or 2 days at a time before you begin turning your clock upside down. If significant breaks were forseen, SIBA should would work just fine (especially with the one month fcif change). I don't think travelling to HKG/CDG to work every other day would be my "vacation" choice - voluntarily or inversed. I also don't know too many pilots that enjoy changing their circadian clock 12 times in a month after crossing the pond. STV is a non-starter for me.
07-25-2007, 04:37 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: MD-11 CA
Posts: 150
They may change airplanes to keep boxes moving, but not to mess with your schedule.
07-25-2007, 04:39 PM
#135
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Posts: 489
Something else to ponder if the LOA passes...for those wanting the to bid the FDA, they lose their choice of where to live. It seems that having a choice of where to live in Europe vice 100 miles of Paris seems to be a significant benefit.
07-25-2007, 04:48 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 266
I wasn't talking about messing with my schedule. I am saying if we sign this POS LOA we will give them the ability through SVT to extend the next round of contract talks out for a very long time.
If we sign this loa we give up our biggest bargaining chip in 2010. we willose the ability to not fly overtime ore makeup because the company won't need us to, they will just use SVT
vote No
If we sign this loa we give up our biggest bargaining chip in 2010. we willose the ability to not fly overtime ore makeup because the company won't need us to, they will just use SVT
vote No
07-25-2007, 04:53 PM
#137
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: unskilled laborer
Posts: 353
fdxflyer,
Risk and reward...
Does the company require you to buy stock as a condition of employment? No.
Does the company offer you stock as a means of compensation? No.
What reason does the company have to reward you for your employment other than what is agreed to in the CBA? Nothing.
Some pilots (maybe junior pilots wanting to be Captains or people just wanting to change their lifestyles) may find that the risk of going overseas holds its own reward. I went to Subic for three things: The upgrade. The money. The adventure. Although it hasn't always been all fun and games, I have thoroughly enjoyed it.
You say the only part for you is the STV. That unpaid days off would be concessionary. That you don't want "to help pay for housing for everyone just to risk STV - 30days or 1??" Therefore, you are voting no because you have an issue with one thing in this LOA? What about our current contract? You mean to tell me that you don't have any heartburn on anything in it? One has to look at this as a whole and not single out one issue to make one's case.
I have spoken with a number of crewmembers that would jump at the chance to do a bid period in HKG or CDG. The company has clarified the 3 month STV issue. They'll offer the STV for bid. If they don't get enough volunteers, they'll have the ability to inverse. You don't want to do it? Claim some kind of hardship. It looks very cut and dried right now, but I would bet that the company will be flexible. Even though many in Subic wouldn't admit it right now, the company has been flexible in dealing with us. A good example of that are the 100lb shipments that are now in the contract. For six years I enjoyed the ability to send up 100lbs a month to Subic on the company's dime. It wasn't in the contract, but the need was there and the company was flexible.
Your comment about bargaining more collectively is significant. I think the MEC leadership will admit that they dropped the ball by not communicating effective about this LOA. The MEC tried to engage BC (rimes with beaver) about upcoming domiciles, but he didn't want to discuss it and was busy getting himself out the door. When PC came on board the MEC tried to engage him, but were unable to make any headway until he got his bearings in is new job. Once PC was onboard, he, JL, OR, JM, DM, DW, BC, and EI went to China on an intel trip. Remember that this was at the end of March, when they wanted to publish a May bid. By the time the LOA language was completed and issued, it was the end of June. Unfortunately, there wasn't time to poll all the membership and come up with the four cornerstones for this LOA.
We (the union...that's you, me, our leadership and every other union member) don't drive these issues. The company makes the decisions and we respond as best we can. We don't always get it right, but I do know that our strength is in our unity. Voting this LOA down is a bad decision. Voting yes puts some additional money on the table. It's not adequate for everyone, but I'd rather have $2700 to cover some costs in HKG or CDG then nothing. I would also rather have 320 FedEx pilots doing this flying in 2010 with some housing compensation than having nothing and having to go to the negotiating table trying to work up from $0. There's more leverage that way.
Risk and reward...
Does the company require you to buy stock as a condition of employment? No.
Does the company offer you stock as a means of compensation? No.
What reason does the company have to reward you for your employment other than what is agreed to in the CBA? Nothing.
Some pilots (maybe junior pilots wanting to be Captains or people just wanting to change their lifestyles) may find that the risk of going overseas holds its own reward. I went to Subic for three things: The upgrade. The money. The adventure. Although it hasn't always been all fun and games, I have thoroughly enjoyed it.
You say the only part for you is the STV. That unpaid days off would be concessionary. That you don't want "to help pay for housing for everyone just to risk STV - 30days or 1??" Therefore, you are voting no because you have an issue with one thing in this LOA? What about our current contract? You mean to tell me that you don't have any heartburn on anything in it? One has to look at this as a whole and not single out one issue to make one's case.
I have spoken with a number of crewmembers that would jump at the chance to do a bid period in HKG or CDG. The company has clarified the 3 month STV issue. They'll offer the STV for bid. If they don't get enough volunteers, they'll have the ability to inverse. You don't want to do it? Claim some kind of hardship. It looks very cut and dried right now, but I would bet that the company will be flexible. Even though many in Subic wouldn't admit it right now, the company has been flexible in dealing with us. A good example of that are the 100lb shipments that are now in the contract. For six years I enjoyed the ability to send up 100lbs a month to Subic on the company's dime. It wasn't in the contract, but the need was there and the company was flexible.
Your comment about bargaining more collectively is significant. I think the MEC leadership will admit that they dropped the ball by not communicating effective about this LOA. The MEC tried to engage BC (rimes with beaver) about upcoming domiciles, but he didn't want to discuss it and was busy getting himself out the door. When PC came on board the MEC tried to engage him, but were unable to make any headway until he got his bearings in is new job. Once PC was onboard, he, JL, OR, JM, DM, DW, BC, and EI went to China on an intel trip. Remember that this was at the end of March, when they wanted to publish a May bid. By the time the LOA language was completed and issued, it was the end of June. Unfortunately, there wasn't time to poll all the membership and come up with the four cornerstones for this LOA.
We (the union...that's you, me, our leadership and every other union member) don't drive these issues. The company makes the decisions and we respond as best we can. We don't always get it right, but I do know that our strength is in our unity. Voting this LOA down is a bad decision. Voting yes puts some additional money on the table. It's not adequate for everyone, but I'd rather have $2700 to cover some costs in HKG or CDG then nothing. I would also rather have 320 FedEx pilots doing this flying in 2010 with some housing compensation than having nothing and having to go to the negotiating table trying to work up from $0. There's more leverage that way.
The LOA sucks in many areas. There are posts upon posts about money, schools, lack of colas, and incomplete language regarding the details. There are too many unknowns and the knowns are pretty bad. I have written about some of these myself but do I need to preface every post with this belief? Let's advance the ball and not just keep rehashing.
Risk vs. Reward.
The reward I was referring to was the use of my seniority to bid in the FDA's. Of course, the LOA doesn't specifically prohibit this but, can we agree that the company and union have made completely clear that they didn't attempt to make an agreement that suited everyone. Well, guess what? I clearly fit in the NEED NOT APPLY group! As such, I was trying to say that someone like me looks at the LOA and sees no reward offered - only risk -- STV. I am not being a one issue voter. I was asking a question with the above idea in mind. What incentive is their to vote yes for people who have been told they weren't what the company was looking for when that yes vote only subjects them to STV? CLEAR?
The whole thing is substandard.
07-25-2007, 04:57 PM
#138
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Seems to me the crux of the choice is this:
Vote yes on the LOA and give the guys who bid the FDAs something. In exchange, we offer up the company the option to "junior man" the bases, albeit now only for one bid period. For $2700 for those who BID the FDX, we offer up the junior guys (and some not so junior) as subject to STVs. We also effectively gut any duty/trip rigs since you may be getting per diem and hotel only for your 13 days off. By my math that puts you over there for about $155 bucks a day on your days off. (2.80 x 24 hours x 30 days/13 days off...)
Vote no on the LOA and some junior guys who get hired into the seat or bid over there get nothing but the current CBA benefits. Nobody, however, gets junior manned. We have to start at ground zero in negoatiations as we try to add benefits for the guys at the FDAs. On the other hand, our trip/duty rig and min days off are protected by precedent (there's that word again).
I think the intent on both sides is to eventually try to get a better offer to the guys who want to bid the FDAs. The question is which route do you think ultimately gets us there faster and more effectively?
I voted "no". I sincerely appreciate everyone working to shorten the STVs. But its still taking days off from guys for pennies on the dollar. I think our rigs, our quality of life, and the control of our schedules is worth protecting. I was hoping that when the union met today some "sweetening" might have occured--but it didn't.
So--pick your poison--and vote. Your call...
Vote yes on the LOA and give the guys who bid the FDAs something. In exchange, we offer up the company the option to "junior man" the bases, albeit now only for one bid period. For $2700 for those who BID the FDX, we offer up the junior guys (and some not so junior) as subject to STVs. We also effectively gut any duty/trip rigs since you may be getting per diem and hotel only for your 13 days off. By my math that puts you over there for about $155 bucks a day on your days off. (2.80 x 24 hours x 30 days/13 days off...)
Vote no on the LOA and some junior guys who get hired into the seat or bid over there get nothing but the current CBA benefits. Nobody, however, gets junior manned. We have to start at ground zero in negoatiations as we try to add benefits for the guys at the FDAs. On the other hand, our trip/duty rig and min days off are protected by precedent (there's that word again).
I think the intent on both sides is to eventually try to get a better offer to the guys who want to bid the FDAs. The question is which route do you think ultimately gets us there faster and more effectively?
I voted "no". I sincerely appreciate everyone working to shorten the STVs. But its still taking days off from guys for pennies on the dollar. I think our rigs, our quality of life, and the control of our schedules is worth protecting. I was hoping that when the union met today some "sweetening" might have occured--but it didn't.
So--pick your poison--and vote. Your call...
07-25-2007, 06:03 PM
#140
Banned
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Posts: 122
Speaking of disputed trips, has anyone seen the list floating around? Its amazing how many people are on this.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
JetJock16
Regional
63
04-08-2016 05:05 PM
