Nugget#69

Ive been watching and wondering for some time about this. When I was hired at FedEx we got quite a brief from ALPA about how our entire contract was tied to Scope. Without Scope nothing else mattered.

Now as we analyze the effects of the contract I think we gave up some things for the all important scope. Like 4 extra days of work a year by training on days off; and many other things, I think we are all now seeing.

Now the FDA LOA, once again it was sold on Scope being the most important part. So why was this so important. Here's my theory; I think our leadership was being forced to push this at all cost by ALPA National. Why? Because FedEx is leading the way establishing FDA's. As far as I can tell, there aren't any other Major US airlines with FDAs.

ALPA National can't afford to have US airline jobs outsourced to another country. So FedEx was going to have to set the precedent, at any cost.

DLax85

With all due respect please, please, please show me the reference to "scope" in the LOA.

It simply does not exist ----------- ANYWHERE!

(...and please, please, please, don't try to use the word "memorialize"...if it ain't in writing folks, it just doesn't exist.)

We really need to be careful in repeating things that just are not true --- some folks will for some reason start to believe them.

OK, rant over.

iarapilot

Scope, shmope. It never was there. If anyone can find it in the LOA, I would like to know; regardless of what DW or anyone else says. Pure, utter, political BS.

Fr8doggie

I'm no contract expert, but I believe the strengthening of scope would occur when we as Fedex pilots start flying the routes. That would establish us as "owners" of that flying. Once that began it would be much more difficult for the company to fly future int'l routes without Fedex pilots.

Daniel Larusso

To what extent I have zero idea, but I have felt that this was going to be an issue well before the LOA even came out. So far they haven't given up on the thing that I was afraid they would: the restriction on displacements to an FDA. With a surplus of pilots on property, a company that could open the FDA's legally either way, and a senior driven union that wasn't/isn't willing to set a precedent of outsourcing their most lucrative flying, it seemed like a real possibility. The FDA's stand a good chance of being a front burner issue in the next contract since the economic slowdown and age 65 basically make them the only place with real movement for the next few years. I just hope that any gains in FDA work rules don't come at the expense of giving up that displacement restriction via some convoluted ALPA rationalization.

a300fr8dog

Doggie,
I agree with you. When you read our CBA, once our pilots begin to fly the route, it belongs to us. I think the point ira was trying to make was the scope language the MEC was hanging their hat on was already in existance in our contract. LOA didn't change that. LOA didn't add to that. LOA only got our guys to do the work. The only big picture on scope with respect to the LOA: if in fact FDX would have done it without us (ie farmed it out). LOA or NO LOA, I would guess that sabre might have been rattled.

Bohica

They could have simply opened the FDAs with the current contract. Scope has not been enhanced by the LOA in the least.

DW thinks he pulled off the coup of the century, though, just ask him.

DLax85

Please provide the relevant case law on which you base this assumption.

Perhaps you can call the lawyers in the MEC or ALPA national to get the reference.

Any bets on how long it will take them to get back to you?

(Sorry, if it ain't in writing --- it's just not true --- this is why we have written contracts with specific scope language)

DLax85

And that's all that it would have been "sabre rattling"....

Then they would have renegogiated to sweeten the deal....or would have opened the FDAs under the current CBA, which I believe would have produced even greater vacancies in HKG and CDG.

a300fr8dog

Couldn't agree with you more, Dlax. From my previous post:


The threat of using labor outside our CBA always seems to loom on the horizon. I say, bring it on! If they could do it now, they would. If they're setting us up to say "well, you voted it down, no one would go," then so be it.

In the end, it comes to the notion that we, FEDEX ALPA, are the best way to get the job done: safe, legal, & reliable. If FredEx has to prove it to himself, go ahead, I say.

We deserve at least a Cathay Expat package. As a former, Subic 49'er, they fooled me once. I understand where Edgar comes from.

I vote NO, with the confidence that we deserve better.