Albief15

DLAX,

I would really, really, really like to help our company AND support the union. I want us to do this flying and be the dominent force for years to come.

But no--I'm not changing my vote as things stand.

I know a lot of guys zero in on the money--which is inadequate IMHO. However, the fact is the current LOA wipes out a lot of our trip/duty rigs we fought so hard for last contract.

I probably look like I'm waffling since I said "fix the STVs and this may work...". Well--to their credit--the union and company did either "fix" or "clarify" the agreement, depending on whether or not the fix was really there or revisionist history. I sincerely appreciate the work by all parties to fix that.

However--when I look at being sent away even 30 days--for a hotel room and perdiem on days off--I see a huge part of the gains of our last contract just washed away. And for what? For $2700 for the guys brave enough to go? I just don't think its a fair trade. The tax equalization thing didn't really upset me at first...I thought is was a "neutral". In fact, its a huge plus for the CDG crowd but a major concession for guys in HKG. I missed that point until this week. I appreciate FDX taking care of the bros taxes in France--that's good. I think using the bro's money from HKG to fund it is...well...wrong. We are talking about 25k or so of savings if you can keep your expat deduction. That alone would help fund those school or apartment costs..

My question on "does anyone want me to change my vote" was a request for input from guys who really want to bid this thing what they think. So far, I haven't heard a ruckus from anyone going "dang it guys, I"m going--don't take my $2700 from me!" except Prezbear. Just wondered if there were more like him and wanting to get their thoughts.

We can all change our mind at 11 pm on 9 August if we want to. I'm keeping an open mind as long as I can. I just haven't seen anything that makes me think I need to change my vote.

But there are still two weeks--and we already made one change. Perhaps there's hope that the company and union will realize there probably isn't going to be an LOA if we cannot improve it. Maybe they can make some changes...

Then again--maybe this thing will sail through anyway. I tend to doubt it.

a300fr8dog

Redeye,

I agree with you that the LOA document is between FDX and ALPA. However, as you said, the LOA is also somehow inter-twined with whatever agreement has been made between FDX & Chi-comm.

Conjecture: You know that FDX must have had plenty of discussion about basing our pilots in country (CAN or HKG) in order to support the new hub. Dollars to donuts bet here: The Chinese negotiators (and probably the French) could easily have insisted that FDX gaurantee the payment of host country taxes. In order to satisfy the foreign governments that our FDA pilots will pay the tax, wouldn't it seem logical that the company may have already commited to the "tax equalization" program? After all, this is "how it's done."

Like I prefaced "conjecture". However, I think this "hole card" will not be shown until we call them on the package.

I deserve better.

prezbear

[QUOTE=Albief15;203455]DLAX,

I know a lot of guys zero in on the money--which is inadequate IMHO. However, the fact is the current LOA wipes out a lot of our trip/duty rigs we fought so hard for last contract.

I probably look like I'm waffling since I said "fix the STVs and this may work...". Well--to their credit--the union and company did either "fix" or "clarify" the agreement, depending on whether or not the fix was really there or revisionist history. I sincerely appreciate the work by all parties to fix that.

However--when I look at being sent away even 30 days--for a hotel room and perdiem on days off--I see a huge part of the gains of our last contract just washed away. And for what? For $2700 for the guys brave enough to go? I just don't think its a fair trade. The tax equalization thing didn't really upset me at first...I thought is was a "neutral". In fact, its a huge plus for the CDG crowd but a major concession for guys in HKG. I missed that point until this week. I appreciate FDX taking care of the bros taxes in France--that's good. I think using the bro's money from HKG to fund it is...well...wrong. We are talking about 25k or so of savings if you can keep your expat deduction. That alone would help fund those school or apartment costs..

My question on "does anyone want me to change my vote" was a request for input from guys who really want to bid this thing what they think. So far, I haven't heard a ruckus from anyone going "dang it guys, I"m going--don't take my $2700 from me!" except Prezbear. Just wondered if there were more like him and wanting to get their thoughts.

QUOTE]


Albie,

"The current LOA wipes out a lot of our trip/duty rigs we fought so hard for last contract."

That's not true. Just understand that we will be scheduled to domestic parameters. While I can't even stand to ride the one hour (occasionally 1.5)from PVG (Pudong airport) to the hotel in Shanghai, the tradeoff in the LOA for the ground transportation allows us to live in Hong Kong. This is MUCH preferable to Guangzhou. Additionally, depending on how the ground transportation is used, it might help to increase your days off.

It's a mischaracterization to imply that I am saying "dang it guys, I'm going...don't take my $2700 from me!" What I'm trying to say is that if we do turn this down and the company maneuvers around us, those that bid it (and we know they will) will get nothing for housing.

I have no intention of bidding Hong Kong. Furthermore, if this LOA is defeated and the company does go ahead with the bid using the current Secton 6 language, I will absolutely not bid either FDA. I have asked people who vote no to turn to not bid an FDA. I haven't received any assurances that they won't. "I can't know what will happen. I'll have to wait and see."

I think it's a good thing that the company is clarifying their intent on STV. Before we even saw the LOA, this had been what the MEC leadership was advising. Paradoxically, their latest missive on tax equalization looks like it's meant to antagonize. This is the most maddening part:

"The company could have done the tax equalization calculation separately and allowed pilots to keep the exclusion for themselves. However, that is really a tax holiday, not tax equalization. The Company did not consider that option because it is very expensive. The goal of tax equalization is to not create a windfall for anyone, but rather to eliminate the tax consequences of moving to an FDA as opposed to being based in the U.S."

It's "very expensive." How much more expensive could it potentially be for the company if absolutely, positively no one bids either FDA? Vote down and we have no leverage. Vote for it and don't bid it. That would send a better signal. Leverage is all about unity.


Prez

iarapilot

"Conjecture: You know that FDX must have had plenty of discussion about basing our pilots in country (CAN or HKG) in order to support the new hub. Dollars to donuts bet here: The Chinese negotiators (and probably the French) could easily have insisted that FDX gaurantee the payment of host country taxes. In order to satisfy the foreign governments that our FDA pilots will pay the tax, wouldn't it seem logical that the company may have already commited to the "tax equalization" program? After all, this is "how it's done."

I would say you are right on the money. That is why the company wants you to sign the paper to commit to the equalization. That way, at least for CDG, they can recoup their loses on a write off, and with HKG they can get the pilots foreign earned income exclusion.....assuming the pilot meets the requirements for it.

iarapilot

"The current LOA wipes out a lot of our trip/duty rigs we fought so hard for last contract."


If you consider it in the context of STV vs SIBA......you are correct.

With SIBA, you are paid TAFB. You work two weeks, get paid for it, and come home for two weeks....approximately. I believe that is why the company makes the SIBA lines commuter lines. So the TAFB isnt 30 days, therefore having to pay a lot more to the crew member.

But with STV, you are not bidding like you do with SIBA or FDA. You are getting sent involuntarily. Then, if the schedule is 3 on 3 off, you will be gone, say a month, but get paid for only the time you are working. Not the extra 15 days you sit around.

When you do a standby trip in PVG, NRT, or wherever, you also get paid TAFB. With STV they wipe out all rigs with relation to TAFB.

Does this all sound about right?

Cessna180DVR

If you bid it knowing you will not receive the $2700, you are going in with your eyes wide open. I don't and won't feel sorry for someone who brings this on themselves. If you read a sign that says dog bites and you stick out your hand to pet the dog.......sorry, the "will get nothing for housing if we vote this down" argument just doesn't hold water in my book.


Above, you argue that you know they will bid it regardless, yet you call for passing the LOA and to not bid it. No way that will happen, so by your own argument, passing this LOA would be folly.

fdxmd11fo

Prez, if we vote for this and don't bid it the company can send everyone they want to via SVT, and the company doesn't pay any move expenses

iarapilot

"The company could have done the tax equalization calculation separately and allowed pilots to keep the exclusion for themselves. However, that is really a tax holiday, not tax equalization. The Company did not consider that option because it is very expensive. The goal of tax equalization is to not create a windfall for anyone, but rather to eliminate the tax consequences of moving to an FDA as opposed to being based in the U.S."



It certainly is not a tax holiday in some circumstances. I think for CDG the equalization is a plus. But in some cases in HKG it is a minus, as has been previously discussed on this site.

The Company feeling that it is to expensive to do each FDA seperately because it is to expensive, if that is the case, is hogwash. If a person wanted to apply the exclusion because it would be beneficial to them, that is their right under US tax laws. The Company has NO right to negate that because they dont want to spend the extra time and money to do it. Clearly a giveback. And I am sure that PCW would have to punch in a few different parameters in the program that figures the tax for each individual pilot. Not to much of a hassle, but if it is, FedEx should bear the cost. Not the pilot.

So, as far as creating a windfall, it does create one....for the Company under certain circumstance.

iarapilot

"Prez, if we vote for this and don't bid it the company can send everyone they want to via SVT, and the company doesn't pay any move expenses"


Quite true! Why do you think they want STV?? Seems clear to me.

-To make sure the base is manned if nobody bids it....instead of doing it with SIBA at a higher cost, gutting out trip rig/TAFB that we presently enjoy.

-To be able to man the base in case of some kind of job action at an FDA in future negotiations.

-Other reasons I am sure someone else can come up with!

iarapilot

And if this supposition is all correct and it is a giveback, among other perceived givebacks, that should be enough to vote it down. We should give nothing back AND all aspects of the LOA should be a plus for ALL crewmembers. No one left behind, remember?