My NC Speaks for Me. I voted YES.
07-28-2007, 12:22 PM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by fdx727pilot
Question here. The LOA gets voted down. The company declines to open FDAs in CDG and HKG and sub-services all the flying to other European and Asian carriers. Is that a scope violation?
According to our current scope language, NO. No FDA was established. A300 SIBA is still ongoing. So section 1.B.3. doesn't apply. Just all the new CDG flying and all the HKG flying is no longer ours because 1.B.4. gives them the right, quoted above, to use other carriers.
No, no scope improvements here. But no expansion for pilots already on the seniority list. Plan to stay where you are for a while.
According to our current scope language, NO. No FDA was established. A300 SIBA is still ongoing. So section 1.B.3. doesn't apply. Just all the new CDG flying and all the HKG flying is no longer ours because 1.B.4. gives them the right, quoted above, to use other carriers.
No, no scope improvements here. But no expansion for pilots already on the seniority list. Plan to stay where you are for a while.
07-28-2007, 12:23 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2006
Position: FedEx Capt
Posts: 292
Originally Posted by Carlos Abundis
When the company opened the Subic Domicile, they maintained that our pilots there were not covered by the CBA or the RLA. This implied that they had the right to abrogate all terms and conditions in the contract, including scope....Neither side was eager to have a judge rule on the applicability of US contract law to pilots who live and work outside the United States....In this LOA, the company agrees that the RLA and contract apply to the HKG and CDG flying. That is a key step in extending our CBA (including the scope provisions) to all FedEx Express flying world wide.[/I]
26.W.1. All pilots assigned to an FDA are fully covered by all provisions of this Agreement.
07-28-2007, 12:26 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: 767 FO
Posts: 8,047
Originally Posted by Carlos Abundis
"Here's why the company cannot renegotiate the LOA terms."
You want to roll the dice against those odds?
We've all got something to lose here.
You want to roll the dice against those odds?
We've all got something to lose here.
07-28-2007, 12:28 PM
#44
Line Holder
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD-11 CAPT
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by Carlos Abundis
I appreciate the constructive tone of your postings. You're right. Facts are important. The only facts that matter in the case of scope are the ones that can be established in a legal setting. As of yet, the scope language in the FedEx CBA has not been adjudicated. So the best indicator I can find of what may prove to be factual in a legal setting are the legal opinions our MEC has received from legal experts. At the risk of further criticism, I offer this quote from the Block 3 representative (I've taken out a few sentences to reduce the overall length, but the entire statement - which is better than my shortened version - is on the Block 3 Web site):
That FedEx recognizes in writing the application of the CBA and RLA to pilots working and living outside the USA is critical to our continued effort to keep all FedEx Express flying operated by pilots on our seniority list under our Collective Bargaining Agreement. When the company opened the Subic Domicile, they maintained that our pilots there were not covered by the CBA or the RLA. This implied that they had the right to abrogate all terms and conditions in the contract, including scope....Neither side was eager to have a judge rule on the applicability of US contract law to pilots who live and work outside the United States....In this LOA, the company agrees that the RLA and contract apply to the HKG and CDG flying. That is a key step in extending our CBA (including the scope provisions) to all FedEx Express flying world wide.
That FedEx recognizes in writing the application of the CBA and RLA to pilots working and living outside the USA is critical to our continued effort to keep all FedEx Express flying operated by pilots on our seniority list under our Collective Bargaining Agreement. When the company opened the Subic Domicile, they maintained that our pilots there were not covered by the CBA or the RLA. This implied that they had the right to abrogate all terms and conditions in the contract, including scope....Neither side was eager to have a judge rule on the applicability of US contract law to pilots who live and work outside the United States....In this LOA, the company agrees that the RLA and contract apply to the HKG and CDG flying. That is a key step in extending our CBA (including the scope provisions) to all FedEx Express flying world wide.
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.
07-28-2007, 12:31 PM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 2,889
I'm not saying this to sound mean spirited but:
Does it hurt ANY of us if the FDAs are filled with new hires? We get another 50, 100, 150 or so guys on the property behind us, and those MEM guys on reserve living at home are still fat in the seat, enjoying their time off.
Not arguing if it will happen, or if its good or bad--but it seems to me "we will hire new guys to do it..." just doesn't seem like a bad deal. They get the job, albeit at a place with a high cost of living...and the Reserve guys continue to live the life of Riley as the lines are optimized and the -10 goes away.
I admit I miss things sometimes--what am I missing here?
Does it hurt ANY of us if the FDAs are filled with new hires? We get another 50, 100, 150 or so guys on the property behind us, and those MEM guys on reserve living at home are still fat in the seat, enjoying their time off.
Not arguing if it will happen, or if its good or bad--but it seems to me "we will hire new guys to do it..." just doesn't seem like a bad deal. They get the job, albeit at a place with a high cost of living...and the Reserve guys continue to live the life of Riley as the lines are optimized and the -10 goes away.
I admit I miss things sometimes--what am I missing here?
07-28-2007, 12:46 PM
#46
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Albief15
I'm not saying this to sound mean spirited but:
Does it hurt ANY of us if the FDAs are filled with new hires? We get another 50, 100, 150 or so guys on the property behind us, and those MEM guys on reserve living at home are still fat in the seat, enjoying their time off.
Not arguing if it will happen, or if its good or bad--but it seems to me "we will hire new guys to do it..." just doesn't seem like a bad deal. They get the job, albeit at a place with a high cost of living...and the Reserve guys continue to live the life of Riley as the lines are optimized and the -10 goes away.
I admit I miss things sometimes--what am I missing here?
Does it hurt ANY of us if the FDAs are filled with new hires? We get another 50, 100, 150 or so guys on the property behind us, and those MEM guys on reserve living at home are still fat in the seat, enjoying their time off.
Not arguing if it will happen, or if its good or bad--but it seems to me "we will hire new guys to do it..." just doesn't seem like a bad deal. They get the job, albeit at a place with a high cost of living...and the Reserve guys continue to live the life of Riley as the lines are optimized and the -10 goes away.
I admit I miss things sometimes--what am I missing here?
07-28-2007, 12:48 PM
#47
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: FDX Airbus F/O
Posts: 152
I think it's impossible to read (or re-read) all the communications you've received from the MEC
07-28-2007, 12:51 PM
#49
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Posts: 63
Originally Posted by Boom Boom
You must be kidding.. I have seen more 'message traffic' from either JL or PC but definately not MY MEC.. Oh but they sure send me those emails about HUB Turn meetings.. What they say there must be JUST too difficult to put into words... AND EMAIL OUT!!!
07-28-2007, 12:58 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: FDX Airbus F/O
Posts: 152
Sure Carlos, I can and DO that however... Why so Pro-active on the company's behalf and so Re-active on the unions behalf???? And I am not one of those dudes that spams/does not read every message line, Fast-Read, etc... Who really wants this LOA to pass... Perceptions vs Reality???
BB
BB
