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 POS LOA AOC Box Stuffer

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
Here's another good one to print out, and get into the MEM Mailboxes. This one was also not written by me, but it's a great letter and needs to find its way into the MEM AOC.

Please Read!

Unless you have been sequestered over the last 4 weeks, you have probably heard/read more about the FDA LOA than you would like. Whether or not you intend to bid an FDA, this LOA is detrimental for ALL pilots on our seniority list. It is not just about the financials. Here is a few thoughts that I haven’t really seen floating around the net.

STVs
1. If this LOA passes, we are giving the company the ability to break any attempt to show personal resolve during negotiations. This LOA allows multiple FDAs in the same geographical area (ie A310 CDG, 757 CDG). If, in 2010, CDG based 757 pilots decide to spend more time at home with their families, the company can declare the need for A310s in CDG and staff it inside a month with STV pilots. Would we be working under our current contract right now if this had been possible last summer?
2. Inverse seniority pilots to fill STVs on a 3 month TDY basis? If the living situation is so bad in an FDA that the company needs to force us to live there, why would we ever vote for this?

Enhanced Move Package
1. This is NOT an enhanced move, whatever the company calls it. Please note that the company has tied the $2700 ($1800 after tax) monthly housing adjustment to this package. This is NOT because the enhanced move package is a good deal. If a pilot chooses the far superior CBA move package, the adjustment is $0. If the company wants to offer a more convenient package for them – fine. But why are we taking the concession?

Not an expansion of flying
1. Realize that as the company is opening overseas domiciles, this is not exactly tied to expansion of the airline. We are not being posted overseas to open up more routes – we can do that with SIBA. The company is doing this to be more efficient. Pilots working more days in domicile means fewer pilots, less seniority list expansion. We shouldn’t block this idea, as efficiency enhances the overall health of Fedex, but why should we take concessions for this?

HKG GT
This is a great example of what is wrong with this LOA. Here we are waiving the 2 hour max GT parameter that we have won for our SIG in previous contracts. Why? Because it is more than 3 hours to CAN from HKG. But, we are waiving this with no restrictions for scheduling. Two examples of legal pairings:
1. HKG-CAN GT – 6 hours APT STBY – CAN-HKG GT
2. HKG-CAN GT – O&B HKG-MNL-HKG – CAN-HKG GT
Each of these has a duty period of about 12 hours, but with 6 hours in a van.
It is similar to riding from Nashville to MEM and back, with flight duty in between.
Is this really what we want?

Signing a Blank Check
We have no idea what the pairings or lines will look like. So let me get this straight. The company expects us to vote on this LOA prior to seeing what our professional life will be like in CDG or HKG? You can be assured that Fedex has built numerous sample pairings, lines, and even bid packs. Let’s get a look at these and lock in restrictions to potential onerous changes before we agree to any LOA conditions. Remember, the company wants US to lock in our intentions with 2-3 years commitments – shouldn’t we get the same from them?

Catering
A minor point, but it highlights how this LOA was not well thought out by our MEC. The only catering required for CDG based crewmembers (as opposed to SIBA) will be a mini-snack into CDG, and a mini-snack outbound. This is because of how duty periods are catered with respect to a pilot’s trip ending in an FDA and a new trip starting with the outbound leg. Read the first sentence of Sect 5.E.1. This section is currently being applied in Subic . MD-11 crews hubturning through SFS are catered as per their complete DP (over 9+00 duty, two full meals). SFS based crews hubturning Subic receive a mini-snack inbound, and a snack service (management loves us) outbound, even with a 12+00 duty period.

Why the Rush?
When was the last time that our union negotiated something as big as this LOA without polling? It seems that we are being rushed into an agreement that is, well, everything the company needs, and serves our association rather marginally. What is the
rush? Management needs to keep the schoolhouse filled and they want to bundle an FDA LOA with an upcoming bid. We have been successfully flying SIBA with double deadheads for over 15 years. Why now the sudden rush?

What if it gets turned down?
[FONT=Times New
Roman]While most pilots I know are planning to vote NO on this LOA, a few pilots voting for it have expressed concern of ‘what if it gets turned down?’ [/FONT]
1. To my knowledge, there has not been a single offer from management that hasn’t improved after the crewforce opposed it. When the original Subic domicile opened in 1995, not enough pilots bid the new location. The company offered a larger signing bonus, and got the pilots they needed. We’ve turned down two TAs and two “3%” offers. All four times we showed some resolve to management and gave our negotiating committee some needed clout to work a better deal.
2. The company can’t do it without our help. While our flying (according to our MEC during our current CBA road shows) is protected legally by our scope agreements, our biggest protection is the good job we do each and every night. When routes are flown by non-fedex pilots, our reliability drops to unsatisfactory levels. Remember, if the freight doesn’t get there on time, it’s free. Also, if the company felt that they could fly our routes with other pilots, they would have done it by now.
3. So if the LOA is turned down, we might have to work under the current CBA provisions? SFS is currently working under the current FDA provisions, and I have not met any SFS pilot who would rather work under this LOA.

Conclusion
This LOA will affect all of us for years to come, and a substandard deal serves no one in our crewforce. Once again, the company is trying to save millions on the back of the pilots, and broker an LOA that not only serves them in the FDA, but cripples our ability to pressure negotiations in 2010. Please vote NO and empower our negotiating committee to work a fairer FDA agreement.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top