Company additions to the LOA
11-09-2007, 07:04 AM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,931
Iarapilot hit the nail on the head.
After getting embarrassed BC should have pulled himself back together and fought for a renegotiation. He should have pushed for a grievance instead of just feeling hurt and giving up. We all make mistakes and it would be good if our elected ALPA leaders could own up to the error, move forward and make amends. This is a dangerous path we are allowing the company to take for the purpose of saving face.
11-09-2007, 07:12 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Well...call your block reps and ask them to grieve this...
The irony of the UNION suing the company for sweetening the pot is a lot to stomach. IHMO, the company could just say "heck with it" and pull the deposit offer. Then STV the p1ss out of the crew force to fill the slots.
I agree its a mess. A quick side letter might fix this too. My gut says nothing will happen until the bid closes and we see where we really stand on the manning.
Again--a 4k/month COLA tied to the exchange rate and a modest transporation allowance and I don't think any of this would have been an issue. However...it is what it is and I hope for the pilot and the company's sake we get a deal that gets the job done.
The irony of the UNION suing the company for sweetening the pot is a lot to stomach. IHMO, the company could just say "heck with it" and pull the deposit offer. Then STV the p1ss out of the crew force to fill the slots.
I agree its a mess. A quick side letter might fix this too. My gut says nothing will happen until the bid closes and we see where we really stand on the manning.
Again--a 4k/month COLA tied to the exchange rate and a modest transporation allowance and I don't think any of this would have been an issue. However...it is what it is and I hope for the pilot and the company's sake we get a deal that gets the job done.
11-09-2007, 07:31 AM
#13
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
I guess my question to you Albie would be....do you think that what the Company is unilaterally giving us, above and beyond what is in the LOA, improper, illegal, or otherwise? If they were saying that they were not going to give us what we have negotiated for any different than saying they are going to give us something that we havent negotiated for? I do ask that question in the context of the RLA, with respect to our representation by the Union.
11-09-2007, 08:05 AM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
Oh...I am with you IRA...its wrong. It undermines the union and ability to negotiate a deal in good faith. I'm on your side with this. I am just not sure anything is going to happen until the bid closes.
Also--if the union hasn't already stood up to fight this, then I have no idea how the process gets started. My belief is that someone will have to file a grievance. I think Edgar would be the proper guy to do this...
Also--if the union hasn't already stood up to fight this, then I have no idea how the process gets started. My belief is that someone will have to file a grievance. I think Edgar would be the proper guy to do this...
11-09-2007, 09:41 AM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
‘Been awhile since I’ve dived into the pool but here is a voice from the clam bed.
I agree with iarapilot. FCIF 07-0610 is an attempt to find the bottom line cost to man the FDAs with current FedEx pilots and IMHO, this FCIF represents an attempt to bargain outside our CBA and recently approved Paris/Hong Kong LOA. It needs to officially become part of the LOA, not remain a FCIF which can be withdrawn as soon as the last seat is filled.
Both the Company and our Union told us only certain portions of the crew force were targeted with the LOA expat package. If I remember correctly, the Company was looking for empty nesters and pilots without attachments (my word) to fill the seats. Families with school age children were cautioned and advised to examine all the information and issues prior to bidding an FDA and moving to Paris or Hong Kong within the framework of the approved LOA package would not work for everyone.
Two practice bids later and still short warm bodies at the FDAs. Time for adjustments, hence the FCIF in question. During contract negotiations, our Union told us to avoid informal meetings with management. The Union indicated that often times, management used these gatherings (i.e. brown bag lunches) to find out what the crew force really wanted (the bottom line) from contact negotiations. When invited to lunch with management, our Union wanted us to decline the invitation and reply with the phrase: “My Negotiating Committee speaks for me.”
What is the Union’s catch phrase for this situation?
Some suggestions…
“Get ‘er done……next time!”
“May I have another!”
“Oh my…thank you”
I agree with iarapilot. FCIF 07-0610 is an attempt to find the bottom line cost to man the FDAs with current FedEx pilots and IMHO, this FCIF represents an attempt to bargain outside our CBA and recently approved Paris/Hong Kong LOA. It needs to officially become part of the LOA, not remain a FCIF which can be withdrawn as soon as the last seat is filled.
Both the Company and our Union told us only certain portions of the crew force were targeted with the LOA expat package. If I remember correctly, the Company was looking for empty nesters and pilots without attachments (my word) to fill the seats. Families with school age children were cautioned and advised to examine all the information and issues prior to bidding an FDA and moving to Paris or Hong Kong within the framework of the approved LOA package would not work for everyone.
Two practice bids later and still short warm bodies at the FDAs. Time for adjustments, hence the FCIF in question. During contract negotiations, our Union told us to avoid informal meetings with management. The Union indicated that often times, management used these gatherings (i.e. brown bag lunches) to find out what the crew force really wanted (the bottom line) from contact negotiations. When invited to lunch with management, our Union wanted us to decline the invitation and reply with the phrase: “My Negotiating Committee speaks for me.”
What is the Union’s catch phrase for this situation?
Some suggestions…
“Get ‘er done……next time!”
“May I have another!”
“Oh my…thank you”
11-09-2007, 09:56 AM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
During the joint LEC meeting on Tues Dave Webb talked about the enhancement to the LOA offered by the company. The MEC's position was that it wasn't a "substantial" enhancement and thus they were planning on letting it stand. I personally asked him in front of the entire room what the difference was between FedEx sweetening this deal and Pinnacle offering their pilots bonus money (outside of their CBA) for recruiting new pilots. Since ALPA was suing Pinnacle over that issue how could we sit back now.
He said that the MEC did not think it was a "substantial" enhancement and we weren't in negotiations. I asked if this offer (the 10K "loan") was more than the bonus money Pinnacle pilots were getting and he said it probably was. I don't understand then how this is not a "substantial" enhancement to the LOA.
After the joint meeting we broke up into blocks. I made a motion that my LEC reps request the MEC to reject the 10K "loan" as being outside the scope of the LOA. Discussion ensued, 30 minutes later the motion failed 11-1.
I don't know what else you can do. The LEC and MEC are definitely engaged on this issue, I'm not sure if they know how they are going to proceed yet. But trying to get an issue up to the MEC is next to impossible.
In fairness, I could have gone in to the MEC meeting the next day and addressed the MEC as an at-large member (ha ha) and expressed my concerns, but I feel I had already done that with my direct question to Dave in the joint meeting.
FJ
He said that the MEC did not think it was a "substantial" enhancement and we weren't in negotiations. I asked if this offer (the 10K "loan") was more than the bonus money Pinnacle pilots were getting and he said it probably was. I don't understand then how this is not a "substantial" enhancement to the LOA.
After the joint meeting we broke up into blocks. I made a motion that my LEC reps request the MEC to reject the 10K "loan" as being outside the scope of the LOA. Discussion ensued, 30 minutes later the motion failed 11-1.
I don't know what else you can do. The LEC and MEC are definitely engaged on this issue, I'm not sure if they know how they are going to proceed yet. But trying to get an issue up to the MEC is next to impossible.
In fairness, I could have gone in to the MEC meeting the next day and addressed the MEC as an at-large member (ha ha) and expressed my concerns, but I feel I had already done that with my direct question to Dave in the joint meeting.
FJ
11-09-2007, 10:03 AM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: FedEx
Posts: 666
Continued, so I don't get timed out: nevermind, got timed out anyway. How in the h-e-double-l do you guys write such long posts without getting timed out? 
My argument during the debate was that although we aren't technically in negotiations with the company, the fact that they are sweetening the pot piecemeal WHILE the standing bid is open demonstrates that they are attempting to negotiate with potential bidders in an effort to fill the slots.
They have the advantage of adding on to the deal bit by bit until enough people bite. That is a de-facto negotiation to me. I feel that we should reject the offer and either re-negotiate the LOA, or just leave it be. Lots of people didn't feel that a 10K loan was that big a deal, but none of them would give me a 10K loan. I think it is a big deal. They want to give the company one more chance and then if they offer another enhancement raise the BS flag. I'm not sure if we should give the company a third strike.
Also, who do you think is going to pay FedEx back in 4 years when the landlord decides that they aren't going to refund the deposit? FedEx. Not bloody likely. There are a lot of issues with this deal that haven't been flushed out (not unlike the original LOA) and I think that we would be better off opening the domiciles under the original move package and without STV.
Just another pogues opinion.
FJ
My argument during the debate was that although we aren't technically in negotiations with the company, the fact that they are sweetening the pot piecemeal WHILE the standing bid is open demonstrates that they are attempting to negotiate with potential bidders in an effort to fill the slots.
They have the advantage of adding on to the deal bit by bit until enough people bite. That is a de-facto negotiation to me. I feel that we should reject the offer and either re-negotiate the LOA, or just leave it be. Lots of people didn't feel that a 10K loan was that big a deal, but none of them would give me a 10K loan. I think it is a big deal. They want to give the company one more chance and then if they offer another enhancement raise the BS flag. I'm not sure if we should give the company a third strike.
Also, who do you think is going to pay FedEx back in 4 years when the landlord decides that they aren't going to refund the deposit? FedEx. Not bloody likely. There are a lot of issues with this deal that haven't been flushed out (not unlike the original LOA) and I think that we would be better off opening the domiciles under the original move package and without STV.
Just another pogues opinion.
FJ
11-09-2007, 10:49 AM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: B757 Capt
Posts: 177
Some questions from a bottom dweller. The last paragraph of the Security Deposit FCIC raises questions, cautions and red flags for me.
FedEx deals in US dollars, we the crew member assigned to Paris/Hong Kong live off a foreign currency. FedEx gives us a security deposit in US dollars, we convert to the foreign exchange and the landlord keeps it for 2-3-4 years. Come time to move back to the US, the process should reverse (I assume, a detail to be worked out later).
What are the chances the exchange rate will be the same? $10K of US dollars can produce a tidy difference with even a small shift in the exchange rate. What happens to the difference if the exchange rate improves? Will the crew member get to keep anything over the original $10K?
Now flip the coin, what happens if the exchange rate works against the crew member and his original $10K security deposit only converts to $9K? According to the FCIF, the crew member has signed an agreement to return $10K. Did the crew member just incur another out-of-pocket expense associated with living in an FDA?
Finally, does anybody know the laws in the FDA locations concerning security deposits and their return? Many US states have enacted consumer protection laws concerning the return of security deposits, annotation of and collection for damages etc. Many of these measures were enacted to protect tenants from dishonest landlords. What similar protections exist for crew members living in the proposed FDAs? I imagine it would be tough to dispute damages from half way round the world. I don’t imagine FedEx would wait for damage resolution before seeking return of its US $$$.
Just a few questions from the bottom, now when does the final bid close??
FedEx deals in US dollars, we the crew member assigned to Paris/Hong Kong live off a foreign currency. FedEx gives us a security deposit in US dollars, we convert to the foreign exchange and the landlord keeps it for 2-3-4 years. Come time to move back to the US, the process should reverse (I assume, a detail to be worked out later).
What are the chances the exchange rate will be the same? $10K of US dollars can produce a tidy difference with even a small shift in the exchange rate. What happens to the difference if the exchange rate improves? Will the crew member get to keep anything over the original $10K?
Now flip the coin, what happens if the exchange rate works against the crew member and his original $10K security deposit only converts to $9K? According to the FCIF, the crew member has signed an agreement to return $10K. Did the crew member just incur another out-of-pocket expense associated with living in an FDA?
Finally, does anybody know the laws in the FDA locations concerning security deposits and their return? Many US states have enacted consumer protection laws concerning the return of security deposits, annotation of and collection for damages etc. Many of these measures were enacted to protect tenants from dishonest landlords. What similar protections exist for crew members living in the proposed FDAs? I imagine it would be tough to dispute damages from half way round the world. I don’t imagine FedEx would wait for damage resolution before seeking return of its US $$$.
Just a few questions from the bottom, now when does the final bid close??
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
