Airline Pilot Forums

Airline Pilot Forums was designed to be a community where working airline pilots can share ideas and information about the aviation field. In the forum you will find information about major and regional airline carriers, career training, interview and job seeker help, finance, and living the airline pilot lifestyle.




View Full Version : MD-10's Going Away Sooner


PicklePausePull
11-21-2019, 06:48 AM
Anyone else notice the blurb in today's MD-11 Update? ALL Md-10-10's gone in 14 months with the remaining -30's to follow. That appears far more than the 17-20 they previously indicated would be put out to pasture.


Freighthumper
11-21-2019, 10:11 AM
Anyone else notice the blurb in today's MD-11 Update? ALL Md-10-10's gone in 14 months with the remaining -30's to follow. That appears far more than the 17-20 they previously indicated would be put out to pasture.

Nothing new here, the MD11 fleet ops update a year ago(11/14/18) said the 10-10s would be gone in two years. Also said the -30s would be around almost as long as the 11s. Weíll see.

PicklePausePull
12-03-2019, 07:17 AM
Nothing new here, the MD11 fleet ops update a year ago(11/14/18) said the 10-10s would be gone in two years. Also said the -30s would be around almost as long as the 11s. Weíll see.

Latest rumor from MEM: All MD-11's gone in 4 years; looking to replace with A330F.


BoilerUP
12-03-2019, 09:50 AM
Didn't FDX just buy all of Lufthansa's MD11s for parts?

The factory A330F, based on the -200 fuselage, only holds about 3% more containerized volume than the 763F. The A330-300 P2F holds about 20% more volume than a 763F, and 10% less than the MD11.

There is no factory 330-300 or 330-900 freighter...though for a sizable order I suppose anything might be possible.

I wonder how hard FDX and UPS are lobbying Boeing to launch the 767-X, which would carry 15-17% more volume than the 763 with length and wingspan almost identical to the MD11.

FXLAX
12-03-2019, 11:21 AM
The A350 is a better replacement for the MD-11. They just have to make a freighter version of it.

C2078
12-03-2019, 02:28 PM
The A350 is a better replacement for the MD-11. They just have to make a freighter version of it.

Being such a new platform, who knows. But seeing as it has not sold well, it they can get a combined 100+ plane order, the bean counters might be intrigued. And then thereís $$$. Might it be too expensive?

My next biggest concern is the 75, just as Fedex should be as well. Even though we are putting in new cockpits, our oldest ones are approaching 30 years 😳, and there is nothing to replace it (I believe), you have to go up to 76/A330 or down to 73. Havenít checked what an A321 can hold vs a 75. Next 5 years should be interesting in this regard.

Fedex has done a nice job staying ahead renewing the fleet. Hopefully they will continue to stay in front and push the OEMís hard enough so we can all benefit!

BoilerUP
12-03-2019, 02:32 PM
The A321 P2F holds 14 AAA/AAY containers, the same amount as FedExís 757s and one less than the UPS 757PFs.

C2078
12-03-2019, 02:35 PM
The A321 P2F holds 14 AAA/AAY containers, the same amount as FedExís 757s and one less than the UPS 757PFs.

Thank you. Next question would be the feed stock. I believe A321 inventory is pretty low, the airplane has become very popular.

FXLAX
12-03-2019, 05:24 PM
Being such a new platform, who knows. But seeing as it has not sold well, it they can get a combined 100+ plane order, the bean counters might be intrigued. And then thereís $$$. Might it be too expensive?



My next biggest concern is the 75, just as Fedex should be as well. Even though we are putting in new cockpits, our oldest ones are approaching 30 years [emoji15], and there is nothing to replace it (I believe), you have to go up to 76/A330 or down to 73. Havenít checked what an A321 can hold vs a 75. Next 5 years should be interesting in this regard.



Fedex has done a nice job staying ahead renewing the fleet. Hopefully they will continue to stay in front and push the OEMís hard enough so we can all benefit!


I donít know. I mentioned it because it came from express upper management at an indoc class.

As for the 757 replacement, I read somewhere that Boeing was in talks with FedEx about being the launch customer for the freighter version of the MoM aircraft. Then again, this was before the Max accidents. And what is this about new cockpits in the 757?

BoilerUP
12-04-2019, 06:15 AM
C2078 is a UPS guy I think, and heís talking about our 757/767s being converted to Rockwel Collins LDS.

C2078
12-04-2019, 07:29 AM
C2078 is a UPS guy I think, and heís talking about our 757/767s being converted to Rockwel Collins LDS.

Yes, Boiler, forgot to clarify. Thank you.

Thrust Hold
12-04-2019, 10:45 AM
C2078 is a UPS guy I think, and heís talking about our 757/767s being converted to Rockwel Collins LDS.

While we're just hoping for a single avionics setup instead of the variety pack currently installed across the 757 fleet. :D

OKLATEX
12-04-2019, 11:09 AM
Iíve heard A330s and A321s being the MD-11 and 757 replacement lately.

Of course, the 737-800/900 is always thrown out there and you would assume the company has the data they need on whether they want more 737s based on their experiences with ASL and West Atlantic flying the -400s/-800s for us in Europe.

I would think if they can get Boeing to commit to the 767X, the company would prefer that. The wingspan would be similar to the MD-11. Further, from I have heard, the company wanted the 767-400 initially, but got a sweetheart deal for the -300s.

That being said, FedEx and UPS seem to like the idea of a A330-900 and from what I gather, it is a slow seller. Maybe Airbus would like to make a deal. We all know Fred loves a deal. But, I would think with the constant issue of gate space at the outstations and Hubs, the wingspan of the A330 might be an issue.

BoilerUP
12-04-2019, 11:25 AM
330-900 has a wingspan just 2.5í shorter than the 777F, and the 330-200/300 is about 27í wider than the MD11.

thrust
12-08-2019, 06:30 AM
Of course, the 737-800/900 is always thrown out there and you would assume the company has the data they need on whether they want more 737s based on their experiences with ASL and West Atlantic flying the -400s/-800s for us in Europe.

Saw a picture recently of a 737 painted in FedEx colors. I take it thatís one of the ASL/West Atlantic ones youíre referring to. Surprised that your scope allows that- Delta mgmt tried to sneak into their last contract a provision that would allow them to paint the Delta livery on their JV ďpartnersĒ... think a Delta 787/A380 with a tiny ďoperated by AirFrance/KLMĒ on the side. What are the limits on FedEx doing the same?

USMCFDX
12-08-2019, 08:29 AM
FedEx owned and painted 757s flying intra Canada also by Canadians.

DirtyPurple
12-08-2019, 09:46 AM
Saw a picture recently of a 737 painted in FedEx colors. I take it thatís one of the ASL/West Atlantic ones youíre referring to. Surprised that your scope allows that- Delta mgmt tried to sneak into their last contract a provision that would allow them to paint the Delta livery on their JV ďpartnersĒ... think a Delta 787/A380 with a tiny ďoperated by AirFrance/KLMĒ on the side. What are the limits on FedEx doing the same?



This fall, saw with my own eyesómultiple 73s with FedEx liveries at LGG. The TNT dudes fly them. I did a double take for sure.

OKLATEX
12-08-2019, 10:01 AM
Saw a picture recently of a 737 painted in FedEx colors. I take it thatís one of the ASL/West Atlantic ones youíre referring to. Surprised that your scope allows that- Delta mgmt tried to sneak into their last contract a provision that would allow them to paint the Delta livery on their JV ďpartnersĒ... think a Delta 787/A380 with a tiny ďoperated by AirFrance/KLMĒ on the side. What are the limits on FedEx doing the same?

Back in the day Delta used to fly Pan Am colored DC-8s on an interchange with Pan American, so itís been done! I know different world we are living in. :p

Iíll be honest, I havenít checked the routes of those the 737s and assume the Union keeps a close eye on compliance. Our SCOPE is very good. Of course always could be better.

Personally, I wish the flying was ours, we do have the Cologne Domicile and would be nice to see that grow. That being said, the fact the airplanes wear FDX colors doesnít really concern me. What I do hope is that I hope the Union is assuring SCOPE compliance and there is a good faith effort by the company to get the flying back to us. They tend to prefer the flying to be in-house. If painting the airplanes in FDX helps with marketing and benefits the company in Europe, so be it. Whatís the difference between a 737 wearing FDX colors and an EMB-175 wearing DAL/AA/UAL colors honestly. Bottom line, Compliance is the biggest concern to me.

That being said, and most importantly, in this instance, those 737s at ASL, West Atlantic, and the Morning Star 757s in Canada fly for us wearing FDX colors because of a lack of 5th Freedom Rights/Route Authority and Cabotage which is allowed in our Contract.

We actually train the Morning Star Crews, or at least used to. The 737s are result of the TNT Merger, the Intra-Canada flying with Morning Star has gone on for a long time, prior to that they flew 727s.

FXLAX
12-08-2019, 08:07 PM
Saw a picture recently of a 737 painted in FedEx colors. I take it thatís one of the ASL/West Atlantic ones youíre referring to. Surprised that your scope allows that- Delta mgmt tried to sneak into their last contract a provision that would allow them to paint the Delta livery on their JV ďpartnersĒ... think a Delta 787/A380 with a tiny ďoperated by AirFrance/KLMĒ on the side. What are the limits on FedEx doing the same?


Basically anything over 60k pounds MGTW must be flow by FedEx pilots unless FedEx doesnít have regulatory approval (cabotage). There are a few exceptions.

FXLAX
12-08-2019, 08:14 PM
Iíll be honest, I havenít checked the routes of those the 737s and assume the Union keeps a close eye on compliance. Our SCOPE is very good. Of course always could be better.



Personally, I wish the flying was ours, we do have the Cologne Domicile and would be nice to see that grow. That being said, the fact the airplanes wear FDX colors doesnít really concern me. What I do hope is that I hope the Union is assuring SCOPE compliance and there is a good faith effort by the company to get the flying back to us. They tend to prefer the flying to be in-house. If painting the airplanes in FDX helps with marketing and benefits the company in Europe, so be it. Whatís the difference between a 737 wearing FDX colors and an EMB-175 wearing DAL/AA/UAL colors honestly. Bottom line, Compliance is the biggest concern to me.



There are loopholes big enough for a 777 to fly through in our scope section, if management wanted to. Also, Iíd personally like to see language added to preclude feeders from operating any jet. To me, there is a big difference between a 737 and a 175. Both should be flown by FedEx pilots if FedEx ever bought either type.

BlueMoon
12-09-2019, 02:25 AM
There are loopholes big enough for a 777 to fly through in our scope section, if management wanted to. Also, Iíd personally like to see language added to preclude feeders from operating any jet. To me, there is a big difference between a 737 and a 175. Both should be flown by FedEx pilots if FedEx ever bought either type.

Wouldnít they even under the existing contract?

E170 has a MTOW of 75,000lbs.

I wouldnít specify just jets either. Include all propulsion types.

FXLAX
12-09-2019, 08:23 AM
Wouldnít they even under the existing contract?



E170 has a MTOW of 75,000lbs.



I wouldnít specify just jets either. Include all propulsion types.


I was just responding to him that there is a big difference between a 737 and a 175. Wouldnít want either being outsourced. In our case, they couldnít.

The 60k pound limitation already applies to all propulsion types. What Iím saying is to also include jets below 60k lbs.

Moosefire
12-09-2019, 06:11 PM
There are loopholes big enough for a 777 to fly through in our scope section, if management wanted to. Also, Iíd personally like to see language added to preclude feeders from operating any jet. To me, there is a big difference between a 737 and a 175. Both should be flown by FedEx pilots if FedEx ever bought either type.

Bingo.

For instance. One of my best buds is ANC based for Alaska and frequently flies their freighters. He mentioned to me he was astonished our scope allowed them dedicating entire Alaska operated 737s (the whole jet) to moving FedEx cans. We certainly have the authority to operate in Alaska.

This next ones a bit less solid but I was departing HNL a few weeks ago and Aloha air cargo was waiting for us to vacate the spot on our ramp to park a 737 there. Maybe theyíre just using the parking spot, but I know they carry our freight as well. Would be interesting to look into, especially considering that UPS is now flying to LIH.

abides
12-09-2019, 08:38 PM
Bingo.

For instance. One of my best buds is ANC based for Alaska and frequently flies their freighters. He mentioned to me he was astonished our scope allowed them dedicating entire Alaska operated 737s (the whole jet) to moving FedEx cans. We certainly have the authority to operate in Alaska.

This next ones a bit less solid but I was departing HNL a few weeks ago and Aloha air cargo was waiting for us to vacate the spot on our ramp to park a 737 there. Maybe theyíre just using the parking spot, but I know they carry our freight as well. Would be interesting to look into, especially considering that UPS is now flying to LIH.

Alaska? Come on. Itís Southeast at the most. Farming that out is a huge benefit to FedEx. Can you imagine staffing a station in YUK or SIT? Mechanic, ramp, etc and outfitting our 757 with WAAS gps and building the RNP approaches necessary to make these destinations accessible in all seasons? Iím sure a few 737-700s full of freight doesnít pencil.

Moosefire
12-10-2019, 04:27 PM
Alaska? Come on. Itís Southeast at the most. Farming that out is a huge benefit to FedEx. Can you imagine staffing a station in YUK or SIT? Mechanic, ramp, etc and outfitting our 757 with WAAS gps and building the RNP approaches necessary to make these destinations accessible in all seasons? Iím sure a few 737-700s full of freight doesnít pencil.

Donít question your logic, just saying our scope is pretty weak if other companies are operating 737s full of FedEx freight domestically on a regular basis.

FXLAX
12-11-2019, 02:39 PM
Alaska? Come on. Itís Southeast at the most. Farming that out is a huge benefit to FedEx. Can you imagine staffing a station in YUK or SIT? Mechanic, ramp, etc and outfitting our 757 with WAAS gps and building the RNP approaches necessary to make these destinations accessible in all seasons? Iím sure a few 737-700s full of freight doesnít pencil.


Maybe itís a huge benefit to FedEx. But is it also a huge benefit to the pilots of FedEx? THAT should be the question because I can see how FedEx can make a valid economical argument for farming out a lot more flying that we currently do.

Sluggo_63
12-12-2019, 12:51 AM
Bingo.

For instance. One of my best buds is ANC based for Alaska and frequently flies their freighters. He mentioned to me he was astonished our scope allowed them dedicating entire Alaska operated 737s (the whole jet) to moving FedEx cans. We certainly have the authority to operate in Alaska.

This next ones a bit less solid but I was departing HNL a few weeks ago and Aloha air cargo was waiting for us to vacate the spot on our ramp to park a 737 there. Maybe theyíre just using the parking spot, but I know they carry our freight as well. Would be interesting to look into, especially considering that UPS is now flying to LIH.Did you email the Scope Committee about this?

3pointlanding
12-12-2019, 04:18 AM
You can forget the MD11 rumor. It is going to be around long time. As for the A330, itis only one of many they are looking at. This from the EVP

abides
12-12-2019, 12:51 PM
Maybe itís a huge benefit to FedEx. But is it also a huge benefit to the pilots of FedEx? THAT should be the question because I can see how FedEx can make a valid economical argument for farming out a lot more flying that we currently do.

Start your analysis now. Alaska just grounded itís (3) freighters.

Minimums
12-13-2019, 08:49 AM
The A321 P2F holds 14 AAA/AAY containers, the same amount as FedExís 757s and one less than the UPS 757PFs.


Sorry to resurrect an older post, but does anyone know if the A321neo is included in the P2F program? Seems that would be a much better replacement for the 757 aside from the obvious much higher cost than a ceo.

BoilerUP
12-13-2019, 09:05 AM
Sorry to resurrect an older post, but does anyone know if the A321neo is included in the P2F program? Seems that would be a much better replacement for the 757 aside from the obvious much higher cost than a ceo.

There is no factory freighter program for the 320 series, CEO or NEO, just like there isn't one for the 330-300 or any 330NEO.

That said, EFW worked closely with Airbus for all P2F programs so I'm sure it could be integrated somehow, for the right price...though I think Airbus has pretty significant lead times on the 320NEO family.

The 321NEO is the same fuselage as a CEO and doesn't really have any more payload despite a higher MTOW, so I'm not sure any additional performance or fuel burn benefits would be worth the additional capital cost.

PW305
12-13-2019, 11:19 AM
Sorry to resurrect an older post, but does anyone know if the A321neo is included in the P2F program? Seems that would be a much better replacement for the 757 aside from the obvious much higher cost than a ceo.

I donít think the 321NEO production line could support that demand... there is already a backlog of almost 3,000 airframes for just that type. There are a lot of 330ís leaving pax service in the near future though. They are certainly viable conversion candidates.

FXLAX
12-13-2019, 12:55 PM
Start your analysis now. Alaska just grounded itís (3) freighters.


I was saying to you that the question should be if itís in the pilotsí interest, not if itís managementís economical interest. So Iím not sure what you mean by starting my analysis. My stance, if it wasnít already obvious, is that itís not about what is economical for the company. Because Iím pretty confident that it would be more economical for them to farm a lot more flying.

Minimums
12-13-2019, 02:38 PM
There is no factory freighter program for the 320 series, CEO or NEO, just like there isn't one for the 330-300 or any 330NEO.

That said, EFW worked closely with Airbus for all P2F programs so I'm sure it could be integrated somehow, for the right price...though I think Airbus has pretty significant lead times on the 320NEO family.

The 321NEO is the same fuselage as a CEO and doesn't really have any more payload despite a higher MTOW, so I'm not sure any additional performance or fuel burn benefits would be worth the additional capital cost.


I see. I was also thinking the neo with the prats/sharklets has considerable more range than the older 321s, which might be a better replacement on the routes the 757 does today. Like itís been mentioned though, it will be a long time before any are available for this.

OKLATEX
12-14-2019, 08:43 PM
Maybe itís a huge benefit to FedEx. But is it also a huge benefit to the pilots of FedEx? THAT should be the question because I can see how FedEx can make a valid economical argument for farming out a lot more flying that we currently do.

Bingo.

For instance. One of my best buds is ANC based for Alaska and frequently flies their freighters. He mentioned to me he was astonished our scope allowed them dedicating entire Alaska operated 737s (the whole jet) to moving FedEx cans. We certainly have the authority to operate in Alaska.

This next ones a bit less solid but I was departing HNL a few weeks ago and Aloha air cargo was waiting for us to vacate the spot on our ramp to park a 737 there. Maybe theyíre just using the parking spot, but I know they carry our freight as well. Would be interesting to look into, especially considering that UPS is now flying to LIH.

First, if you have an concerns with Scope, I also encourage you to contact your Block Rep and Scope Committee Chairman. I actually would like a Scope Compliance report from ALPA. Seems the only time it is really brought up is during Peak. I also think that the 737 flying associated with the TNT merger should be closely monitored. Scope Compliance is something the newly elected Block 5 Rep talked about in his campaign letters. Hopefully heíll live up to that.

Regarding the Alaska flying, Iíll be honest, while I would love to see that flying, as mentioned, I just donít think it is practical to expect us to fly given the assumed economical considerations. As far as I know, CargoJet is still flying our cargo out to Bermuda from Newark, along with cargo for DHL and UPS. Same goes for the Lihue Ďflower charterí by Aloha. I had a friend who flew that trip on the -11, I never had a chance to do it. Would have loved to. Frankly, I wonder if we even have the contract, perhaps UPS picked up. Perhaps if we had an airplane between the ATR and 757, maybe we would pick up some of this flying. Always been amazed at that gap in capacity since the 727-100s left, believe they were parked in 2006.

Iím well aware of the results of weak Scope. I flew for a wholly owned and watched them replace DC-9s/737-200s and MD-80s with EMB-145s. I loved doing the flying, but that flying was mainline and would have rather have seen it stay there. Frankly, only reason Iím here is because of 9/11 and the proliferation of the 50 Seat Regional Jet and the ensuing Bankruptcies.

That all being said, FDX has tended to prefer keep flying within as much as possible. Thatís our business model and they like to control. It is part of the service they sell and market. Perhaps before Fred leaves, we should take another look to assure we are adequately protected. During the last contract, the Scope Section wasnít even opened; the explanation was it protected what we had. We have desires to make it stronger, the company has desires that probably wouldnít like. Safer bet to keep it closed. Scope was improved during the interim Contract prior to that which included with language for the FDAs.

Iím not saying that I can say our Scope is 100% solid, but in the past 15 years, it seems to have protected us well. Is it it worth discussing amongst ourselves and attempt to improve a glaring weakness during negotiations, absolutely. However, comparing us to the PAX airlines and fearing the same rules apply, Iím not sure that is a good reason to negotiate Scope. We should learn from the mistakes of AA/DAL/UAL for for sure. Management is management, same play book, but we do have a very different business model.

Domestically, I havenít seen the company shuffle much flying to the Feeders. Huntsville, Alabama is the only city I can think of that we lost to the Feeders. Was a 727, went to an ATR. We however we gained Chattanooga. During the Recession, we actually took flying back from Tradewinds which was contracted out, believe that was Puerto Rico flying. AFW may have lost some flying, but Iím not 100% sure on that. Donít think. Perhaps a route or two, but as far as I know, we didnít lose any other cities. We used to serve Washington-National but that was consolidated back to Dulles.

We did lose the ĎSouth Coneí in South America. Once was flown by the 727 and MD-11. Iíve heard LANChile is flying it. Again, I would love to see that flying back, heard it is supposed to come back. However, I do prefer to see FedEx Management make wise strategic decisions. Traditionally we donít see huge growth, nor do we see huge periods contraction. I appreciate the stability that FedEx has offered in that regard.

Again, Iím not saying that our Scope is Rock Solid, but from my observation, Iím not sure it is as weak as some feel. Certainly do think concerns are worth mentioning to the Reps, especially as we come up on Negotiations.

FXLAX
12-15-2019, 07:57 PM
First, if you have an concerns with Scope, I also encourage you to contact your Block Rep and Scope Committee Chairman. I actually would like a Scope Compliance report from ALPA. Seems the only time it is really brought up is during Peak. I also think that the 737 flying associated with the TNT merger should be closely monitored. Scope Compliance is something the newly elected Block 5 Rep talked about in his campaign letters. Hopefully heíll live up to that.



Regarding the Alaska flying, Iíll be honest, while I would love to see that flying, as mentioned, I just donít think it is practical to expect us to fly given the assumed economical considerations. As far as I know, CargoJet is still flying our cargo out to Bermuda from Newark, along with cargo for DHL and UPS. Same goes for the Lihue Ďflower charterí by Aloha. I had a friend who flew that trip on the -11, I never had a chance to do it. Would have loved to. Frankly, I wonder if we even have the contract, perhaps UPS picked up. Perhaps if we had an airplane between the ATR and 757, maybe we would pick up some of this flying. Always been amazed at that gap in capacity since the 727-100s left, believe they were parked in 2006.



Iím well aware of the results of weak Scope. I flew for a wholly owned and watched them replace DC-9s/737-200s and MD-80s with EMB-145s. I loved doing the flying, but that flying was mainline and would have rather have seen it stay there. Frankly, only reason Iím here is because of 9/11 and the proliferation of the 50 Seat Regional Jet and the ensuing Bankruptcies.



That all being said, FDX has tended to prefer keep flying within as much as possible. Thatís our business model and they like to control. It is part of the service they sell and market. Perhaps before Fred leaves, we should take another look to assure we are adequately protected. During the last contract, the Scope Section wasnít even opened; the explanation was it protected what we had. We have desires to make it stronger, the company has desires that probably wouldnít like. Safer bet to keep it closed. Scope was improved during the interim Contract prior to that which included with language for the FDAs.



Iím not saying that I can say our Scope is 100% solid, but in the past 15 years, it seems to have protected us well. Is it it worth discussing amongst ourselves and attempt to improve a glaring weakness during negotiations, absolutely. However, comparing us to the PAX airlines and fearing the same rules apply, Iím not sure that is a good reason to negotiate Scope. We should learn from the mistakes of AA/DAL/UAL for for sure. Management is management, same play book, but we do have a very different business model.



Domestically, I havenít seen the company shuffle much flying to the Feeders. Huntsville, Alabama is the only city I can think of that we lost to the Feeders. Was a 727, went to an ATR. We however we gained Chattanooga. During the Recession, we actually took flying back from Tradewinds which was contracted out, believe that was Puerto Rico flying. AFW may have lost some flying, but Iím not 100% sure on that. Donít think. Perhaps a route or two, but as far as I know, we didnít lose any other cities. We used to serve Washington-National but that was consolidated back to Dulles.



We did lose the ĎSouth Coneí in South America. Once was flown by the 727 and MD-11. Iíve heard LANChile is flying it. Again, I would love to see that flying back, heard it is supposed to come back. However, I do prefer to see FedEx Management make wise strategic decisions. Traditionally we donít see huge growth, nor do we see huge periods contraction. I appreciate the stability that FedEx has offered in that regard.



Again, Iím not saying that our Scope is Rock Solid, but from my observation, Iím not sure it is as weak as some feel. Certainly do think concerns are worth mentioning to the Reps, especially as we come up on Negotiations.


Just a couple notes. Until this thread, this is the first time I hear of FedEx freight (other than feeder) being flown in Alaska, Hawaii, Bermuda, and other South American countries. All I knew of is the Canada flying and the TNT 737s (we took their 777s, why not also their 737s?). How much other FedEx freight is done by other than FedEx pilots?

Just because ďscope is openedĒ during negotiations, doesnít mean anything will change. In reality, all sections are open during section 6 negotiations. If nothing changed in the last cycle, it simply means both parties agreed to current language. That doesnít mean one side or the other didnít breach the topic during negotiations.

Also, you mentioned the business model a couple of times. Any airlinesí business model is one new CEO or management team away from changing. Not to mention that with low yield e-commerce set to explode, or who knows what else that could change the landscape, (brexit, other trade wars, tariffs, single pilot ops, terrorism, war, etc) could change managementís view of the business model. Thatís what happened with passenger airlines post 911 (RJ expansion) and post recession bankruptcies (consolidation). Have we learned from passenger carriers? What has changed since then that were lessons learned from what they went through?

OKLATEX
12-16-2019, 06:48 PM
Look, I donít think I disagree with your thoughts in the big scheme of things, or at least in asking the question of, ďIs our Scope good enough?Ē

As mentioned before, I hope you are reaching out to the Reps and Scope Committee Members.

As far is who else is flying our stuff. I have no idea, a question for the Scope Committee. I wish we as a pilot group were more enlightened on such things. Why we didnít get the 737 Flying? I believe part of that was to assure EU approval.

Regarding the Scope Section not being opened during the last contract, thatís the reasoning from I remember. That, and the fewer sections, ideally the faster the contract gets done. Iíve heard that reasoning somewhere through my career. I believe it was during one of our contracts. I believe both reasons came from the last contract.

As far as our business model. I agree, any company is one CEO away from Bankruptcy. That being said, I have a lot of faith in FedEx Corporate Management to strategically steer the company. They have said they have a plan, and for us at Express, that is focusing on the core business and moving away from low yield volume (Amazon). Iím not sure our true growth will be in the e-commerce world directly. Growth, I believe is going to be International, and to your point, Scope likely should be revisited during the next contract.

I think we should look at what where our peers made their mistakes for sure and learn from their mistakes. I witnessed the RJ phenomenon. Itís origins started well before 9/11 and the Recession. While I think there are lessons to be learned, I think FedEx guys learned lessons the hard way in their dealing with Fred, both Domestically and with the Subic Bay Domicile. What you see is our current Scope adapted from the Flight Crew Handbook to Contractual language. The language seems to have served us well. (Yes, I agree, if there are weaknesses, they should be addressed).

Frankly, I think a strong similarity does exist between us and our passenger peers. Most of them are today are worried about their International flying being done by Joint Ventures. Like I said before, I agree with you, Scope should probably be looked at again, especially with the a majority of our growth being International.

SaltyDog
12-17-2019, 05:43 AM
As far is who else is flying our stuff. I have no idea, a question for the Scope Committee. I wish we as a pilot group were more enlightened on such things. Why we didnít get the 737 Flying? I believe part of that was to assure EU approval.

..... Growth, I believe is going to be International, and to your point, Scope likely should be revisited during the next contract.

...Scope should probably be looked at again, especially with the a majority of our growth being International.

Just a jump in place for FedEx friends as an outsider but one interested.
I see the ASL 737s in Europe painted in FedEx colors. In future, could it be 767s or 777s? All under the cloak of cabotage or not?
Section 1.B.4 seems interesting regarding international scope on quick read, does not appear to only be a cabotage issue. Is it a TNT side letter?
Once Fred is gone, could or would next CEO implement 1.B.4 in a much larger scale? Its business. Fred is unique and unique ego as the designer entrepreneur. But like Herb at WN, the spirit of the entrepreneur changes after they are gone and the company is more focused on costs than pride and ego of the entrepreneur.
Routes can be cleverly designed to include minimal cabotage specifically to allow company to use the cabotage prohibitions even if just a few cabotage parcels onboard. Say 80 pounds in a 45K load. Its a bear to get the details of how it can be designed to remove seniority company pilots from company flying. Personally, always thought Fred liked his pilot team doing the flying regardless of contract until I saw the Fedex painted 737s in Europe.

BoilerUP
12-17-2019, 05:47 AM
It may be mentioned upthread, but doesn't Morningstar also operate 757s in FedEx livery?

UnusualAttitude
12-17-2019, 05:52 AM
Just a jump in place for FedEx friends as an outsider but one interested.
I see the ASL 737s in Europe painted in FedEx colors. In future, could it be 767s or 777s? All under the cloak of cabotage or not?
Section 1.B.4 seems interesting regarding international scope on quick read, does not appear to only be a cabotage issue. Is it a TNT side letter?
Once Fred is gone, could or would next CEO implement 1.B.4 in a much larger scale? Its business. Fred is unique and unique ego as the designer entrepreneur. But like Herb at WN, the spirit of the entrepreneur changes after they are gone and the company is more focused on costs than pride and ego of the entrepreneur.
Routes can be cleverly designed to include minimal cabotage specifically to allow company to use the cabotage prohibitions even if just a few cabotage parcels onboard. Say 80 pounds in a 45K load. Its a bear to get the details of how it can be designed to remove seniority company pilots from company flying. Personally, always thought Fred liked his pilot team doing the flying regardless of contract until I saw the Fedex painted 737s in Europe.


All things we need to spend time and effort investigating and codifying the contractual language to ensure our long term security.

The 737ís are operating on just a few routes that we simply donít have 5th freedom rights to operate on. Similar to the 757ís that operate on two intra-Canada routes.

I would mention that one thing that makes our flagship express product so valuable is the companyís complete operational control of our flights. It is not uncommon at all to see revisions and schedule changes in order to protect freight. This wouldnít be the case if we began to outsource flying on some large scale.

To my first point though, 99.99% of our pilot group, myself included, are highly motivated and we believe in the service that OUR company is providing to our customers. I am hopeful that the company and the union can codify this partnership in Sect 1 in the next CBA.

Thrust Hold
12-17-2019, 06:13 AM
It may be mentioned upthread, but doesn't Morningstar also operate 757s in FedEx livery?

Yes, those are all Intra-Canada ops.

Fdxlag2
12-17-2019, 08:16 AM
It may be mentioned upthread, but doesn't Morningstar also operate 757s in FedEx livery?

More than livery FDX owns those aircraft.

Moosefire
12-17-2019, 11:35 AM
https://i.ibb.co/TwbWFK6/C033-C61-B-E765-4-FE0-9814-9-CDE6-A66-E151.jpg (https://ibb.co/MgGB38r)v

Taken today by my bro flying the freighter for Alaska. He didnít get a count of how many cans but said that was the third so far.

FXLAX
12-17-2019, 03:03 PM
I would mention that one thing that makes our flagship express product so valuable is the companyís complete operational control of our flights. It is not uncommon at all to see revisions and schedule changes in order to protect freight. This wouldnít be the case if we began to outsource flying on some large scale.


This is not a hurdle for any competent management. The passenger airlines have been controlling their express carriers with 100% operational control for decades. And they arenít always competent. But with regional airlines, itís their mainline partner that dictates which flights get delayed/cancelled (revised) in order to accommodate their IROP plan. Itís all spelled out in their contracts with the regional carrier.

In other words, operational control is NOT something we can rely on for managementís benevolence in letting us do the flying.

magic rat
12-17-2019, 11:10 PM
Right from the earnings call:

Longer term by fiscal '22 year end, the replacement of 159 A310 and MD-10 aircraft will be complete. This will lead to a significant reduction in the corporation's ongoing capital expenditures on both an absolute basis and percent of revenues from FY '23 forward.

And....

Additionally, we're permanently retiring our fleet of 10 A-310s. The reduction in flight hours would allow us to temporarily park 14 aircraft by the end of fiscal year '20. We will also permanently retire another 29 aircraft over the next 30 months

And...


I think you have any idea how big 8% reduction of flight hours is, but it's tremendously large. We're not going to grow our fleet. We're just replacing it. We're tightening it up and reducing flight hours.

Nightflyer
12-18-2019, 06:59 AM
Reduction in flight hours is going to hurt.

I don't know what impact that will have on hiring, but it can't be good for the short term.

I heard on the news that Delta was hiring 1300 pilots in 2020.

I hope they can solve the TNT integration situation.

It would be nice if the China situation would get resolved.

rvfanatic
12-18-2019, 08:06 AM
Reduction in flight hours is going to hurt.

I don't know what impact that will have on hiring, but it can't be good for the short term.

I heard on the news that Delta was hiring 1300 pilots in 2020.

I hope they can solve the TNT integration situation.

It would be nice if the China situation would get resolved.

200 in the pool, I would imagine they have their apps in elsewhere. At least my buddy in the pool does. I wouldnít be surprised if short term strategy is to allow attrition through retirements and no hiring for 2020. Itís really disruptive for the industry and unfortunate.

PW305
12-18-2019, 12:03 PM
I canít figure out where that 159 number is coming from. Is this a historical fleet replacement total? We donít have 159 MDís and Airbus combined.

BlueMoon
12-18-2019, 12:14 PM
I canít figure out where that 159 number is coming from. Is this a historical fleet replacement total? We donít have 159 MDís and Airbus combined.

It probably includes all A310-200/300ís.

https://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Federal%20Express.htm

Airfleets has 66 total A310ís parked and 3 active.

They also list 60 stored MD-10ís and 29 active.

Those get me to 158.

PW305
12-18-2019, 01:14 PM
Thank you. Seems to be a rather Ďfantasticalí way to describe the ongoing fleet replacement cycle.

BlueMoon
12-18-2019, 01:30 PM
Thank you. Seems to be a rather Ďfantasticalí way to describe the ongoing fleet replacement cycle.

Gotta make it sound good. Investors like cost cutting.

Like this guys question from the earnings call transcript.

Operator

Our next question today will come from Scott Group with Wolfe Research.

Scott Group -- Wolfe Research -- Analyst

Hey, thanks. Afternoon, guys. So, Fred, I want to ask, we've got record low margins, I think, here and I heard you talk about restricting hiring but why are we talking about more drastic cost and headcount reductions. I know it's may be different, but it strikes me that some of the rails are cutting headcount 10%, 15% without severance costs. Do we have any opportunity to do anything like that. And then, just separately, I know you talked about Express profits improving next year. Do you have any visibility on Ground profits for next year?

Frederick W. Smith -- Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Well, I'll have to ask Alan if he is prepared to make a forecast for FY '21, but -- which I doubt because he hadn't forecasted to me if he had, but the reality is, to your first question, the rails are not even a remotely comparable business to FedEx. It's essentially a business of maintaining tracks and automating to the extent possible, you have an OR of 60%. It's not labor-intensive. It's getting less labor-intensive than when you follow the precepts of Hunter Harrison and smart railroading or whatever [Indecipherable] calling, that's what's allowing the precision railroading. That's what's allowing the rails to lower their cost. They are quasi-monopolies, certainly in the geographic areas and certainly to particular customers. So, I don't know that rail is significant.

The second part about this business is, we are, in many ways, spoke to our customers for long-term relationships and if you walk away from customers and disadvantage them and if you break the morale of your troops by not investing in service quality that has long-term deleterious effects. That certainly has been a consideration in Europe for mentioning in TNT.

So, of course, we could have done some more drastic things, but I think at the end of the day, the focus on the short-term financial results are only based on what we see for the fourth quarter into '21 and the strategies we're exercising. We have not decided to go down that road. Now, maybe, somebody else feels differently about that, but I don't think you can keep the purple promise laying all thousands of people and I think that's one of the considerations again we've had in Europe is to make sure that people over there we acquired with TNT were fairly treated. We're invested in delivering that kind of FedEx service.
https://www.fool.com/earnings/call-transcripts/2019/12/17/fedex-corp-fdx-q2-2020-earnings-call-transcript.aspx

Noworkallplay
12-18-2019, 05:50 PM
Right from the earnings call:

Longer term by fiscal '22 year end, the replacement of 159 A310 and MD-10 aircraft will be complete. This will lead to a significant reduction in the corporation's ongoing capital expenditures on both an absolute basis and percent of revenues from FY '23 forward.

And....

Additionally, we're permanently retiring our fleet of 10 A-310s. The reduction in flight hours would allow us to temporarily park 14 aircraft by the end of fiscal year '20. We will also permanently retire another 29 aircraft over the next 30 months

And...


I think you have any idea how big 8% reduction of flight hours is, but it's tremendously large. We're not going to grow our fleet. We're just replacing it. We're tightening it up and reducing flight hours.

Are you sure you are reading the transcript correctly or maybe the article you are reading is mis quoted because we don't have 159 A310 and MD-10 aircraft. Not even close. We have 10 A310 aircraft and all but 3 have been temporarily parked on and off for the past 4 years.

magic rat
12-18-2019, 07:17 PM
Are you sure you are reading the transcript correctly or maybe the article you are reading is mis quoted because we don't have 159 A310 and MD-10 aircraft. Not even close. We have 10 A310 aircraft and all but 3 have been temporarily parked on and off for the past 4 years.

Yup. Downloaded transcript and copy/paste.

BlueMoon
12-18-2019, 07:24 PM
Are you sure you are reading the transcript correctly or maybe the article you are reading is mis quoted because we don't have 159 A310 and MD-10 aircraft. Not even close. We have 10 A310 aircraft and all but 3 have been temporarily parked on and off for the past 4 years.

I think the quote references the on going fleet renewal they have been talking about for years. If you add up the MD-10ís and A310ís that have been parked already and the ones still in service you get to 158 (thatís according to airfleets.com, hardly an official source but thatís what Iím working with.)

The one quote above talks about ďcompletingĒ the replacement and not starting it.

PurpleToolBox
12-18-2019, 10:17 PM
Are you sure you are reading the transcript correctly or maybe the article you are reading is mis quoted because we don't have 159 A310 and MD-10 aircraft. Not even close. We have 10 A310 aircraft and all but 3 have been temporarily parked on and off for the past 4 years.

Yup. Downloaded transcript and copy/paste.

Not only that, I went back and listened to Fredís comment and he explicitly said one hundred and fifty nine aircraft. I thought perhaps the transcript was wrong. But it isnít.

FXLAX
12-19-2019, 09:23 AM
Not only that, I went back and listened to Fredís comment and he explicitly said one hundred and fifty nine aircraft. I thought perhaps the transcript was wrong. But it isnít.


Maybe he misspoke and meant 39 were going to be parked by fiscal year end Ď22. Thirty nine is the exact number when you add the A310s and MD10s together. And if you look at the published fleet plan, thatís exactly whatís happening, parking of all A310s (already done) and the rest of the MD-10s by the end of Ď22. It also corresponds to other executives comments on the parking of the 10 A310s and the future parking of the 29 MD10s.

ďAdditionally, we are permanently retiring our fleet of 10 A310s. The reduction in flight hours would allow us to temporarily park 14 aircrafts by the end of fiscal year '20. We will also permanently retire another 29 aircraft over the next 30 months.ď Raj Subramaniam

ďFedEx Express recorded asset impairment charges of $66 million related to the permanent retirement of 10 Airbus A310-300 aircraft and 12 related engines. The company is continuing to evaluate if additional aircraft retirements are warranted.Ē Alan Graff

I would bet money he misspoke. He misspoke on the last call as well when it came to fleet numbers. He is getting up in age.

FXLAX
12-19-2019, 10:17 AM
The published fleet plan shows that when you add the A310s and MD10s, it equals 39 being parked by year end FY22.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191219/9dd89ed91787cc721d40c25b17db51c2.jpg

DirtyPurple
12-19-2019, 10:48 AM
The published fleet plan shows that when you add the A310s and MD10s, it equals 39 being parked by year end FY22.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191219/9dd89ed91787cc721d40c25b17db51c2.jpg



Where are the 2x 747s mentioned on that slide?

MEMA300
12-19-2019, 11:01 AM
Where are the 2x 747s mentioned on that slide?

Probably Victorville CA. Old Tiger 747s

https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/southern-california-logistics-airport-victorville-boneyard.htm

PurpleToolBox
12-19-2019, 11:28 AM
Probably Victorville CA. Old Tiger 747s

https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/southern-california-logistics-airport-victorville-boneyard.htm

I believe they are the TNT 747s. Registration OOTHA OOTHB.

Both are parked in Luxembourg.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/OOTHB

PurpleToolBox
12-19-2019, 11:47 AM
The published fleet plan shows that when you add the A310s and MD10s, it equals 39 being parked by year end FY22.

Where did you find this fleet plan? I am curious what the superscript numbers indicate?

FXLAX
12-19-2019, 12:45 PM
Where did you find this fleet plan? I am curious what the superscript numbers indicate?

1 - As of November 30, 2019, B767F count includes one aircraft that is not currently in operation. As of November 30, 2019, we are committed to purchase 52 B767Fs.
2 - As of November 30, 2019, we are committed to purchase 15 B777Fs.
3 - As of November 30, 2019, we are committed to purchase 50 Cessna SkyCourier 408s.
4 - As of November 30, 2019, we are committed to purchase 30 ATR-72 600Fs.
5 - Leased aircraft disposition determined at expiration.
6 - Leased aircraft will be returned at lease expiration.
7 - FY16 vehicle fleet totals do not include TNT Express and TNT owner operator vehicles.


Itís part of the statistical document provided with every quarterís earnings report.


http://s1.q4cdn.com/714383399/files/doc_financials/quarterly/2020/q2/FedEx-Q2-FY20-Stat-Book.pdf

Adlerdriver
12-19-2019, 04:22 PM
Probably Victorville CA. Old Tiger 747s

https://www.airplaneboneyards.com/southern-california-logistics-airport-victorville-boneyard.htm :confused: Tigers never operated -400s.

MEMA300
12-19-2019, 06:48 PM
I believe they are the TNT 747s. Registration OOTHA OOTHB.

Both are parked in Luxembourg.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/OOTHB

Yes. Tigers didnt have 400s.