Scope and leverage
08-04-2007, 09:31 PM
#1
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 29
Scope and leverage
This is my first post so I'll try not to be a dic++ad. I would however like to bring up a point that I have not seen previously discussed.
A few days ago I had the opportunity to read UPS's scope. It was quite an eye opener for me. IMHO I feel that if we had similar language we would have all the leverage we need to get a descent LOA. If you would like to read UPS scope it is on this web site under downloads, then under pilot contracts, then under cargo airlines. It does not take much time to down load. It is a PDF file and I don't know how to cut and paste from it, so I will manually type in the parts I want to reference.
On page 9 paragraph b.
All international flights presently conducted by IPA represented crewmembers will continue to be flown by such members. The company will continually pursue additional route authority on a good faith basis. As the company secures additional international route authority, it will take all reasonable steps to assure that such routes are flown by IPA crewmembers in accordance with this Agreement within (2) bid periods of the date the route authority was granted. If the Company's use of a subcontractor exceeds the (2) bid periods under circumstances cited in this paragraph, the Company will meet with the Association to discuss the reason(s) for the delay. In no event will the Company take more than twelve (12) months to transition the new flying to the IPA, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
On page 5 paragraph 7.
If any dispute arises as to the interpretation or application of Article 1 to international operations as defined in paragraph 4 above, the dispute shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with Article 7 and Article 1.F. og this Agreement. The company, its affiliates, the Association, and their successors agree, that in connection with any dispute before an arbitrator or in court, not to raise as a defense the non-applicability of the Railway Labor Act to international operations as defined in C. above or flights which originate or terminate in the United States. It is also agreed that the provisions of this paragraph are specifically enforceable. The duty to arbitrate as well as the judicial review of any arbitration award under this paragraph shall be specifically enforceable in either the Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky or the Jefferson County Circuit Court , Louisville Kentuky. For these purposes the parties concent to jurisdiction and venue in these courts. The parties further agree theat the choice of law in any such proceeding under this paragraph will be Sections 153 and 184 of the Railway labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq. If the Jefferson Circuit Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction, either party may file suit under this paragraph in any state court which has jurisdiction over the parties.
There is also interesting stuff on page 3, ( but IMHO it would be good to read the whole thing.)
Let me try to wrap this up. I am extremely frustrated that, during the road shows for our new contract, we were told we had the best scope. I thought great, another reason to be proud to be working for FedEx. Yet, if you read it ( I think that would be good too) you find that currently only the lower 48 are protected.
Now the same leadership that incorrectly informed us that we have the best scope is (IMHO) mis informing us that this LOA will improve our scope. They will flat out tell you that it does not give us a legal leg to stand on but it sets a precedent. Then IMHO we are supposed to go off cross our fingers, squeze our eyes shut and say a prayer that this precedent thing will work. Precedents are NOT leglaly binding.
IMHO
We should vote this down. The company will still need protection from French labor laws. Fine, we will give you that if you fully commit to us. You put it in black and white, on paper, in clear unambiguous wording (similar or better than the UPS wording) that all freight that needs to be moved by an airplane, for any and all companys under the FedEx parent corporation will only be moved by pilots on the master seniority list at FedEx Express. They can put in the 60,000 lb exception and any other reasonable exception such as the host country prohibits it.
I do think the most important thing is to protect our future flying and job security. We thought we had fixed the scope when we recieved or last contract. The reality is we don't have the protection we desire, need and deserve. The time to fix it is now. If we don't fix it now it will be a cornerstone issue again in our next contract negotiations.
Before you go off about the company could farm out the work. I agree. In fact it appears to me that they could start up another division at fedex and call it XYZ. They then could hire off the street to staff that airline. They don't need an army of pilots all at once. If they did it would not be doable. They could hire them at the same rate they are recieving 757s, which is slow. They don't need foreign pilots. Think about all the over 60 guys who have already been forced to retire and have lost there pensions. They probably already have wide body international experience. Do you think they would be willing to go over to Europe for 200,000 a year? Do you think almost any kid at a commuter would go over and sit in the right seat for next to nothing? I do.
Even though I know this is a possibility, I don't think the company it there yet. I also don't want the fact that they can pull the rug out whenever they want haning over my head for the rest of my career. It's kinda like if you were going out with someone who had no intention of being fully commited to you. Wouldn't you rather find that out sooner than latter so you could make alternate plans? If Fedex is going to pull the rug I would rather they do it now than 4 or 10 years from now.
Please don't get me wrong I love FedEx and I am proud as all get up to have the right to wear a FedEx Flight Officer uniform.
My whole point is don't vote yes thinking you are fixing or improving the scope. They told us that once before and they were wrong. IMHO they are wrong again and this LOA does not improve our scope.
Sorry the post is so long.
A few days ago I had the opportunity to read UPS's scope. It was quite an eye opener for me. IMHO I feel that if we had similar language we would have all the leverage we need to get a descent LOA. If you would like to read UPS scope it is on this web site under downloads, then under pilot contracts, then under cargo airlines. It does not take much time to down load. It is a PDF file and I don't know how to cut and paste from it, so I will manually type in the parts I want to reference.
On page 9 paragraph b.
All international flights presently conducted by IPA represented crewmembers will continue to be flown by such members. The company will continually pursue additional route authority on a good faith basis. As the company secures additional international route authority, it will take all reasonable steps to assure that such routes are flown by IPA crewmembers in accordance with this Agreement within (2) bid periods of the date the route authority was granted. If the Company's use of a subcontractor exceeds the (2) bid periods under circumstances cited in this paragraph, the Company will meet with the Association to discuss the reason(s) for the delay. In no event will the Company take more than twelve (12) months to transition the new flying to the IPA, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise.
On page 5 paragraph 7.
If any dispute arises as to the interpretation or application of Article 1 to international operations as defined in paragraph 4 above, the dispute shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with Article 7 and Article 1.F. og this Agreement. The company, its affiliates, the Association, and their successors agree, that in connection with any dispute before an arbitrator or in court, not to raise as a defense the non-applicability of the Railway Labor Act to international operations as defined in C. above or flights which originate or terminate in the United States. It is also agreed that the provisions of this paragraph are specifically enforceable. The duty to arbitrate as well as the judicial review of any arbitration award under this paragraph shall be specifically enforceable in either the Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky or the Jefferson County Circuit Court , Louisville Kentuky. For these purposes the parties concent to jurisdiction and venue in these courts. The parties further agree theat the choice of law in any such proceeding under this paragraph will be Sections 153 and 184 of the Railway labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq. If the Jefferson Circuit Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction, either party may file suit under this paragraph in any state court which has jurisdiction over the parties.
There is also interesting stuff on page 3, ( but IMHO it would be good to read the whole thing.)
Let me try to wrap this up. I am extremely frustrated that, during the road shows for our new contract, we were told we had the best scope. I thought great, another reason to be proud to be working for FedEx. Yet, if you read it ( I think that would be good too) you find that currently only the lower 48 are protected.
Now the same leadership that incorrectly informed us that we have the best scope is (IMHO) mis informing us that this LOA will improve our scope. They will flat out tell you that it does not give us a legal leg to stand on but it sets a precedent. Then IMHO we are supposed to go off cross our fingers, squeze our eyes shut and say a prayer that this precedent thing will work. Precedents are NOT leglaly binding.
IMHO
We should vote this down. The company will still need protection from French labor laws. Fine, we will give you that if you fully commit to us. You put it in black and white, on paper, in clear unambiguous wording (similar or better than the UPS wording) that all freight that needs to be moved by an airplane, for any and all companys under the FedEx parent corporation will only be moved by pilots on the master seniority list at FedEx Express. They can put in the 60,000 lb exception and any other reasonable exception such as the host country prohibits it.
I do think the most important thing is to protect our future flying and job security. We thought we had fixed the scope when we recieved or last contract. The reality is we don't have the protection we desire, need and deserve. The time to fix it is now. If we don't fix it now it will be a cornerstone issue again in our next contract negotiations.
Before you go off about the company could farm out the work. I agree. In fact it appears to me that they could start up another division at fedex and call it XYZ. They then could hire off the street to staff that airline. They don't need an army of pilots all at once. If they did it would not be doable. They could hire them at the same rate they are recieving 757s, which is slow. They don't need foreign pilots. Think about all the over 60 guys who have already been forced to retire and have lost there pensions. They probably already have wide body international experience. Do you think they would be willing to go over to Europe for 200,000 a year? Do you think almost any kid at a commuter would go over and sit in the right seat for next to nothing? I do.
Even though I know this is a possibility, I don't think the company it there yet. I also don't want the fact that they can pull the rug out whenever they want haning over my head for the rest of my career. It's kinda like if you were going out with someone who had no intention of being fully commited to you. Wouldn't you rather find that out sooner than latter so you could make alternate plans? If Fedex is going to pull the rug I would rather they do it now than 4 or 10 years from now.
Please don't get me wrong I love FedEx and I am proud as all get up to have the right to wear a FedEx Flight Officer uniform.
My whole point is don't vote yes thinking you are fixing or improving the scope. They told us that once before and they were wrong. IMHO they are wrong again and this LOA does not improve our scope.
Sorry the post is so long.
08-05-2007, 05:25 AM
#4
Line Holder
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Posts: 29
I forgot to mention that if you discuss UPS scope with someone they may tell you that UPS does not fly from to Cologne, Germany to Tel Aviv. That is correct. They have had a contract company on that route for many years. The IPA did not want their crewmembers flying that route for safety concerns on the ground in Tel Aviv. The UPS scope states that all international flights presently conducted by IPA represented crewmembers will continue to be flown by such crewmembers. Since they were not flying that route at the time that they signed their new contract that route is not covered. The UPS pilots that I talked to said that is the only route that they could legally do that they are not doing. ( legally concerning the host countries laws NOT legally concerning their scope )
I personally would gladly give up one route to protect all of the rest. Remember they have language securing all future routes as well.
My point is that the Cologne to Tel Aviv argument IMHO does not hold any water.
I personally would gladly give up one route to protect all of the rest. Remember they have language securing all future routes as well.
My point is that the Cologne to Tel Aviv argument IMHO does not hold any water.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
