Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
FedEX HKG LOA is out, and boy is it funny...
- Thread starter propjob27
- Start date
- Watchers 33
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
propjob27
I have people skills!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Posts
- 469
Guys:
I think most people here (on this forum) agree on a couple of key points:
1. This LOA is far, far substandard to any other company's Pilot (let alone executive) Ex-Pat Package.
2. The Company can definitely afford a better package.
3. Of the much touted " Hooray guys, $ 40,000 per year extra for each pilot!", absolutely NONE of it will end up in the pilot's pocket because of taking away the Ex-Pat tax exemption, as well as having to spend a huge amount out-of-pocket for rent. In fact, it will be both a real and perceived pay CUT for the pilot. And again, this is for RENT. The individual pilot will end up with equity in absolutely nothing. How many FedEX pilots state-side rent an apartment vs owning a home??
4. By omitting tuition coverage, FedEX, the "family orientated company that it is", has COMPLETELY excluded anyone with a school age child from bidding an FDA, both present and future FDA's
5. In the years to come, this LOA will affect FAR more than the approx. 160 pilots (80 in HKG, 80 in CDG), as FedEX continues a huge portion of its growth overseas. You think these bases won't get any bigger? You think these will be the only 2 FDA's? We need to set a legit precedent.
6. The argument, "we need to pass this because if we turn it down, they will just run a bid anyway..." is completely invalid. Let 'em, see what happens. The MEC wants you to think that, so they don't look bad by presenting a substandard package to the voters that gets turned down.
The people who read these boards are only a very small percentage of our pilot group. This information is not reaching the masses of eligible voters. There was an MD-11 Captain here in Subic on a layover who said he was not going to vote at all because this LOA would not affect him. Ridiculous.
Please guys, spread the word among the rest of the pilot group. Use emails, word of mouth, whatever you can.
I think most people here (on this forum) agree on a couple of key points:
1. This LOA is far, far substandard to any other company's Pilot (let alone executive) Ex-Pat Package.
2. The Company can definitely afford a better package.
3. Of the much touted " Hooray guys, $ 40,000 per year extra for each pilot!", absolutely NONE of it will end up in the pilot's pocket because of taking away the Ex-Pat tax exemption, as well as having to spend a huge amount out-of-pocket for rent. In fact, it will be both a real and perceived pay CUT for the pilot. And again, this is for RENT. The individual pilot will end up with equity in absolutely nothing. How many FedEX pilots state-side rent an apartment vs owning a home??
4. By omitting tuition coverage, FedEX, the "family orientated company that it is", has COMPLETELY excluded anyone with a school age child from bidding an FDA, both present and future FDA's
5. In the years to come, this LOA will affect FAR more than the approx. 160 pilots (80 in HKG, 80 in CDG), as FedEX continues a huge portion of its growth overseas. You think these bases won't get any bigger? You think these will be the only 2 FDA's? We need to set a legit precedent.
6. The argument, "we need to pass this because if we turn it down, they will just run a bid anyway..." is completely invalid. Let 'em, see what happens. The MEC wants you to think that, so they don't look bad by presenting a substandard package to the voters that gets turned down.
The people who read these boards are only a very small percentage of our pilot group. This information is not reaching the masses of eligible voters. There was an MD-11 Captain here in Subic on a layover who said he was not going to vote at all because this LOA would not affect him. Ridiculous.
Please guys, spread the word among the rest of the pilot group. Use emails, word of mouth, whatever you can.
Last edited:
I don't really care what the MEC presents to me anymore, they lost all their credibility with me when the railroaded us on the Age 60 vote. I'm against age 65, however, if even close to 50% of the FEDEX pilots had wanted the change I would have accepted the MEC actions and moved on. But when they blatently disregard the will of over 70% of the crew force, it demonstrates that they are more concerned with ALPA national and @sshole Prater, than representing FEDEX pilots.
I skimmed over the FDA stuff and realized that it pretty much sucked. For me (personally) this vote is a vote of confidence in the MEC and I will be voting NO NO NO!
I no longer trust or even care to be a part of ALPA (other than the fact that I have to due to our contract) They can steal my 2%, but the lanyard, tie pin, and all of the ALPA bag tags are now in the local landfill. (I will keep the pocket calander though, at least until the end of the year).
This FDA is lousy but will probably pass because all the guys who will never bid an overseas assignment don't care what the provisions are. They just want the new bid to come out in order to move seats or to gain seat seniority. The MEC only needs 51% to get this thing passed.
I skimmed over the FDA stuff and realized that it pretty much sucked. For me (personally) this vote is a vote of confidence in the MEC and I will be voting NO NO NO!
I no longer trust or even care to be a part of ALPA (other than the fact that I have to due to our contract) They can steal my 2%, but the lanyard, tie pin, and all of the ALPA bag tags are now in the local landfill. (I will keep the pocket calander though, at least until the end of the year).
This FDA is lousy but will probably pass because all the guys who will never bid an overseas assignment don't care what the provisions are. They just want the new bid to come out in order to move seats or to gain seat seniority. The MEC only needs 51% to get this thing passed.
propjob27
I have people skills!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2003
- Posts
- 469
And we only need 51% to stop it. Talk to guys, educate them briefly on how bad this LOA is, and we have a fighting chance. The MEC is definitely worried about it failing, and the resultant loss of face that will follow. Try to reach the 70% of us who said "NO" to age 65 deal. Those should be easy guys to help shoot down this LOA.
Don't give up, talk to the voting masses.
AlbieF15
F15 Ret/FDX/InterviewPrep
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 1,764
Here was my note from another board...
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Mesa has a contract to bring American pilots over to China to fly CRJs. Cathay hires expats from all over the world to come to HKG and work--and gives them a great deal. Yet our company wants a "concessionary" LOA to get guys to go over? Forget it. They are bluffing. If they wanted Chinese pilots they'd have them already.
This RLA thing seems to be what the union wants. It seems to be worth whatever price the company asks. I disagree.
I had a long talk with the block 3 rep yesterday. Kudos to him and the MEC guys for being around to take spears and attempt to answer questions. While I respect his effort, his answers in my opinion are woefully short.
Specifically--he pointed out that STVs are only 3 months--and we already get sent non-vol'd to TRAINING for 3 months. I told him I didn' think those two points related at all. First of all--being in MEM, DAL, MCO or MIA for 3 months means I'm a jumpseat await from home--not on another continent. Also--I BID for that. SVT is not voluntary! Scott indicated he might bid over just for the adventure of it. I commend him and his spirit. His family situation is different. However--he's got a choice. They guy who gets sent non-vol'd may not be able to get home to visit due to trip arrangements in the bidpack, and his family may not be able to join him (after flying coach around the world) due to school, work, or other family obligations.
Again--and I may be wrong but here goes.... If SCOPE is such a scary issue, and losing this to foreign pilots, why do I make so much money helping American pilots get jobs for countries overseas? IMHO--10 years from now a Chinese airline might be a threat--but not today--and its not worth sacrificing our family lives or working for a very substandard deal to mitigate a threat that isn't there. When that threat does arrive--if they can fly cheaper and more effectively than we can it will take more than our LOA to stop FedEx from using them. Why hasn't Cathay hired up all those local pilots? They'd save a TON in domicile costs.
Tuck--if guys want to bid overseas now the current CBA isn't that terrible. If they get inversed, they fly SIBA type lines and get home every month--first class--and get a hotel provided. Tax equalization is NOT a benefit--its a break even proposition--and $2700 won't pay the rent. Voting NO will send a message--like you and your -11 FOs did last year--that we aren't going to take crap deals and throw outselves under a bus because we are scared of the "unknowns".
Your MEC is fighting hard for this because they know THEIR credibility is at stake. How much do you think they are working to help the junior guys out? What is their track record on that?
Another point that came up in our discussion was "trust". As Check 6 pointed out, the company CAN use ANY plane in the FDA they see fit. Scott's answer was it comes down to trust--we have to believe the company will do what they say they will do for meaningful dialog to take place. His point is valid--but here is some food for thought.
What happened when an ACP and forum regular went to the mat for some 'acceptable fares" issues?
What happened to our new A300 ACP--the former grievance rep who's appointment "sent a signal" that we could all work together now professionally? (Hint: He's not in the AOC ACP offices...)
Who recently was selected as the MEM CP even though he has a reputation for being one of the "least pilot friendly" ACPs when it comes to sick leave, mil leave, etc?
In other words--what kind of handwriting is on the wall right now about the culture and climate our management wants to create the next couple years? They are steamrolling our MEC, optimizing schedules, and asking for the ability to send you AGAINST YOU WILL overseas for months at a time away from our families.
Our MEC says "yeah...but if you don't sign it will be worse".
Dudes--vote your own heart. But I'll take my chances. I dont' want to be negotiating with RT, DM, OR, or any other flight manager over what will happen if I don't accept this 3 month separation from my family. If you really believe that will never happen, and that somehow those folks will allow you to stay home and send someone else senior to you--I wish you luck. If you think your union--which signed off the LOA--will grieve you going for family reasons and they accept sending some SENIOR TO YOU abroad against their will because of your particular hardship--again--I wish you luck.
I don't want to trust my luck. I want to be able to control my schedule under the current CBA. I want to bid what I want to fly and not be forced to live in squalor in an overseas location halfway around the world from my family.
I do not trust the company. I do not trust this MEC. So I am voting no. I hope you vote no too.[/FONT]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Mesa has a contract to bring American pilots over to China to fly CRJs. Cathay hires expats from all over the world to come to HKG and work--and gives them a great deal. Yet our company wants a "concessionary" LOA to get guys to go over? Forget it. They are bluffing. If they wanted Chinese pilots they'd have them already.
This RLA thing seems to be what the union wants. It seems to be worth whatever price the company asks. I disagree.
I had a long talk with the block 3 rep yesterday. Kudos to him and the MEC guys for being around to take spears and attempt to answer questions. While I respect his effort, his answers in my opinion are woefully short.
Specifically--he pointed out that STVs are only 3 months--and we already get sent non-vol'd to TRAINING for 3 months. I told him I didn' think those two points related at all. First of all--being in MEM, DAL, MCO or MIA for 3 months means I'm a jumpseat await from home--not on another continent. Also--I BID for that. SVT is not voluntary! Scott indicated he might bid over just for the adventure of it. I commend him and his spirit. His family situation is different. However--he's got a choice. They guy who gets sent non-vol'd may not be able to get home to visit due to trip arrangements in the bidpack, and his family may not be able to join him (after flying coach around the world) due to school, work, or other family obligations.
Again--and I may be wrong but here goes.... If SCOPE is such a scary issue, and losing this to foreign pilots, why do I make so much money helping American pilots get jobs for countries overseas? IMHO--10 years from now a Chinese airline might be a threat--but not today--and its not worth sacrificing our family lives or working for a very substandard deal to mitigate a threat that isn't there. When that threat does arrive--if they can fly cheaper and more effectively than we can it will take more than our LOA to stop FedEx from using them. Why hasn't Cathay hired up all those local pilots? They'd save a TON in domicile costs.
Tuck--if guys want to bid overseas now the current CBA isn't that terrible. If they get inversed, they fly SIBA type lines and get home every month--first class--and get a hotel provided. Tax equalization is NOT a benefit--its a break even proposition--and $2700 won't pay the rent. Voting NO will send a message--like you and your -11 FOs did last year--that we aren't going to take crap deals and throw outselves under a bus because we are scared of the "unknowns".
Your MEC is fighting hard for this because they know THEIR credibility is at stake. How much do you think they are working to help the junior guys out? What is their track record on that?
Another point that came up in our discussion was "trust". As Check 6 pointed out, the company CAN use ANY plane in the FDA they see fit. Scott's answer was it comes down to trust--we have to believe the company will do what they say they will do for meaningful dialog to take place. His point is valid--but here is some food for thought.
What happened when an ACP and forum regular went to the mat for some 'acceptable fares" issues?
What happened to our new A300 ACP--the former grievance rep who's appointment "sent a signal" that we could all work together now professionally? (Hint: He's not in the AOC ACP offices...)
Who recently was selected as the MEM CP even though he has a reputation for being one of the "least pilot friendly" ACPs when it comes to sick leave, mil leave, etc?
In other words--what kind of handwriting is on the wall right now about the culture and climate our management wants to create the next couple years? They are steamrolling our MEC, optimizing schedules, and asking for the ability to send you AGAINST YOU WILL overseas for months at a time away from our families.
Our MEC says "yeah...but if you don't sign it will be worse".
Dudes--vote your own heart. But I'll take my chances. I dont' want to be negotiating with RT, DM, OR, or any other flight manager over what will happen if I don't accept this 3 month separation from my family. If you really believe that will never happen, and that somehow those folks will allow you to stay home and send someone else senior to you--I wish you luck. If you think your union--which signed off the LOA--will grieve you going for family reasons and they accept sending some SENIOR TO YOU abroad against their will because of your particular hardship--again--I wish you luck.
I don't want to trust my luck. I want to be able to control my schedule under the current CBA. I want to bid what I want to fly and not be forced to live in squalor in an overseas location halfway around the world from my family.
I do not trust the company. I do not trust this MEC. So I am voting no. I hope you vote no too.[/FONT]
pipe
fuggedaboutit
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Posts
- 660
Vote NO! Let them non-vol us if they want. It will probably only happen once to any one of us between now and the next contract negotiations. You want to talk about a crew force that will be primed to strike!!!!
There will be those that have already been - and are pi$$ed. There will be those that are staring down the barrel of one - and are pi$$ed. There will be those that are afraid to bid up because of it - and are pi$$ed. All in all, I am willing to endure one non-vol assignment for 90 days and then come back and remove it from their proverbial hides in spades!!!!! A lot of guys will be ready to burn it down before they'll look at a whole career of military-style TDY.
PIPE
There will be those that have already been - and are pi$$ed. There will be those that are staring down the barrel of one - and are pi$$ed. There will be those that are afraid to bid up because of it - and are pi$$ed. All in all, I am willing to endure one non-vol assignment for 90 days and then come back and remove it from their proverbial hides in spades!!!!! A lot of guys will be ready to burn it down before they'll look at a whole career of military-style TDY.
PIPE
Diesel
TEB Hilton resident
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
- Posts
- 4,394
Albie you hit the nail on the head. American's flying in asia are what Indian call centers are to american jobs. The asian carriers waaaant asians to fly their planes bad. They work well with the intricacies of their own culture. Yet no asians want the high paying jobs that Cathay and other airlines offer over there because its beneath them. Like you said why do carriers recruit so hard in america and europe?
The really scarry part is the 3 month assignment in asia. If you don't think it can happen to you because your on another piece of equipment..... well unless its written it doesn't exist.
Sure some guys will go over for the adventure.... but what if those same guys find a nice american girl and settle down to have a family. Oh i know your baby is due but we've just assigned you to hkg for 3 months. Good luck with that.
You think voting no will make their next offer worse? Ha how can it get any worse.
The company has just completed the first step of negotiations by setting the bar so low that any increase no matter how small is seen as a huge victory by the union and the pilots. Even though the offer is still well below what they might have actually settled for.
The really scarry part is the 3 month assignment in asia. If you don't think it can happen to you because your on another piece of equipment..... well unless its written it doesn't exist.
Sure some guys will go over for the adventure.... but what if those same guys find a nice american girl and settle down to have a family. Oh i know your baby is due but we've just assigned you to hkg for 3 months. Good luck with that.
You think voting no will make their next offer worse? Ha how can it get any worse.
The company has just completed the first step of negotiations by setting the bar so low that any increase no matter how small is seen as a huge victory by the union and the pilots. Even though the offer is still well below what they might have actually settled for.
Company says they are 500 pilots heavy?? are they trying to get all the new guys to vote yes?? im a new guy and i would rather be furloughed than live under STV in this LOA... F*** IT! Not worth it too be sent for 3 months involuntarily, IM NOT IN THE F****** Military anymore!!!!!! KISS my A$$... I can find a job flying somewhere else, or maybe this piece of $hit LOA will make me get out of flying altogether....SEND ME for 3 months involuntairly and they get my RESIGNATION....Simple.......This politicaly correct bullcrap nice guy ALPA negoiating has got to stop!!!! We need to stick together and return to the old way to get the company to give us what we want..... Sick outs...OOOPS the airplane broke..... slow taxi outs..... extra gas.... drop the flaps and gear 40 miles out.... last minute write ups,,so nothing leaves ontime!!!! etc....
sandman2122
who's light?
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2004
- Posts
- 596
1stCivDiv
Window Seat
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Posts
- 93
Here is the letter I just sent my MEC Rep...
"I wanted to voice my concern about the proposed LOA, especially for us more junior crewmembers. Although, even the more senior crewmembers activating to Capt should be concerned also. I have serious reservations in voting for this LOA in the current language, and I will tell you why. The inverse assignment of crewmembers to fill the “temporary vacancies”. This seems like a 2 year open-ended license for the company to fill the seats in the new domiciles. I personally got out of the military because I was tired of the 90 day deployments, under the language that is what we would be signing up for, involuntary 90 day rotations. If you do the math this has the potential to affect a significant number of crewmembers, both in the FO and Capt seats. Money aside, this is a bad deal for most of the junior crewmembers in each crew position.
My thoughts on the LOA is that if it doesn’t pass and nobody bids the new domiciles then the company would be forced to give some type of monetary benefit to lure crewmembers to bid it. The percentage of people that these new domiciles affects is small, compared to the potential number of crewmembers that would be forced to a 90 day involuntary deployment.
The next issue that concerns me greatly is the obviously one-sided view that the MEC put out in the latest email garnering support for the LOA. There was absolutely NO mention of this inverse assignment process in the email, which I feel is a disservice to at least half of the crew force. You know as well as I do that a very small minority of pilots will actually read the LOA, the majority will vote solely based on the MEC email endorsing it.
As our representative, I am asking that you try to get the word out on the ENTIRE picture of the LOA and the potential ramifications for the more junior crewmembers in all crew positions. I think this is a time to not be so greedy and leave the money on the table in favor of not forcing junior guys to leave their families for 90 days at a time. Under the current contract language the company can not inversely or involuntarily assign crew members anywhere. This LOA as serious quality of life issues. If a small minority of pilots want to bid these domiciles they need to deal with the potential tax problems etc, or don’t bid it. When the domicile is not staffed the company will be forced to give some incentive. Not force other crewmembers that don’t bid it to deploy and leave their families.
Thanks for hearing me out!!"
PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS PEICE OF CRAP!!
"I wanted to voice my concern about the proposed LOA, especially for us more junior crewmembers. Although, even the more senior crewmembers activating to Capt should be concerned also. I have serious reservations in voting for this LOA in the current language, and I will tell you why. The inverse assignment of crewmembers to fill the “temporary vacancies”. This seems like a 2 year open-ended license for the company to fill the seats in the new domiciles. I personally got out of the military because I was tired of the 90 day deployments, under the language that is what we would be signing up for, involuntary 90 day rotations. If you do the math this has the potential to affect a significant number of crewmembers, both in the FO and Capt seats. Money aside, this is a bad deal for most of the junior crewmembers in each crew position.
My thoughts on the LOA is that if it doesn’t pass and nobody bids the new domiciles then the company would be forced to give some type of monetary benefit to lure crewmembers to bid it. The percentage of people that these new domiciles affects is small, compared to the potential number of crewmembers that would be forced to a 90 day involuntary deployment.
The next issue that concerns me greatly is the obviously one-sided view that the MEC put out in the latest email garnering support for the LOA. There was absolutely NO mention of this inverse assignment process in the email, which I feel is a disservice to at least half of the crew force. You know as well as I do that a very small minority of pilots will actually read the LOA, the majority will vote solely based on the MEC email endorsing it.
As our representative, I am asking that you try to get the word out on the ENTIRE picture of the LOA and the potential ramifications for the more junior crewmembers in all crew positions. I think this is a time to not be so greedy and leave the money on the table in favor of not forcing junior guys to leave their families for 90 days at a time. Under the current contract language the company can not inversely or involuntarily assign crew members anywhere. This LOA as serious quality of life issues. If a small minority of pilots want to bid these domiciles they need to deal with the potential tax problems etc, or don’t bid it. When the domicile is not staffed the company will be forced to give some incentive. Not force other crewmembers that don’t bid it to deploy and leave their families.
Thanks for hearing me out!!"
PLEASE VOTE NO ON THIS PEICE OF CRAP!!
1stCivDiv
Window Seat
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2004
- Posts
- 93
I am starting to think after the last two major issues that some company infiltrators have made it into the heads of some of our leadership. Because if they were seriously looking out for our best interests they would have voted this POS down, instead of approving it 11-1...Are you kidding me?? Same with the age 60 issue, and we voted for these fools?? Geez, next time I am going to pay more attention to who they elect into the MEC...
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
