Heads up on bidding an FDA
11-11-2007, 05:55 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 281
This is why they always say to bid what you want to fly. In this case it will ring particularly true.
If you go for the FDA now, you will likely be there for quite a while, so you'd better be sure you know what you are doing.
Most of us don't have to worry about it though, because it will go way senior or we have kids that we would like to keep and actually send to school.
Those of course are personal decisions and have no place in a business like FedEx.
If you go for the FDA now, you will likely be there for quite a while, so you'd better be sure you know what you are doing.
Most of us don't have to worry about it though, because it will go way senior or we have kids that we would like to keep and actually send to school.
Those of course are personal decisions and have no place in a business like FedEx.
11-11-2007, 08:45 PM
#32
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
Great if these were unforeseen problems.
There are alot of still unanswered questions on how the FDA's will work. All this should have been worked out before the MEC ever presented an LOA for a vote. Talk about putting the cart before the horse!
I can see it already - the pickup point in HKG will be the Mainland Chineese border. That way they can keep the travel and duty times within a reasonable limit.
Limo driver today said it is 2 hours from the border crossing to CAN. 
11-11-2007, 08:48 PM
#33
Part Time Employee
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: Dispersing Green House Gasses on a Global Basis
Posts: 1,918
This is why they always say to bid what you want to fly. In this case it will ring particularly true.
If you go for the FDA now, you will likely be there for quite a while, so you'd better be sure you know what you are doing.
Most of us don't have to worry about it though, because it will go way senior or we have kids that we would like to keep and actually send to school.
Those of course are personal decisions and have no place in a business like FedEx.
If you go for the FDA now, you will likely be there for quite a while, so you'd better be sure you know what you are doing.
Most of us don't have to worry about it though, because it will go way senior or we have kids that we would like to keep and actually send to school.
Those of course are personal decisions and have no place in a business like FedEx.
11-12-2007, 03:29 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Drinking from the fire hose
Posts: 305
OK, just out of curiousity where would you draw the line?
If they up'd the housing allowance, or increased the weight allowance, unilaterally before the bid closed out would those be sufficient to fly the "bull$hit flag" up the pole?
Just looking for how much it would take.
VR
DLax
If they up'd the housing allowance, or increased the weight allowance, unilaterally before the bid closed out would those be sufficient to fly the "bull$hit flag" up the pole?
Just looking for how much it would take.
VR
DLax
Micro,
Being persuaded by people with a lot of charisma is hard to resist. But I ask you to resist it if you can. Stay focused on what you think is important and don't lose your way.
IMHO, we are being manipulated. Ever buy a new car? Same thing. This negotiation via FCIF direct to the membership is a very bad precedent. Our accepted fares have been changed and may change again. Domestic solve is another. It is uncertainty at best. You never know when it will change again, and not for the better either.
Ruin our good working relationship? I don't think so. If it is ruined by us asking for the company to do this right, we really don't have a good relationship to begin with. They want to keep us on the negotiation via FCIF at any cost. Threats to ruin our relationship or any other "good" deal we have will continue. We do have more leverage than you think. If it comes down to sitting down for LOA v2.0, so be it. Don't be dissuaded by the work involved. It will be worth it.
By the way, it's not going "hardline" to renegotiate the LOA when it is clearly inadequate. It is merely accepting a failure and getting us back into a healthy working relationship with the company. Not renegotiating the LOA doesn't make it more successful of a document.
If we don't stand up now, it will be very bad for the next round of negotiations. The company will know they can low ball us, stand firm then offer sweeteners before and after a vote to get the productivity they want. If there is never any threat of reduced productivity, why should they offer what is fair??
This, IMHO, is not a good working relationship.
Being persuaded by people with a lot of charisma is hard to resist. But I ask you to resist it if you can. Stay focused on what you think is important and don't lose your way.
IMHO, we are being manipulated. Ever buy a new car? Same thing. This negotiation via FCIF direct to the membership is a very bad precedent. Our accepted fares have been changed and may change again. Domestic solve is another. It is uncertainty at best. You never know when it will change again, and not for the better either.
Ruin our good working relationship? I don't think so. If it is ruined by us asking for the company to do this right, we really don't have a good relationship to begin with. They want to keep us on the negotiation via FCIF at any cost. Threats to ruin our relationship or any other "good" deal we have will continue. We do have more leverage than you think. If it comes down to sitting down for LOA v2.0, so be it. Don't be dissuaded by the work involved. It will be worth it.
By the way, it's not going "hardline" to renegotiate the LOA when it is clearly inadequate. It is merely accepting a failure and getting us back into a healthy working relationship with the company. Not renegotiating the LOA doesn't make it more successful of a document.
If we don't stand up now, it will be very bad for the next round of negotiations. The company will know they can low ball us, stand firm then offer sweeteners before and after a vote to get the productivity they want. If there is never any threat of reduced productivity, why should they offer what is fair??
This, IMHO, is not a good working relationship.
Maybe they did sweet talk me this time, but for those who know me I'm usually not in the MEC camp at all. Keep throwing those knives if you'd like as I'm getting quite proficient catching them in my back.
11-12-2007, 05:16 PM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
I'll be the first to say Micro is not "making nice". He speaks his mind. And...although I think this is a very slippery slope and this LOA should be amended with another "final, really no changes" side letter, the fact is our union does a lot of good stuff. We all got our issues and heartburns and agendas we want changed...but you don't have to be anti-EVERYTHING.
11-12-2007, 05:25 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: Left to right
Posts: 119
I wrote a letter to my LEC rep before the MEC meeting saying since FedEx is direct dealing with the crew force and abrogating the LOA that we should renegotiate the LOA. He wrote me back and said he had received other such emails, yet I haven't heard anything about this subject in a message line. I imagine EI was looking for some kind of resolution/negotiating strategy before he resigned.
11-13-2007, 02:07 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Drinking from the fire hose
Posts: 305
I talked to a couple MEC members the other day. It seems that a few of the MEC members think we have a number of items (that the company wants or needs) that now give us leverage to renegotiate this LOA but, the rest of the MEC seems willing to just GIVE these things to the company for free. One supposedly is that the company needs LCA's for the 757. The company wants to take Airbus LCA's, make them 757 LCA's and pay them widebody pay. NOT allowed by the CBA but DW wants to allow them to do it.
I'm going to talk with my rep on this today. NO BYPASSING THE CBA!!!
I'm going to talk with my rep on this today. NO BYPASSING THE CBA!!!
Last edited by Micro; 11-13-2007 at 03:28 AM. Reason: spelling
11-13-2007, 03:16 AM
#38
"blue collar thug"!
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: A proponent of...
Posts: 1,614
I talked to a couple MEC members the other day. It seems that a few of the MEC members think we have a number of items (that the company wants or needs) that now give us leverage to renegotiate this LOA but, the rest of the MEC seems willing to just GIVE these things to the company for free. One supposedly is that the company needs LCA's for the 757. The company wants to take Airbus LCA's, make them 757 LCA's and pay them widebody pay. NOT allowed by the CBA buy DW wants to allow them to do it. I'm going to talk with my rep on this today. NO BYPASSING THE CBA!!!
I'm going to talk with my rep on this today. NO BYPASSING THE CBA!!!I heard the same thing.
11-13-2007, 03:40 AM
#39
Trust but Verify!!
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: MD11 CRA
Posts: 684
"The company wants to take Airbus LCA's, make them 757 LCA's and pay them widebody pay. NOT allowed by the CBA buy DW wants to allow them to do it. I'm going to talk with my rep on this today. NO BYPASSING THE CBA!!!"
I talked to an Airbus Flex and he said the company only wants to pay WB pay for the first 2 years and then convert them back to NB pay. This is causing a lot of Flex guys to take a page from Nancy Reagan and just say no! Now they want to work a deal with the company and as far as I know the union is not in the discussions. If this info is wrong someone please correct it. Either way it seems that direct dealing with the crew force is a lot more rampant than we think...
I talked to an Airbus Flex and he said the company only wants to pay WB pay for the first 2 years and then convert them back to NB pay. This is causing a lot of Flex guys to take a page from Nancy Reagan and just say no! Now they want to work a deal with the company and as far as I know the union is not in the discussions. If this info is wrong someone please correct it. Either way it seems that direct dealing with the crew force is a lot more rampant than we think...
11-13-2007, 04:17 AM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: Gear Monkey
Posts: 3,199
"The company wants to take Airbus LCA's, make them 757 LCA's and pay them widebody pay. NOT allowed by the CBA buy DW wants to allow them to do it. I'm going to talk with my rep on this today. NO BYPASSING THE CBA!!!"
I talked to an Airbus Flex and he said the company only wants to pay WB pay for the first 2 years and then convert them back to NB pay. This is causing a lot of Flex guys to take a page from Nancy Reagan and just say no! Now they want to work a deal with the company and as far as I know the union is not in the discussions. If this info is wrong someone please correct it. Either way it seems that direct dealing with the crew force is a lot more rampant than we think...
I talked to an Airbus Flex and he said the company only wants to pay WB pay for the first 2 years and then convert them back to NB pay. This is causing a lot of Flex guys to take a page from Nancy Reagan and just say no! Now they want to work a deal with the company and as far as I know the union is not in the discussions. If this info is wrong someone please correct it. Either way it seems that direct dealing with the crew force is a lot more rampant than we think...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
