Practice 1 out....WOW
06-18-2008, 02:27 PM
#81
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2005
Position: FO
Posts: 104
He didn't say anything about pairing length other than, guys would have to be brought up earlier and put in hotels. Also the company was squawking real hard at guys living in CAN. Boils down to taxes.
Fun isn't that where the airport is?!
Squeeze me harder.
Fun isn't that where the airport is?!
Squeeze me harder.
06-18-2008, 05:41 PM
#82
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: A300CAP
Posts: 479
As far as the tax issue goes...money is going to have to be spent somewhere...either the pairings are more expensive because we have to deadhead and crew rest, or the taxes are more expensive because the crew lives in CAN. The people doing the complaining are probably those whose budget is being most affected. In the end, I'll bet it's a 70-30 split at the most HKG vs CAN pilots. So how does a bean counter figure out which is the worse course? Not that there is any control over it at this point.
06-18-2008, 08:01 PM
#83
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: 777 Captain in Training
Posts: 1,457
Yeah, well how about this gem?
N. Ongoing Implementation Measures
The parties recognize that the details involved in opening and operating foreign pilot bases are varied and fluid. Other measures facilitating the operation of the pilot bases in CDG and HKG and supporting the pilots based there may be implemented if agreed upon in writing by the Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman.
Discuss.
N. Ongoing Implementation Measures
The parties recognize that the details involved in opening and operating foreign pilot bases are varied and fluid. Other measures facilitating the operation of the pilot bases in CDG and HKG and supporting the pilots based there may be implemented if agreed upon in writing by the Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman.
Discuss.
The way I read it no more having to go an ask the great unwashed masses "ALPA line pilots" to VOTE on LOA changes the GREAT DW will speak for us. Is that really what we want?? This for sure makes my vote NO!!!
06-18-2008, 09:55 PM
#84
Line Holder
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: FO
Posts: 33
Deja vu...
It feels like we've been here before... Union says here's an LOA to vote on - we feel you should vote yes, its the best thing since sliced bread, etc, etc...
Then some actually read through it and start waving the BS flag (Albie & the STV clause)... but because the MEC supports it still passes...
Hopefully we can vote this one down, but I'm not optimistic. If the interpretation of: "if agreed upon in writing by the Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman" is that no vote will be hence-forth required for ANY FDA-LOA changes/improvements/bend-overs, then this is yet ANOTHER STV like clause the union has YET AGAIN tried/allowed to slide past us. Please tell me I'm wrong about this??!!!
No vote for me...
Then some actually read through it and start waving the BS flag (Albie & the STV clause)... but because the MEC supports it still passes...
Hopefully we can vote this one down, but I'm not optimistic. If the interpretation of: "if agreed upon in writing by the Vice President, Labor Relations Law and the ALPA FedEx MEC Chairman" is that no vote will be hence-forth required for ANY FDA-LOA changes/improvements/bend-overs, then this is yet ANOTHER STV like clause the union has YET AGAIN tried/allowed to slide past us. Please tell me I'm wrong about this??!!!
No vote for me...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
