Scope Question & LOA
07-21-2007, 08:22 PM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 757 CA
Posts: 153
Scope Question & LOA
After receiving the latest MEC e-mail promoting the LOA leads me to ask a question....
What is in the LOA that helps our current scope?
The e-mail refers to people not knowing section 1 of our current contract. I feel that I do. I recently came from the regional airline realm of ALPA where scope was paramount in everything. Our management used it to start an alter-ego airline to bypass our current scope clause to fly bigger jets. Our management used scope to go-around other airlines scope clauses to secure flying for us as well. I am intimately aware of scope and its ramifications.
I almost couldn't believe the "new" scope language of the current FedEx contract. The way I read it, which is directly, like a lawyer, looking for loopholes, as I am quite familiar with them, states that FedEx pilots are ONLY required on the following...
1. Domestic flights, using A/C over 60,000#.
(Sec. 1-B-1)
2. Flights to & from the lower 48 to other countries, using A/C over 60,000#.
(Sec. 1-B-2)
3. Flights to & from an established FDA.
(Sec. 1-B-2)
That's all!! Flights in/out of ANC are NOT covered. Flights extraterritorial (Flights that do not touch the US, ex. DXB-NRT) are NOT covered.
But back to my original question... What does the LOA do to help scope? If there wasn't an LOA, and the company opened up CDG & HKG, they would still be an FDA, which would still be covered under the CURRENT contract. I can't find anything that states that all future extraterritorial flights will have to be manned by ALPA pilots. In fact Sec. 1-B-7-b even states that if foreign governments actions make it economically unfeasible to use ALPA pilots, we may outsourse. Quite open to interpretation to me.
I am all for closing international loopholes to make sure ALPA pilots fly all FedEx planes in all places, except where local cabatoge laws apply. (ie. inter Canada - currently using Morningstar, inter UK, inter China - using Okay, etc.) But I still don't see where this LOA closes anything.
Sorry for the long rant, but I feel that this is extremely important. If anyone can give me a specific example where this LOA will help scope, please let me know.
What is in the LOA that helps our current scope?
The e-mail refers to people not knowing section 1 of our current contract. I feel that I do. I recently came from the regional airline realm of ALPA where scope was paramount in everything. Our management used it to start an alter-ego airline to bypass our current scope clause to fly bigger jets. Our management used scope to go-around other airlines scope clauses to secure flying for us as well. I am intimately aware of scope and its ramifications.
I almost couldn't believe the "new" scope language of the current FedEx contract. The way I read it, which is directly, like a lawyer, looking for loopholes, as I am quite familiar with them, states that FedEx pilots are ONLY required on the following...
1. Domestic flights, using A/C over 60,000#.
(Sec. 1-B-1)
2. Flights to & from the lower 48 to other countries, using A/C over 60,000#.
(Sec. 1-B-2)
3. Flights to & from an established FDA.
(Sec. 1-B-2)
That's all!! Flights in/out of ANC are NOT covered. Flights extraterritorial (Flights that do not touch the US, ex. DXB-NRT) are NOT covered.
But back to my original question... What does the LOA do to help scope? If there wasn't an LOA, and the company opened up CDG & HKG, they would still be an FDA, which would still be covered under the CURRENT contract. I can't find anything that states that all future extraterritorial flights will have to be manned by ALPA pilots. In fact Sec. 1-B-7-b even states that if foreign governments actions make it economically unfeasible to use ALPA pilots, we may outsourse. Quite open to interpretation to me.
I am all for closing international loopholes to make sure ALPA pilots fly all FedEx planes in all places, except where local cabatoge laws apply. (ie. inter Canada - currently using Morningstar, inter UK, inter China - using Okay, etc.) But I still don't see where this LOA closes anything.
Sorry for the long rant, but I feel that this is extremely important. If anyone can give me a specific example where this LOA will help scope, please let me know.
Last edited by Purple Nugget; 07-22-2007 at 09:58 AM.
07-22-2007, 07:26 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: MD11 FO, ANC
Posts: 1,098
Have you guys read the LEC-7 update letter on the LOA - posted on the ALPA FDX web site? (or the LOA itself for that matter?)
The guy starts out by saying he doesn't like everything about the LOA - who does? But, then adds some great information in addition to that opinion - specifically regarding scope (and leverage.)
Here's an excerpt:
+++++
These few downside issues are eclipsed by the many positive benefits contained in the LOA. In my opinion, the first and most important element of this LOA is that it clearly and forcefully strengthens RLA/Scope protections for extraterritorial FedEx pilots. In the mid 1990’s ALPA sued FedEx because the company claimed that it did not have to extend RLA protection to pilots based in Subic. The lawsuit was settled out of court with both sides reserving their respective positions and language was created in our contract that established RLA protection for our FDA pilots. This LOA further strengthens our legal position on this issue. The language of this LOA provides an enhanced legal argument as we look into the future towards cabotage and other foreign threats to our flying.
+++++
I liken it to my MD11 ground school instructors saying - every day is just another layer of paint - reinforcing what we learned in the days prior.
This LOA - as it relates to scope - is just another layer of paint IN OUR FAVOR when it comes to scope.
+++++
What in the LOA enhances our current CBA as to scope protections?
Here ya go on this - in the Attachment A that everyone who volunteers to man the FDA has to sign - just a couple of pieces related to scope here - NOTE that these points are MUTUALLY agreed to (in writing) by the individual pilot and the company:
...These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:
1. The provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Federal Express and its flight deck crewmembers as represented by ALPA shall continue to govern my employment as a Federal Express pilot during my CDG FDA and/or my HKG FDA.
7. I shall continue to be a member of the craft or class of fight deck crewmembers of Federal Express currently represented by ALPA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. ALPA will continue to act as my exclusive collective bargaining representative during my assignment at the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA.
9. Any dispute between myself and Federal Express over the interpretation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19, 20, and 21 of that collective bargaining agreement.
++++++++
If we would have had this language for Subic, not sure how the company could have argued that our CBA provisions don't apply?!! Now, they are offering this to us for CDG and HKG.
++++++++
I also thought the LEC-7 rep's letter had some SPOT ON words for those of you who think we have any leverage on this issue - check it out - a reasonable man would agree.
++++++
No hype - no emotion - just the facts.......
The guy starts out by saying he doesn't like everything about the LOA - who does? But, then adds some great information in addition to that opinion - specifically regarding scope (and leverage.)
Here's an excerpt:
+++++
These few downside issues are eclipsed by the many positive benefits contained in the LOA. In my opinion, the first and most important element of this LOA is that it clearly and forcefully strengthens RLA/Scope protections for extraterritorial FedEx pilots. In the mid 1990’s ALPA sued FedEx because the company claimed that it did not have to extend RLA protection to pilots based in Subic. The lawsuit was settled out of court with both sides reserving their respective positions and language was created in our contract that established RLA protection for our FDA pilots. This LOA further strengthens our legal position on this issue. The language of this LOA provides an enhanced legal argument as we look into the future towards cabotage and other foreign threats to our flying.
+++++
I liken it to my MD11 ground school instructors saying - every day is just another layer of paint - reinforcing what we learned in the days prior.
This LOA - as it relates to scope - is just another layer of paint IN OUR FAVOR when it comes to scope.
+++++
What in the LOA enhances our current CBA as to scope protections?
Here ya go on this - in the Attachment A that everyone who volunteers to man the FDA has to sign - just a couple of pieces related to scope here - NOTE that these points are MUTUALLY agreed to (in writing) by the individual pilot and the company:
...These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:
1. The provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Federal Express and its flight deck crewmembers as represented by ALPA shall continue to govern my employment as a Federal Express pilot during my CDG FDA and/or my HKG FDA.
7. I shall continue to be a member of the craft or class of fight deck crewmembers of Federal Express currently represented by ALPA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. ALPA will continue to act as my exclusive collective bargaining representative during my assignment at the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA.
9. Any dispute between myself and Federal Express over the interpretation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19, 20, and 21 of that collective bargaining agreement.
++++++++
If we would have had this language for Subic, not sure how the company could have argued that our CBA provisions don't apply?!! Now, they are offering this to us for CDG and HKG.
++++++++
I also thought the LEC-7 rep's letter had some SPOT ON words for those of you who think we have any leverage on this issue - check it out - a reasonable man would agree.
++++++
No hype - no emotion - just the facts.......
07-22-2007, 07:36 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
They are offering it to us in CDG and HKG because it is in their favor.
If they were hiring Chinese or French Pilots they would probably offer them something similar and there is nothing we could do about it.
STV is a give back on almost every work rule you like in the contract. It gives back on:
Dead Head Compensation
Min days off protection
Trip Rig
No involuntary FDA assignment
Senority Rules
Vacation
Siba
Of course we have no leverage now, the negotiating commitee surrendered on every issue. What were our openers?
Want a spot on comment. "Tax equalization is not a benefit it is the cost of doing business."
Vote No.
Obviously I am an unreasonable man.
If they were hiring Chinese or French Pilots they would probably offer them something similar and there is nothing we could do about it.
STV is a give back on almost every work rule you like in the contract. It gives back on:
Dead Head Compensation
Min days off protection
Trip Rig
No involuntary FDA assignment
Senority Rules
Vacation
Siba
Of course we have no leverage now, the negotiating commitee surrendered on every issue. What were our openers?
Want a spot on comment. "Tax equalization is not a benefit it is the cost of doing business."
Vote No.
Obviously I am an unreasonable man.
Last edited by FDXLAG; 07-22-2007 at 07:42 PM.
07-22-2007, 07:53 PM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Here is another "spot on" comment from the LEC 7 update:
(However, this concern was mitigated by my belief that STV would go senior, that it would be used minimally due to cost to the company and because the company must have a way to increase or decrease manning to address varying freight levels when these bases are initially opened).
The person who wrote this must know nothing about SIBA, Trip Rig, or the cost of 1 set of Business Class tickets vs 2 Sets of First Class. STV is obviously the cheapest way for the company to man these bases. How can someone say it will be used minimally due to cost to the company.
(However, this concern was mitigated by my belief that STV would go senior, that it would be used minimally due to cost to the company and because the company must have a way to increase or decrease manning to address varying freight levels when these bases are initially opened).
The person who wrote this must know nothing about SIBA, Trip Rig, or the cost of 1 set of Business Class tickets vs 2 Sets of First Class. STV is obviously the cheapest way for the company to man these bases. How can someone say it will be used minimally due to cost to the company.
07-22-2007, 08:04 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Posts: 266
AFW MD11 the only reason Fedex wants us to be governed by the RLA is so we can't go on strike at the drop of a hat like the French do. No where in what you posted does it limit Fedex from using foreign pilots.
This agreement only limits us from using french labor laws, It doesn't stop the company from doing whatever it wants in relationship to extraterritorial flying.
This agreement only limits us from using french labor laws, It doesn't stop the company from doing whatever it wants in relationship to extraterritorial flying.
07-22-2007, 08:09 PM
#9
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: leaning to the left
Posts: 4,184
Originally Posted by AFW_MD11
Have you guys read the LEC-7 update letter on the LOA - posted on the ALPA FDX web site? (or the LOA itself for that matter?)
The guy starts out by saying he doesn't like everything about the LOA - who does? But, then adds some great information in addition to that opinion - specifically regarding scope (and leverage.)
Here's an excerpt:
+++++
These few downside issues are eclipsed by the many positive benefits contained in the LOA. In my opinion, the first and most important element of this LOA is that it clearly and forcefully strengthens RLA/Scope protections for extraterritorial FedEx pilots. In the mid 1990’s ALPA sued FedEx because the company claimed that it did not have to extend RLA protection to pilots based in Subic. The lawsuit was settled out of court with both sides reserving their respective positions and language was created in our contract that established RLA protection for our FDA pilots. This LOA further strengthens our legal position on this issue. The language of this LOA provides an enhanced legal argument as we look into the future towards cabotage and other foreign threats to our flying.
+++++
I liken it to my MD11 ground school instructors saying - every day is just another layer of paint - reinforcing what we learned in the days prior.
This LOA - as it relates to scope - is just another layer of paint IN OUR FAVOR when it comes to scope.
+++++
What in the LOA enhances our current CBA as to scope protections?
Here ya go on this - in the Attachment A that everyone who volunteers to man the FDA has to sign - just a couple of pieces related to scope here - NOTE that these points are MUTUALLY agreed to (in writing) by the individual pilot and the company:
...These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:
1. The provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Federal Express and its flight deck crewmembers as represented by ALPA shall continue to govern my employment as a Federal Express pilot during my CDG FDA and/or my HKG FDA.
7. I shall continue to be a member of the craft or class of fight deck crewmembers of Federal Express currently represented by ALPA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. ALPA will continue to act as my exclusive collective bargaining representative during my assignment at the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA.
9. Any dispute between myself and Federal Express over the interpretation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19, 20, and 21 of that collective bargaining agreement.
++++++++
If we would have had this language for Subic, not sure how the company could have argued that our CBA provisions don't apply?!! Now, they are offering this to us for CDG and HKG.
++++++++
I also thought the LEC-7 rep's letter had some SPOT ON words for those of you who think we have any leverage on this issue - check it out - a reasonable man would agree.
++++++
No hype - no emotion - just the facts.......
The guy starts out by saying he doesn't like everything about the LOA - who does? But, then adds some great information in addition to that opinion - specifically regarding scope (and leverage.)
Here's an excerpt:
+++++
These few downside issues are eclipsed by the many positive benefits contained in the LOA. In my opinion, the first and most important element of this LOA is that it clearly and forcefully strengthens RLA/Scope protections for extraterritorial FedEx pilots. In the mid 1990’s ALPA sued FedEx because the company claimed that it did not have to extend RLA protection to pilots based in Subic. The lawsuit was settled out of court with both sides reserving their respective positions and language was created in our contract that established RLA protection for our FDA pilots. This LOA further strengthens our legal position on this issue. The language of this LOA provides an enhanced legal argument as we look into the future towards cabotage and other foreign threats to our flying.
+++++
I liken it to my MD11 ground school instructors saying - every day is just another layer of paint - reinforcing what we learned in the days prior.
This LOA - as it relates to scope - is just another layer of paint IN OUR FAVOR when it comes to scope.
+++++
What in the LOA enhances our current CBA as to scope protections?
Here ya go on this - in the Attachment A that everyone who volunteers to man the FDA has to sign - just a couple of pieces related to scope here - NOTE that these points are MUTUALLY agreed to (in writing) by the individual pilot and the company:
...These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:
1. The provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Federal Express and its flight deck crewmembers as represented by ALPA shall continue to govern my employment as a Federal Express pilot during my CDG FDA and/or my HKG FDA.
7. I shall continue to be a member of the craft or class of fight deck crewmembers of Federal Express currently represented by ALPA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. ALPA will continue to act as my exclusive collective bargaining representative during my assignment at the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA.
9. Any dispute between myself and Federal Express over the interpretation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19, 20, and 21 of that collective bargaining agreement.
++++++++
If we would have had this language for Subic, not sure how the company could have argued that our CBA provisions don't apply?!! Now, they are offering this to us for CDG and HKG.
++++++++
I also thought the LEC-7 rep's letter had some SPOT ON words for those of you who think we have any leverage on this issue - check it out - a reasonable man would agree.
++++++
No hype - no emotion - just the facts.......
This is from our current CBA. Ever read it?
Section 1.A. Recognition, Scope and Successorship - Recognition
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In accordance with the National Mediation Board’s certification in case number R-6450 dated October 29, 1996, as transferred from the Fedex Pilots Association to the Air Line Pilots Association (“the Association”) in File No. C-6762/Case No. R-6450, 29 NMB 320 dated May 29, 2002, the Company recognizes the Association as the duly authorized representative for the specific craft or class of flight deck crew members (hereinafter referred to as “pilots”) of the Company covered by the Railway Labor Act (“the RLA”).
2. The Company further recognizes that included in the craft or class represented by the Association in conformity with the RLA are those crewmembers on Foreign Duty Assignment (“FDA”), Special International Bid Award (“SIBA”) and/or any other international assignment, domicile or location manned by pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List.
If all of the LOA's details were written as clearly, as that paragragh...That would be a good start. No where in this LOA does it talk about protecting extra-territorial flying for the FedEx pilots. Attatchment "A" is an agreement that basically repeats what our scope clause, above, already says. With some added verbiage attempting to protect the company from French Labor laws. We've already fought the RLA/FDA battle. Tell me what we gain?
No hype - no emotion - just the facts.
Last edited by Busboy; 07-22-2007 at 09:00 PM.
07-22-2007, 09:03 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: 757 CA
Posts: 153
I have to agree with Busboy, extension of our current contract to apply to an FDA is in our CURRENT contract. The LOA doesn't change that.
If ALPA thinks that just because each pilot signs an LOA, that states the same exact thing, strengthens our position, I will have to argue that it would actually weaken our position. Because other FDA's (current ones, and any new ones opened without an LOA) do NOT have this clause, the company can argue that at those bases the RLA doesn't apply because the pilots signed something that specifies that the RLA only applies to CDG & HKG.
I have to revert to the language that is in our current contract, section 1, states quite clearly that the contract & RLA provisions apply to ALL FDAs already.
If ALPA thinks that just because each pilot signs an LOA, that states the same exact thing, strengthens our position, I will have to argue that it would actually weaken our position. Because other FDA's (current ones, and any new ones opened without an LOA) do NOT have this clause, the company can argue that at those bases the RLA doesn't apply because the pilots signed something that specifies that the RLA only applies to CDG & HKG.
I have to revert to the language that is in our current contract, section 1, states quite clearly that the contract & RLA provisions apply to ALL FDAs already.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
