FedEX HKG LOA is out, and boy is it funny...

[Flytrap]

I think DLax is right on the mark. As someone who is about 3 months away from having a vote, I hope someone is voting NO for me. I was definitely very interested in 75's in CDG, but this LOA is awful. The military isn't the most generous when it comes to compensation, but their housing allowance and COLA makes this deal laughable (not to mention medical, schools, and tax advantage). The company can do better. As far as no bid until this thing is ironed out, I am looking forward to upgrading as much as anyone- but I am not willing to take a substandard deal to do it. Besides with 440+ S/O's, something has got to give. How long will the company let us sit on reserve not working and collecting a paycheck with the continued aquisition of widebodies and retirement of 72's? I look forward to reading the SFS rep's minority opinion.

 

[cgflyer]

Our union doesn't need your vote to make changes, they've proven that. I believe that if they feel this LOA will not pass with a yes vote, they will word it so that a yes or no vote is actually that which approves the LOA. Or at least try to confuse the actual issue.

Please vote yes or no..."Do you not agree that this LOA should not pass or that if it passes or not that your union representative should decide or not decide which way your vote was or not meant to go."

We are just worthless providers of funding for their fact finding trips abroad. (Yes, I might be a little bitter about the age 60 trick they played)

 

[Balut]

Our union doesn't need your vote to make changes, they've proven that. I believe that if they feel this LOA will not pass with a yes vote, they will word it so that a yes or no vote is actually that which approves the LOA. Or at least try to confuse the actual issue.

Please vote yes or no..."Do you not agree that this LOA should not pass or that if it passes or not that your union representative should decide or not decide which way your vote was or not meant to go."

We are just worthless providers of funding for their fact finding trips abroad. (Yes, I might be a little bitter about the age 60 trick they played)

Now that was funny

 

[instructordude]

The problem is that when we vote it down (which I think is likely) the company will come up with a new "nugget" program to fill the bases. Some guy making sqaut at a regional would jump on the opportunity to be hired into the right seat of a wide body at FedEx. Of course, if it does somehow pass and not enough people bid it, they will still have to start another "nugget" program.

Instructordude is ready to fly the heavies.

 

[LaidOffAgain]

I think DLax is right on the mark. As someone who is about 3 months away from having a vote, I hope someone is voting NO for me. I was definitely very interested in 75's in CDG, but this LOA is awful. The military isn't the most generous when it comes to compensation, but their housing allowance and COLA makes this deal laughable (not to mention medical, schools, and tax advantage). The company can do better. As far as no bid until this thing is ironed out, I am looking forward to upgrading as much as anyone- but I am not willing to take a substandard deal to do it. Besides with 440+ S/O's, something has got to give. How long will the company let us sit on reserve not working and collecting a paycheck with the continued aquisition of widebodies and retirement of 72's? I look forward to reading the SFS rep's minority opinion.

Minority report, no kidding and I bet the rose colored glass will be off when he writes that report!

Read section 6 of the contract and see how much we are giving up if we sign this LOA. Giving away the farm and the tractors!

 

[jtmpilot]

HMMM vote down the LOA...outcome ...they junior man you to hong kong and spend $300 a night for your hotel and 24hr a day per diem for 30 days.....
cost to the company $9000 a month for the hotel....
and $2200 a month in your pocket for per diem with no strings attached...... vs. $2700 a month for producing a lease in order to get paid.... sounds like a no brainer to me.....VOTE NO!!!!!!!! the company is sitting in the woods saying crap i hope these idiots take the $2700 a month option.........

 

[AlbieF15]

My biggest concern...

The more I look at D. Temporary Vacancies for HKG and CDG, the more concerned I get.

It looks to me like the company can send you involuntarily overseas for 3 bid periods every 18 bid periods, or 90-120 days ever year and a half.

All this talk of "well...we are screwing the JUNIOR folks" may be N/A. You may be screwing a lot of guys WHO AREN'T that junior into doing A300 FO flying in China who really don't want to be there--for the price of a hotel room, perdiem, and a coach ticket for family. Here's why:

First--I am not sure how USERRA affects this, but sending a guy with ANG/Reserve obligations creates a few problems. First--he/she has required drills, training, and events they must do. Second--there are likely some security issues. We've got an F-22 pilot and a 1 or 2 star general running around our campus....a former B-2 driver, etc. There may be some guys with security clearance issues. So--let's make assumption one--that some guys opt out of being "inversed" with military leave.

Next--you can only go once every 18 months. Suppose FDX needs 10 A300 FOs to fill out the China slots. They start at the bottom of the list. 3-4 opt out with military leave. We are now up to 14 from the bottom of this list. The company can inversley assign according the LOA "the most junior qualified pilots." Who is qualified? What if pilot 15 has a baby on the way, and pilot 16 has a special needs child? Who makes the call if they go? I suspect the ACP and CP would have to confer. Suppose they agree these guys don't need to go...who's next...now we are at 17 and 18 from the bottom. And guys...that is for THIS bid period of 3 bid periods. Guess what happens in 90-120 days? We start OVER...this time at Mr 18 from the bottom of the list. THIS HAS TO POTENTIAL TO AFFECT A LOT OF PEOPLE BESIDES THE BOTTOM 20%. You could end up working well up the list as guys came up with reasons--legitimate or otherwise--to opt out of going over. I can see no bigger morale destroyer than sending guys over out of seniority order, and having to involve union and company officals to decide who's "right" to go and who isn't. Think cubicile politics are nasty now? Imagine guys sucking up to CPs begging not to get sent. What would destroy unity quicker?

Since I've been at FDX, we have never really had junior manning. If you weren't on reserve, you didnt' have to fly if you didn't want to! This LOA changes all of that. How many of you former military guys sat around waiting for the shoe to drop on the next "bad deal" to the 90-120 day non flying gig? At least there you got a combat tax exclusion, which will save more money that the tax equalization proposed here. The big issue isn't money--its control! Do you really want to be called by your ACP and told "pack your bags, you are off to China for 3 months! Don't worry--mom and the kids can join you (if she doesn't work, gets all the kids their shots, finds someone to watch the house, take care of the pets, etc etc) and fly coach across the Pacific to join you in your hotel."

I think this ability to junior man the overseas bases is the most dangerous thing in a contract I've seen since I've been at FedEx. Think volunteers will suck up all these slots? What happens when the next bout of Bird Flu, SARS, terrorist strikes, or a move by China against Taiwan occur? Sure would stink to have to choose between leaving your family three months or losing your job.

For me--the more I read this--not "NO" but "HELL NO". And its not about the money. Keep the CBA as is and open your domiciles--but don't send us involuntarily.

And yes--I know they can inverse SIBA....it happened to me in 04 on the 727 (really!) But SIBA bidpacks allow you to come home every month, and are nothing like being stuck abroad. I'd compare the two to being stationed in theater like a KC-135 or an F-15, verses flying in and out of country in a C-17. Both are tough jobs, but the C-17 guy gets to kiss the wife and kids every couple weeks back home in Charleston or McChord. Those other guys are stuck away for a very, very long time.

 

[jtmpilot]

whenever the military gets more for any job than a civilian you know something is wrong!!! no saying the military doesnt deserve it, i was in the military and our COLA was always below par, so if the military is getting more COLA than we are...something is deffinetly wrong..... we would be better off not having FDA's, the company wants them so they can turn everything into a hub turn... i can see it now 12.9 hrs to hong kong on the MD11 sit for 36 hrs and 12.9 back, no more nice 72 hr sits in SYD.. that will be turns operated from hong kong.. all the good international flying will be run from the FDA's... another way to prevent the duty rig increase from being more money for the International guys... we will all be hub turning in the future... wether its long hub turns out of MEM or hub turns out of HKG and CDG... i say VOTE NO!!! and dont bid them either.... I cant satnd 20yrs of BORING FLYING!!!!!!!!!!

ALBIE i dont have a account for Airline P. cen. can you post this there for other to chew the fat with?... everytime i sign up it says i cant use an aol or yahoo email address and i dont want to use my work email to sign up....thanks man, im still sending guys your way when they ask me for interview assistance.....

 

[K-Mart]

I would bet more of this will be coming your guys way. FedEx is a growing international monster and it will need more crews overseas. Real good stuff and it pays well.

As far as guys with Security Clearances, it really shouldn't matter unless they are in a SCI/PRP program that forbids them. Hell there is an embassy in China and you have to have a TS/SCI. Food for thought.


I think all of this is really good news for you guys. Expansion plus international. I'm sure there will be some true freight dogs that would jump at a chance to live in HK or Paris for a few years. There has to be.

 

[HillbillyPilot]

Voting Yes to LOA? Two things you MUST know

ONE-- French: "Cet appartement est très gentil mais il est trop cher. Pourriez-vous me montrer un autre endroit à côté des voies de chemin de fer ou peut-être près de la centrale nucléaire ? Ces prix pourraient être plus agréables."


TWO-- Cantonese: "這棟公寓是非常好的，但它是太昂貴的。 您或許可能在鐵軌旁邊顯示我另一個地方或在核電站旁邊？ 那些價格也許是更加愉快的."


Translation: "This apartment is very nice but it is too expensive. Could you show me another place next to the railroad tracks or perhaps beside the nuclear power plant? Those prices might be more agreeable."

I suggest you print this page for future reference.

 

[1st Overnite]

Has anyone considered that the company is counting on Hillary becoming the next president. If that is the case, more people would probably be willing to put up with a bad LOA in order to get out to the country

 

[FedExFlyer]

Has anyone considered that the company is counting on Hillary becoming the next president. If that is the case, more people would probably be willing to put up with a bad LOA in order to get out to the country

There are term limits to the presidency......hasnt she already served her 2 term limit from 1992-2000??uke:

 

[corpflunkie]

I believe the limit is on 2 consecutive terms. Not total terms. The Clinton's are coming again

 

[Mookie]

Has anyone considered that the company is counting on Hillary becoming the next president. If that is the case, more people would probably be willing to put up with a bad LOA in order to get out to the country

best post on FI in years...

 

[Falconjet]

I believe the limit is on 2 consecutive terms. Not total terms. The Clinton's are coming again

Incorrect. On both counts.

FJ

 

[Diesel]

First--I am not sure how USERRA affects this, but sending a guy with ANG/Reserve obligations creates a few problems. First--he/she has required drills, training, and events they must do. Second--there are likely some security issues. We've got an F-22 pilot and a 1 or 2 star general running around our campus....a former B-2 driver, etc. There may be some guys with security clearance issues. So--let's make assumption one--that some guys opt out of being "inversed" with military leave.

For those that don't have the mil leave option any updates?

 

[propjob27]

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.

 

[El Pobre]

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.

 

[propjob27]

The MEC only needs 51% to get this thing passed.

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.

 

[Diesel]

Hmmmmmm 11 to 1 on the MEC votes yes for the deal.

70 percent of pilots vote no for it.

Seems to me that the mec is a little out of touch with

Reality
The Cost of Living
the line pilots

or pretty much all of above.

 

[AlbieF15]

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]

 

[pipe]

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

 

[Diesel]

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.

 

[jtmpilot]

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]

I'm voting NO to this LOA pos.

 

[AV80R]

Could someone compare the Subic Bay to the China/Europe LOA for a non-purple pilot?

I understand most of you guys do not like the agreement – would the benefits be that different from your current benefits in Subic? Thanks in advance from a brownie.

Good luck to y'all!

 

[1stCivDiv]

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!!

 

[Diesel]

If you vote yes get ready to "deploy" to asia for 3 months. No matter what your seniority is.

This LOA opens pandora's box. Don't let it happen.

 

[propjob27]

Spread the word.

Don't let the company fool you with "big bid as soon as the LOA passes" or the union fool you with "this is the best deal we could get".

Spread the word.

 

[1stCivDiv]

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...