We don't have a unique skill set.
07-29-2007, 03:33 AM
#1
Proponent of Hysteria
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: "Part of the problem." : JL
Posts: 1,054
We don't have a unique skill set.
A well written argument (not by me) that deserves to be read by more than just the few it was emailed to:
In response to the argument that we are going to have to dig into our savings, and budget, in order to live in Hong Kong, let me ask the following question. If that is the way Fedex wants to do business, then how about if, when the crews check into the Hotel in Hong Kong, which is a very expensive hotel, by the way, that because we are paid so well, then we should help cover the cost of the hotel bill.
Let's say the hotel costs $250/night. The company, by it's logic, would say, you should pay $50 of that total. After all, you do earn so much money, right?
It's the same principle as asking a line pilot to dig into his or her pocket to pay for living in Hong Kong, at the request of Fedex, and for the benefit of Fedex. No difference.
How about the next time you fuel up, you pull out your credit card, and tell the fueler to charge 25% of the bill to your account?
The housing allowance is not a benefit to the pilot. It's covering the extremely high cost of living in Hong Kong, or Paris. It's a cost of doing business. Since when are employees required to cover the cost of a corporation? To subsidize the expansion of a corporation? It is exactly the same idea if the company required you to pay for part of your hotel bill. You are there in the hotel doing business FOR Fedex. You are living in Hong Kong or Paris, FOR Fedex. You are basicallly, on the job while you are there. An extended trip, if you will.
The reason just about every company in the world (except FedEX, of course) pays a proper allowance, is because they have a desire to have an employee stationed in a certain city, and they understand the burden that is being imposed on them by doing that. Let's not forget that most people are going to be continuing to pay for their house back home. They may rent it out. They may not. But they will be paying for two residences while on assignment in HKG or CDG. They desire to relieve that burden for that employee while they are there. However, apparantly Fedex feels that it is ok to impose a burden on it's employees; excuse me, I mean, it's pilots. Other employees get a proper relocation pacakge. Despite the fact that the company has made record profits from day one, and will continue to make record profits due to international expansion.
To date, nobody has been able to give me a good answer to the question of why we are being offered an allowance so far below a pilot of similar class and craft as a Cathay/Dragonair pilot. I hear, "Do you want their pay and work rules?" First of all, there are pilots right now at Cathay who are making more than I do as a 23 year wide body captain. True, not many, and a lot are under the B scale, etc. But the fact is, there are pilots right now, in Hong Kong, making more than me, who are receiving a proper housing allowance. I'm talking about over $8,000 USD/month. Similar class and craft.
Secondly, their pay and benefits are totally irrevelant to the question. We are not comparing contracts. We are talking about what it costs to live in that city, and what a company is paying to offset those costs.
Again, the cost of doing business. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you accept the fact that what Cathay pays is a standard allowance for similar class and craft, then what is offered in the LOA is below standard. By a long shot. It is by definition, SubStandard.
If the average cost of housing in Hong Kong is $8500 USD/month, (fact, proven by independent survey),then the LOA is going to force you to live in below average housing.
So you have to ask yourself, when I go to work, do I deliver substandard performance? Am I a below average pilot? Should I accept a lot less for the job that I do? If you don't think enough of yourself to answer yes to those questions, then you can vote yes for the LOA. But, if you answer NO to those questions, then you need to vote NO on the LOA.
Do we not give !00% every time we step into the plane? Or more? But it's ok for the company to give us 25%, or maybe 30% of the cost of living in Hong Kong? I think not ok at all.
Some say let's accept this now, and negotiate more later. Well, Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore. Don't believe the man behind the curtain when he tells you that. How much increase can you expect during contract negotiation time? On any item in question? 5%? Maybe 10% at the most? Remember rental rates are increasing 15% or more per year in Hong Kong. Le'ts say they give a 100% increase. (yeah, and Totoo can fly). Even if they do that, they are only raising it to a rate that a buck private in the army would get. Not even close to what Cathay new hire would get. (about $6600 USD/month) or Captain, over $8000/month.
By the way, occupancy in HKG is running 97%. So those elusive 3 and 4 bedroom houses in Discovery Bay for $3000/month might be hard to find. By the way, they are a bit small. About 800 to 1000 sq ft.
Folks, there is a reason that all companies, (except Fedex) is paying housing allowances that equate to the rental rates. That is what it takes to live there.
I'm not even going to address the managemet perception that we possess no special skills in performing our job. Well, maybe I will. I guess that is to help convince us that we are in fact nothing special, are basically unskilled labor, and undeserving of an average, standard package. Think about that the next time you are sliding down the glideslope on a Cat3b approach, with wet or icy runway conditions.. Then ask yourself just how average you are.
In response to the argument that we are going to have to dig into our savings, and budget, in order to live in Hong Kong, let me ask the following question. If that is the way Fedex wants to do business, then how about if, when the crews check into the Hotel in Hong Kong, which is a very expensive hotel, by the way, that because we are paid so well, then we should help cover the cost of the hotel bill.
Let's say the hotel costs $250/night. The company, by it's logic, would say, you should pay $50 of that total. After all, you do earn so much money, right?
It's the same principle as asking a line pilot to dig into his or her pocket to pay for living in Hong Kong, at the request of Fedex, and for the benefit of Fedex. No difference.
How about the next time you fuel up, you pull out your credit card, and tell the fueler to charge 25% of the bill to your account?
The housing allowance is not a benefit to the pilot. It's covering the extremely high cost of living in Hong Kong, or Paris. It's a cost of doing business. Since when are employees required to cover the cost of a corporation? To subsidize the expansion of a corporation? It is exactly the same idea if the company required you to pay for part of your hotel bill. You are there in the hotel doing business FOR Fedex. You are living in Hong Kong or Paris, FOR Fedex. You are basicallly, on the job while you are there. An extended trip, if you will.
The reason just about every company in the world (except FedEX, of course) pays a proper allowance, is because they have a desire to have an employee stationed in a certain city, and they understand the burden that is being imposed on them by doing that. Let's not forget that most people are going to be continuing to pay for their house back home. They may rent it out. They may not. But they will be paying for two residences while on assignment in HKG or CDG. They desire to relieve that burden for that employee while they are there. However, apparantly Fedex feels that it is ok to impose a burden on it's employees; excuse me, I mean, it's pilots. Other employees get a proper relocation pacakge. Despite the fact that the company has made record profits from day one, and will continue to make record profits due to international expansion.
To date, nobody has been able to give me a good answer to the question of why we are being offered an allowance so far below a pilot of similar class and craft as a Cathay/Dragonair pilot. I hear, "Do you want their pay and work rules?" First of all, there are pilots right now at Cathay who are making more than I do as a 23 year wide body captain. True, not many, and a lot are under the B scale, etc. But the fact is, there are pilots right now, in Hong Kong, making more than me, who are receiving a proper housing allowance. I'm talking about over $8,000 USD/month. Similar class and craft.
Secondly, their pay and benefits are totally irrevelant to the question. We are not comparing contracts. We are talking about what it costs to live in that city, and what a company is paying to offset those costs.
Again, the cost of doing business. Nothing more. Nothing less.
If you accept the fact that what Cathay pays is a standard allowance for similar class and craft, then what is offered in the LOA is below standard. By a long shot. It is by definition, SubStandard.
If the average cost of housing in Hong Kong is $8500 USD/month, (fact, proven by independent survey),then the LOA is going to force you to live in below average housing.
So you have to ask yourself, when I go to work, do I deliver substandard performance? Am I a below average pilot? Should I accept a lot less for the job that I do? If you don't think enough of yourself to answer yes to those questions, then you can vote yes for the LOA. But, if you answer NO to those questions, then you need to vote NO on the LOA.
Do we not give !00% every time we step into the plane? Or more? But it's ok for the company to give us 25%, or maybe 30% of the cost of living in Hong Kong? I think not ok at all.
Some say let's accept this now, and negotiate more later. Well, Dorothy, we are not in Kansas anymore. Don't believe the man behind the curtain when he tells you that. How much increase can you expect during contract negotiation time? On any item in question? 5%? Maybe 10% at the most? Remember rental rates are increasing 15% or more per year in Hong Kong. Le'ts say they give a 100% increase. (yeah, and Totoo can fly). Even if they do that, they are only raising it to a rate that a buck private in the army would get. Not even close to what Cathay new hire would get. (about $6600 USD/month) or Captain, over $8000/month.
By the way, occupancy in HKG is running 97%. So those elusive 3 and 4 bedroom houses in Discovery Bay for $3000/month might be hard to find. By the way, they are a bit small. About 800 to 1000 sq ft.
Folks, there is a reason that all companies, (except Fedex) is paying housing allowances that equate to the rental rates. That is what it takes to live there.
I'm not even going to address the managemet perception that we possess no special skills in performing our job. Well, maybe I will. I guess that is to help convince us that we are in fact nothing special, are basically unskilled labor, and undeserving of an average, standard package. Think about that the next time you are sliding down the glideslope on a Cat3b approach, with wet or icy runway conditions.. Then ask yourself just how average you are.
07-29-2007, 05:52 AM
#2
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Posts: 118
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To those of you who vote YES on this fecal matter they call an LOA, here's something which should give you reason to consider changing your vote:
If this P.O.S. passes, the vast majority of the SFS pilots will come back to the U.S. That's 71 pilots, most of them quite senior, who will come push you down the seniority list in your seat/domicile. Still think you can vote YES on the LOA and who cares, you'll never bid it and it won't affect you?
Think about it ... 70 ... probably enough to bounce a number of you out of your SIBA bid ... or bounce you out of those lines with weekends off ... or bounce you out of your day turns where you're home every night ... or bounce you out of your double-DH trips ... you get the picture. The best thing you can do for yourself if you like the status quo is vote the LOA down and insist on a package that keeps the overseas-based pilots willing to stay there. Otherwise, we'll come back and cherry-pick the bid packs, and for a number of you, your quality of life will go all to hell.
But what the heck ... the LOA isn't going to affect you anyway ... is it?
To those of you who vote YES on this fecal matter they call an LOA, here's something which should give you reason to consider changing your vote:
If this P.O.S. passes, the vast majority of the SFS pilots will come back to the U.S. That's 71 pilots, most of them quite senior, who will come push you down the seniority list in your seat/domicile. Still think you can vote YES on the LOA and who cares, you'll never bid it and it won't affect you?
Think about it ... 70 ... probably enough to bounce a number of you out of your SIBA bid ... or bounce you out of those lines with weekends off ... or bounce you out of your day turns where you're home every night ... or bounce you out of your double-DH trips ... you get the picture. The best thing you can do for yourself if you like the status quo is vote the LOA down and insist on a package that keeps the overseas-based pilots willing to stay there. Otherwise, we'll come back and cherry-pick the bid packs, and for a number of you, your quality of life will go all to hell.
But what the heck ... the LOA isn't going to affect you anyway ... is it?
07-29-2007, 01:51 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To those of you who vote YES on this fecal matter they call an LOA, here's something which should give you reason to consider changing your vote:
If this P.O.S. passes, the vast majority of the SFS pilots will come back to the U.S. That's 71 pilots, most of them quite senior, who will come push you down the seniority list in your seat/domicile. Still think you can vote YES on the LOA and who cares, you'll never bid it and it won't affect you?
Think about it ... 70 ... probably enough to bounce a number of you out of your SIBA bid ... or bounce you out of those lines with weekends off ... or bounce you out of your day turns where you're home every night ... or bounce you out of your double-DH trips ... you get the picture. The best thing you can do for yourself if you like the status quo is vote the LOA down and insist on a package that keeps the overseas-based pilots willing to stay there. Otherwise, we'll come back and cherry-pick the bid packs, and for a number of you, your quality of life will go all to hell.
But what the heck ... the LOA isn't going to affect you anyway ... is it?
To those of you who vote YES on this fecal matter they call an LOA, here's something which should give you reason to consider changing your vote:
If this P.O.S. passes, the vast majority of the SFS pilots will come back to the U.S. That's 71 pilots, most of them quite senior, who will come push you down the seniority list in your seat/domicile. Still think you can vote YES on the LOA and who cares, you'll never bid it and it won't affect you?
Think about it ... 70 ... probably enough to bounce a number of you out of your SIBA bid ... or bounce you out of those lines with weekends off ... or bounce you out of your day turns where you're home every night ... or bounce you out of your double-DH trips ... you get the picture. The best thing you can do for yourself if you like the status quo is vote the LOA down and insist on a package that keeps the overseas-based pilots willing to stay there. Otherwise, we'll come back and cherry-pick the bid packs, and for a number of you, your quality of life will go all to hell.
But what the heck ... the LOA isn't going to affect you anyway ... is it?
07-29-2007, 03:32 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 478
That will hold about as much water as an 80 y/o guy with an enlarged prostate. If we vote it in and nobody bids it, the seats get filled with STV. I'm trying to find ANY logic in the vote-it-in-then-don't-bid-it battle cry and I keep coming up empty. What am I missing?
07-29-2007, 03:41 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,838
That will hold about as much water as an 80 y/o guy with an enlarged prostate. If we vote it in and nobody bids it, the seats get filled with STV. I'm trying to find ANY logic in the vote-it-in-then-don't-bid-it battle cry and I keep coming up empty. What am I missing?
07-29-2007, 04:02 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2006
Posts: 478
Thank you. Whew, thought that's what I said...guess I need to consider more the reading comprehension level of some in the audience.
07-29-2007, 04:33 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 503
Dude, stop multiple posting the same info.
07-29-2007, 05:58 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,409
That will hold about as much water as an 80 y/o guy with an enlarged prostate. If we vote it in and nobody bids it, the seats get filled with STV. I'm trying to find ANY logic in the vote-it-in-then-don't-bid-it battle cry and I keep coming up empty. What am I missing?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
