FDXLAG

If people are going to bid this anyways then your argument about the company going outside the senority list is bogus.

Great Question to ask today:

Which is it: no one will bid this so we will lose the flying or they'll bid it anyways so we should give them a little something at the expense of STVs?

SNIZ

What bothers me about our MEC's approach to this LOA is they voted 11-1 for it. You can tell from the mood in the hub meetings and boards like this that they didn't vote as representatives of their blocks. I would be been much happier had the MEC voted 7-5 or 8-3...at least you would get the message that some of the reps have their block's concerns in mind.

Laughing_Jakal

No one? Not even you? Were you drunk when you Intended to vote, then blacked out....or was it your "personal choice" to give a proxy (VIN/PIN) to someone (whom you don't know where their allegiances lies)?

RedeyeAV8r

Time will tell, but I think it could be both...............I wish I was a fortune teller.

My personal opinion is that if the LOA fails things will shake out this way.

The company will post the Bid. Remember this bid will probably close around 1 Oct 2007. They have alot of time to deal with things before the Bases actually open.

They will see how many slots are filled or not.

If slots get filled...........end of story.

The Most likely scenario is that some slots get filled but some FO slots go Unfilled.
The company has several options.

1. They can try to enhance the package to lure a few more soles there........I don't think that will occur but I have been wrong before. again time will tell.

2. They can intially SIBA or post "temporary vacancies" for the Unfilled SLots or simply build trips with Hotel Stand-bys in each FDA. I would assume they will just keep SFS crews (for HKG) there until everything washes out until they find a way to fill remaining slots, most likely with new hires. Like I previously said a better deal in the short run but it won't last and now you have brand new guys over there with NO housing allowance or Tax Aide. We would really be looking after the Junior guys then wouldn't we?

3. The worst case scenario (or best depending on how you look at it and if you are a High roller)

-Nobody Bids it ( I think we all agree this is Unlikely) but lets assume for argument sake
They post a Bid and nobody bids it

-the company could again decide to enhance the package ( more likely this time around maybe)
- They still SIBA and build Hotel stand-bys until they decide there options of hiring Direct entry Capts and New hire FO's which I don't think they would have any trouble at all finding. It would take 6 months but they have that much time. At least these guys would be on the FedEx seniorty list but I think we can all agree this ins't in our best interest. Again we really don't want the preciedent of Direct entry New Hire Capts on our list do we?

-The Doomsday Scenario ( not as likely in my personal opinion but a real Possibility)

The LOA fails and The Union plays Hardball like many of you suggest they do.
They tell nobody BID it. The company covers its flying initially with above stated methods but slowly begins to find other means. Fred could start an ALTER EGO FedEx carrier over there by incorporating the LLC in HKG or Tiawan. I can see this happening before next contract talks begin. There are plenty of Western Pilots in ASIA, Aussie's, Kiwis, Brits and Americans working for several Asian carriers. Again my opinion is this is there last resort, but a very realistic scenario.

I personally feel, while the LOA is very lacking, I do not expect it to improve.
Yes the company wants this to pass. The FCIF (again my opinion) was to clarify the companies intent to only use involuntary STV for 1 month. Pilots can still volunteer for 3 months if they want and a few probably would.

Isn't in our best interest to establish the flying as "ours" even with a substandard intial package? I say "Pass this POS" and get on with it! Once our guys are over there in both places flying, we will be more in a position of control, especailly during the next round of negotiations. Pilots hands on the throttles is a powerful thing. MGT will have a tougher time threatening to out source it if we are there. With the LOA our Pilots are covered under the RLA. Sans an LOA they are not. Don't gloss over that fact! If we have resolve we can fix the short comings. I prefer to take the Long term approach rather the looking only to next week...................

Which approach do you think the company is taking. They are looking 5, 10 15 years from now. We seem to be only collectively looking at our next paychecks. sorry for the long rant.

Daniel Larusso

I figured as much but it was worth it if just one person got it. I'm with you on Lisa.

FDXLAG

I agree the company is looking 5-10 years down the road. And I think we should.

The difference is I think STV gives them a crutch that allows them to low ball us. Is this true or false? Could they offer such a weak package if the STV invol crutch was not there? What other reason is there for the invol STV crutch? Have I made my point on involuntary STV being a crutch? I think we all agree SIBA is too expensive for them. They have to take away our 1st class tickets, trip rig, and min days off.

Let's take away this crutch now and make the FDA packages stand (pun intended) on their own. Now, five years from now, and ten years from now.

RedeyeAV8r

Yes you made your point about STV. None of us like that part.

STV is not open ended and it appears the company has clarifed their intention to limit involuntarily STV for a month a time.
I agree I still don't like STV and Yes this gives the company increased lattitude. I have never disputed this.

You seem to be of the opinion we have a real hammer to Demand more. Asking nicely and demanding are two different things.

Our NC has said this is it. No more negotiations are forthcoming. Either you believe them or Not.

You seem to think that Opening 2 new FDA's under the current CBA language is preferable to the LOA. That is certainly your perogative.

The fact remains about the company's ability to move on without this LOA.
I stand by what I posted previously concerning the realities of what will occur should it fail.

Gooch121

Can anyone explain to me how the pay provisions under STV (as currently proposed) are any different than how ACMI crews are paid.

As I understand, ACMI crews get paid their contractural hourly rate only when they pull chocks and turn wheels. If they get stuck out and have to wait for another load (?), they are paid per diem. So how is that any different than what is presently proposed for the STV trips (which we don't know what they look like) in the current LOA.

This STV is beginning to look rather nasty....
Hong Kong and Paris are not one of the MPDP-E (6CH) hubs, so how will the pay be calculated??? Hard time?? Does anybody know? I don't.

Shouldn't we know how the pay will be claculated before we vote on this!

FDXLAG

No we have a hammer and can demand less, no frickin invol STVs.

You may believe the bullsheet about we never intended anything more then 30 days invol; but I think they caved.

FDXLAG

This is the question of the week, make sure you ask your block rep; he'll get an answer to you by Aug 11th.