HireAstarPilots

You are 100% correct. The FDA package is definitely insufficient. But our negotiators did the best they could do. When an LOA is being negotiated, the hands of union negotiators are partially tied. You see, only ONE item is on the table. If the company puts its foot down and makes like a mule, then there is nothing we can do. Contract negotiations are a whole different story; now many things are on the table, and there is a lot of room for "give and take". "You want this? Ok, then we want....THAT."

Furthermore, there are probably 5,000 current and hugely experienced RJ captains in the United States that would happily take a job at Fedex tomorrow....even if it meant 5 years living in the "Peoples" Republic of China. The company knows this....

DLax85

Sorry, I can't reciporcate on agreeing with you 100%

"But, our negotiators did the best they can do" ??

"If the company puts its foot down and makes like a mule, then there is nothing we can do" ???

Uh oh --- I feel/hear the education train a coming!

Put you ear down to the track and listen for it.

Jetjok

The age 65 ruling was retroactive? Please explain, because it seems to me that if a pilot was unfortunate enough to be working at an airline which didn't have a 3-person cockpit (for them to go to after they turned 60), they would have had to retire upon their 60th birthday. So when the ruling became law, say on December 13th, 2007, if that pilots' 60th birthday was December 12th, 2007, he was retired. So again, how was that retroactive?

What would be the "huge downside" to enhancing a sub-standard FDA package? Are you referring to the fact that some folks who went to the Hong Kong base, knowing (or not realizing) that the package was "sub-standard" would be rewarded by the increased benefits the enhancements would provide? Or is it that ""those who have agreed to live under the current FDA package did it voluntarily", and as such, should be made to do so for from now until forever?
I guess I just don't understand your logic.

JJ

Huck

Those that agreed to work under the entire current contract did that voluntarily too. But we're asking for more there....

AFW_MD11

I think he just meant they shouldn't get RETRO benefits if the LOA is improved. They should just get the improvements going forward like everyone else that bids it in the future.

Also.....777 guys shouldn't get RETRO higher-than-wide-body pay rates if they end up with a higher pay rate for the 777.

They should just get the higher rate going forward like everyone else who will bid it in the future.

Just no RETRO for anyone who bid FDA or 777 knowing the current "deal"

I agree with that too - fair's fair.

Jetjok

If that's what he meant, I agree also.

RedeyeAV8r

I understand why you think that should happen but re-read section 26k.

The 777 arbitration is underway since no pay rate was agreed upon by the Union or MGT.

If we (ALPA) win the arbitration the current 777 pilots will receive retro pay if a higher pay-rate (new category) is awarded by the arbitrator. No negotiation required, just section 26K.

As to a new HKG FDA LOA. They already have one. Yep it is inadequate but I suspect MGT will put out a bid to see how it goes. They filled all the A300 seats (yep it took 6 bids). Maybe they think they can fill 25 HKG MD-11 FO's in 3. We all know any Capt seats will be filled on round 1. MGT knows it too.

BoxDawg

HELLO...........Is there anyone there? Is there life in this guy?

FDXLAG

I guess you bid it and it isnt good enough? Thanks for raising the bar.

How come you object to my post but not this one?

DLax85

Yep --- that's what I meant by no "RETRO" in benefits --- i.e. no "back" housing allowance increase, educational benefits or COLA.

...though ALL of these items should be offered in a truly adequate FDA package!!! (...see all my posts re: the FDA package 2 1/2 yrs ago)

The reason a FDA "retro/back" payments precedent would be bad is that it would merely encourage folks to accept a lower than adequate package up front, with the hopes (...and then a guarantee) that if improved benefits are negotiated in the future they'll also get "retro" compensation.

(...note: it appears the 777 pay is contractually different)

We need to understand our leverage is "up front", when a vacancy bid is posted and goes unfilled ----- then, and only then, will anyone --- to include our negotiating committee --- have the leverage to actually improve the FDA package.

In Unity,

DLax

p.s. Sorry, I think a few of us were "talking past each other" when in reality we were in agreement ---- now I know why my high school debate teacher emphasized that agreeing to a "definition of terms" up front is so important in any discussion/debate.