United, Delta, American, and Southwest are working on their SMS program. When Edition 8 of the IOSA Standards Manual is published in September there will be questions regarding the company's SMS program. Although IOSA is not regulatory many of the countries we fly over or into require the company to be on the iOSA registry.
SMS is based on risk analysis and every department Maintenance, Ramp Engineering, Weight and Balance, Cargo Loading, etc will also be required to have their own risk analysis process. The SAS program that the FAA uses to evaluate and airline also has questions regarding SMS as well as QA for that matter.
If you want to know more about SMS I can get you a copy of CFR Part 5.

Are united, Delta, American, and Southwest working in conjunction with their Pilot unions?

Really, you think that's going on with the QA program? I think you need to get out and see exactly what they are doing. I don't necessarily think it's nefarious at this point but I don't think it's risk analysis either.

I have no idea what your ops is doing. I just pass along facts hoping to correct mis information. There is more more iron in the fire SAS. The FAA will have a whole new way of evaluating the airline

I'm grateful to all those who have provided some illuminating information regarding this cutting-edge, non-contractual initiative.

"Captain, since the QA dude is riding in the back, I'll give them my most professional jumpseater briefing, okay with you?"

This much is certain.

skywatch, I think you may have lost track of the "thread" of this thread, and perhaps I've confused you with a smattering of sarcasm. I am quite familiar with the FAA's version of SMS, described in Advisory Circulars, the genesis and trajectory of the components of the FAA's SMS, and I spent quite a bit of my time and energy as a pilot union representative trying to convince our company to take their discipline hooks out of those programs so we could agree to them and implement them at FedEx Express.

Perhaps a little background will help. What you might not know is that after agreeing to ASAP, LOSA, FOQA, and FRMP, as well as converting all of our Appendix F training programs to AQP, FedEx decided on its own, and without the cooperation or buy-in from the pilots, to implement this program they call QA, and have recruited observers to ride along in cockpits and conduct QA observations. One category of observers is Fleet Check Airmen -- Captains who are qualified to conduct line checks on their respective aircraft types. The other is Observers -- First Officers who are qualified to breathe. A change to our FOM makes it mandatory that we allow the first category (Fleet Check Airmen) on the flight deck to conduct the observations. No such requirement exists to grant access to the FO Observers. It sounds a lot like the LOSA program we have, except that FedEx does not plan to share the information they collect during these observations, and they assert the right to use these observations as the basis for increased scrutiny, additional training, and even discipline of the pilots they observe.

This thread began with a question about the QA observations, and then a comment and a related question, and then an assertion injected by 3pointlanding that the program is "a requirement." Here we are some 120 posts later, and most of my energy has been directed at the "YES, it's a requirement. NO. It's not" argument. I maintain that the particular program implemented by FedEx Express, the program they call QA, is NOT required by any authority or entity. 3pointlanding has yet to produce a shred of evidence to prove otherwise.


First, there IS such a thing as a US SMS program. It is not required, but it is defined. We've linked the Advisory Circular (and its expired predecessor) more than once in this thread, but I'll do it again. Previously, my purpose in linking was to demonstrate that SMS is not mandatory. While that is still true, the purpose of linking now is to show that such a program does in fact exist.

Advisory Circular No. 120-92A "Safety Management Systems for Aviation Service Providers"

For our current conversation, Paragraph 2.b. is instructive:
So, while the FAA does not yet require an SMS (and we can stop right there to disprove 3pointlanding's initial and continued assertion), the FAA does recognize SMS and has provided some initial guidance for those entities who would voluntarily implement an SMS.

I'm a little embarrassed to mention this, but your link, you know, the link to an authoritative source that says I'm wrong ... it's a Blog. That's hardly an authoritative source, and it doesn't address the point about which you said I was wrong.

Lots of posts, lots of conversations intertwined, perhaps we got confused, perhaps we forgot our place in the dialog, let me refresh our memory.

The author, Jason Starke, worked for Universal Weather & Aviation as the Safety Management & Integration Operations Manager. It should come as no surprise that he would, in his blog, encourage corporate operators (the target audience) to seek help from ... let's think about this for a sec ... Universal Weather & Aviation in developing an SMS. Of course, he was a bit more discreet -- he said, "work with a 3rd-party provider."

So, now we have the "QA is a requirement/No, it's not" conversation, and the "SMS doesn't exist/Yes, it does" conversation", and I'll try to keep from getting confused about which one I'm in.

We agree that SMS is not an FAA requirement, yet many aviation service providers have robust SMS programs. Right?

So, in the context of one of those robust SMS programs, and I believe FedEx's SMS program to be on the verge of robust if not there already, can we also agree that no particular program is required?

Allow me to quote the rest of your post out of order, and go back and grab a quote from a previous post.
Again, and going back to the Advisory Circular, the how is not as important as the what of the programs. At FedEx, the LOSA program is one of the hows we use to take care of one of the whats. Pilots, the FAA, and FedEx have agreed to the program, and we share the information collected and we all benefit from it.

FedEx is attempting to implement a different how, their QA program, for the same what, but they are doing it on their own, with no buy-in from the pilots, and no mechanism to share the data to be collected.

Can they claim it's part of their SMS? Sure. Can they claim it's a required part of SMS, as 3pointlanding continues to assert? No.


It appears to me from studying the ACs and the proposed CFR that the FAA will not decide what it looks like -- they will tell us what it needs to do.

I don't believe I said our QA program has nothing to do with an SMS program. What I have repeatedly said is that FedEx's QA program is not REQUIRED by any SMS program. They can institute a Saturday morning 3-mile-run program as part of their SMS if they want, but it's not REQUIRED.

The funny thing about proving a negative is you can't. However, it only takes one example to disprove it. Still, I do not believe that our QA program has "nothing to do with SMS", so I'm not in a position where I need to prove a negative.

3pointlanding, on the other hand, is asserting a positive -- the QA program IS REQUIRED by SMS. That should be simple to prove, if it's true, with one authoritative source. (By authoritative, I mean a government agency that has regulatory authority, not a Company manual, or a commercial blog.) You'll notice he still hasn't provided any such evidence.


Now, let me go back and clean up a couple more items that I believe may have confused you, one phrase at a time.


I think we agree that SMS (the FAA's version) is voluntary. Some Companies actually see the value of a robust safety program as opposed to a program designed to only produce eyewash and placate the very minimum regulatory requirements. All companies look at balance sheets and bottom lines. Some companies -- I guess they have specially talented accountants -- include the value of a real safety program along with the costs.


Here's where my sarcasm might have thrown you off a bit.

After the crash of Colgan Air Flight 3407, Congress was heavily lobbied by the families of the victims, and Congress took a renewed interest in a broad range of safety topics, including training, fatigue, and safety programs. Included in H.R. 5900 - "Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension Act of 2010" are requirements placed on the FAA to report to Congress.

Section 212. Pilot Fatigue, placed a requirement on air carriers to "submit to the Administrator for review and acceptance a fatigue risk management plan for the carrier’s pilots" not later than 90 days after the enactment of the act. There are more requirements, and many specifics described in the section, but I don't need to delve into that now.

Section 213. Voluntary Safety Programs, placed a requirement on the Administrator to report, not later than 180 days after enactment of the act, to Congress (the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate) about the ASAP, FOQA, LOSA, and AQP. Included in the report was to be a list of which carriers were using the programs, and which were not, and for those that weren't, the reasons they weren't using them.

Here's a link to that report: Federal Aviation Administration Voluntary Safety Programs Response to P.L. 111-216, Sec. 213 (January 28, 2011)

Now, if you browse through that document, you'll see that FedEx had a LOSA program, and we were using AQP, but we had no ASAP and no FOQA program. In fact, we were the largest airline without one, by far.

Now, Mr. Smith likes the people in D.C., and he's made a lot of hay by getting them to see things his way, but this was just a little embarrassing because not only did they all see they he didn't have an ASAP, but they needed to know why not. The why not boiled down to FedEx not being able to relinquish the reach they wanted to be able to use the data gathered to discipline pilots, and the pilots' union, understandably, was not willing to risk a single pilot's livelihood for a voluntary safety program. ALPA was firm in this position, and held out until the pressure brought to bear by Congress helped FedEx see things more clearly.


And here's where your lack of familiarity with the specifics at FedEx may have left you confused about what I was saying.
Well, the FAA's report to Congress came out in January, and we were in RLA Section 6 negotiations with FedEx for an improved contract. Wouldn't you know it, suddenly FedEx wanted to agree to our terms on FOQA, ASAP, and FRMP -- all required by public law -- and they wanted to do it via a Collective Bargaining Agreement that would close Section 6 negotiations for at least another year, and more realistically two years. All three programs could have been implemented via Letter of Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding, signed by officials of all three parties (FAA was the third, of course), and taken effect immediately. Instead, they chose to hold the CBA hostage and require membership vote on the package deal with the caveat that we can't get those important safety programs unless we agree to the whole CBA.

FedEx was motivated by the FAA and Congress to implement the "voluntary" safety programs, and the pilots were snookered into accepting a sub-par contract in the process.

I hope that clears things up.




On this we certainly agree.






.

Your memory is fading. I linked to a copy of the PROPOSED regulation back in Post #51.


I'm not sure who you're addressing, or what you're saying. Could you provide an English version, or an interpretation?

We're still waiting for facts -- if you have them, please do pass them along.






.

Tony, I think we agree more than we disagree, probably more than either of us would admit. And I commend you for be willing to write that much, as I am not and will not.

I will only say that I defend 3pt in his assertion that an SMS is not defined (it is not, as an Advisory Circular is by definition, advisory) in this country because the FAA cannot get off its butt (like the rest of the world) and develop a standard and publish a regulation. ICAO, on the other hand, requires it (although ICAO has given FAA a pass to get the act together). And ICAO requires that you have some programs, but nowhere does anyone in any country say you have to have LOSA. They do say you have to have some kind of quality assurance.

Therefore, until such time that FAA defines an SMS in this country to include LOSA, ASAP, and FOQA (and they will not and never will), airlines can if they choose use "other programs" to ensure the airline has quality assurance, confidential non-punitive reporting, and flight data monitoring if the do not have or in addition to LOSA, ASAP, and FOQA respectively. The wisdom of choosing other programs can certainly be debated.

But the point is, if a carrier says that a QA observation program is part of the SMS for that carrier, it is. I think that is the gist of my disagreement.

https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/faq/

contains all you need to know, if you will accept that source, to demonstrate that we DO NOT HAVE ANY APPROVED SMS programs in this country. The voluntary pilot program is voluntary, and not an approved SMS program as defined or recognized by ICAO.

Peace brother.

On a somewhat more practical aspect, I just looked at my first trip in August and saw that I have a QA observer riding from CDG to MEM with me. Not one of the Fleet Check Airmen that are generally pretty senior and often have a pretty fair amount of experience. My guy (or gal) has an 800,000+ employee number. He/she is a MD first officer, who as far as I can tell by looking at his calendar, has 1 ocean crossing (during IOE) under his belt. I'm just wondering how this pilot can provide much QA to our flight. How will he be able to relate what we're doing on the 777 to his vast experience on the MD? I'm just not sure I get what this is all about.

MG2

As a PS, I am not and don't want question this person's pilot skills. I'm sure he is as qualified as any of us. I am questioning his level of experience and questioning whether his experience level is appropriate to be giving QA observations.

Perhaps we agree even more than you think. If 3pointlanding has asserted that the FedEx Express QA program is part of their SMS, I have no issue with that. Like I said before, they can put anything they want in it, including a Saturday morning 3-mile run.

The assertion that I take issue with is that the FedEx QA program is required by SMS or by IOSA. IT IS NOT REQUIRED. The function that it serves is currently served by LOSA.

They can have it if they want, but they're going to have deal with unhappy pilots. ... which may be the real purpose all along.






.

Of course you know 14 CFR 121.547 applies to your entire airplane, stem to stern, since FedEx decided to NOT outfit the airplane with an Intrusion Resistant Cockpit Door. (Safety is a priority, but some priorities are higher priorities. ;) ) The FO TAA only rides if you want him to ride. If I were the B-777 Captain, he would be making hotel arrangements, and maybe commercial deadhead arrangements.






.

Let me take this SMS thread in a slightly different direction.

According to Management, I wasn't at a "disciplinary" but there were company lawyers and tape recorders there.

How come I heard details that I had only EVER discussed in an ASAP report? Don't get me wrong, I'm fully onboard with most of the ALPA sponsored safety programs (I find it totally UNSAT that it took FedEx so long to establish these programs!*?) ... I just didn't know that Management got to review them when they still had names on them!*?

***?


.

Was your ASAP report "accepted" by the ERC?

Just for clarification, the company is on the IOSA registry and as such must comply with the IOSA Safety Recommended Practices and Standards (ISARPs).
Here is one ISARP in the Organization action of the ISM. The ISARP is repeated in each of the disciplines, FLT, MNT, CO, GRH, SEC, CAB.
Maybe I did not state it correctly but QA is a requirement of SMS as far as IOSA is concerned. It is NOT regulatory. I cannot say there is not a reference in FAA documentations but that does not mean it is not there. I also want to note that the ISARP does not mention how to conduct the program.

ORG 3.4.1 The Operator shall have a quality assurance program that provides for the auditing and evaluation of the management system, and of operations and maintenance functions, to ensure the organization is:
i) Complying with applicable regulations and standards of the Operator;
ii) Satisfying stated operational needs;
iii) Identifying areas requiring improvement;
iv) Identifying hazards to operations. [SMS] (GM) ►
Guidance
Refer to the IRM for the definition of Quality Assurance.
A quality assurance program serves to monitor, evaluate and continually improve operational safety performance, which are elements of the Safety Assurance component of the SMS framework.
Information gained from quality assurance audits can be used in the management of operational risk. Additionally, the quality assurance program could be structured to serve as a safety performance monitoring and measuring activity in an SMS. In some organizations the quality assurance program may have a different name (e.g. internal evaluation program

LOSA is a QA program. Much better too.

Gunter
Maybe maybe not, that is not for me to say. That is between your union and the company. I was just bringing up a point that SMS is an IOSA requirement and QA is part of the SMS. Until CFR Part 5 is published SMS is not a regulatory compliance requirement. I am interested in one thing though, did the company get the permission from the union prior to entering IOSA?

So you are a nonmember?

He's a non-pilot. I mean, he's a retired pilot, apparently hired by The Company to work in the ASAP program. He was probably a non-member when he retired. :rolleyes:






.

Easy to spot the guys with Air Force experience. Sounds like Tony saw that happen. Had a few commanders over the years who wanted their own run day, blues day (before the mandatory Blues Monday), or other such happy BS. Over a dozen years since coming off active duty, I still "twitch" sometimes when I remember so of the stupid stuff the fun police tried to do in Big Blue. Maybe I still need therapy….

My favorite was, "Well you have one day off, between three week trips overseas in Desert Storm, so instead of seeing your family, I want you to come in to the squadron and work "self help" on my basketball court". So much fun!

Tony C
Wrong on most points. I am very pro union and was a grievance committee chairman and walked a picket line, even my wife joined me with a sign. I have no involvement in your company's ASAP program. That is all I will say. All I was trying to point out was there is a program out there, it is part of IOSa of which your company is involved with, CFR Part 5 is coming and SMS is a part of it. I do not have any animus toward you or your compatriots, but I do take objection to your personal attacks on me.
Now I want ask one question. Have you or anyone in your union heard of the FRMS program? I had never heard of it until a few days ago when reading the ISM. Going back to one of some of the earlier posts lead me to ask this question.

Your first post you use "we" referring to FedEx, later you quote the FOM, now you try to act like you are not part of the company and just pointing out programs that are available! Then you object to "personal attacks".

I have an idea - answer the questions that have been asked of you, admit you are working for FedEx and mostly tell your boss that this program would be better served if it had the pilots and the unions involvement instead of being shoved down our throats.

Yeah, I'm bumping my own post from a few weeks back

Never got direct answers. (???)

I think the answers are relevant and will add clarity to the discussion

We all have different backgrounds, experiences, perspectives and bias

Very important to understand if we are going to present interpretations & opinions as facts

Albie,
A few nooks and crannies in the AF were relatively free from such annoyances, Systems Command for example. We speculated that the commanders left us alone because they had bigger fish to fry. :)

Why would that matter? Information obtained through confidential safety reports should be just that ... CONFIDENTIAL!

Or ... maybe I won't submit your "data collection" reports in the future?

I also suspect they've used FOQA data for disciplinary purposes!*?

Before we had ASAP and FOQA programs I attended an NTSB meeting where the NTSB wanted to know if THEY could use the data obtained from the recorders

Max
I will answer your questions one by one
First I am not a FedEx pilot nor have I ever been one
Second, I have nothing to do with The Flt Ops QA program and I have no idea how it is run other than what I read on this forum
Third I am not involved in Fed Ex management or work for them
I am however very well versed in the FARs, SMS, IOSA, and the CMOS
Happy now?

So, now you're it's "your company." In your first post, and many since, it was "we."
I could go on and on and on -- this is too, too easy -- but I'll save some "screen paper" and stop pasting the posts here. ;)

Which is it? You're US or you're them. Pick a side, and stick to it.
You quoted an internal FedEx document -- our SMS Manual -- and now you expect us to believe you have nothing to do with our company? How stupid do you think we are?

In this thread, you've referenced our FOM (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1666808).

In another thread, you quoted from our Jumpseat Certification Guide (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1693767) and referred to our Jumpseat Administration Guide (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1691735)

Last year you talked about the reorganization going on in FedEx Flight Operations Management (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1508415 and http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1508937).

In another thread last year and one a year before, you were "in the know" about conversions and acquisitions of FedEx airplanes (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1475747 , http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1476196 and http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1319105).

In a thread about a rumored B-777 Vacancy Posting, you talked about how we navigate the ups and downs of the economy and brag about how safe you feel here at FedEx (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1411094).

In this thread, http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1387558 , you tell us you've taken several VIPS on hub tours.

In Dec 2012, you were an expert on FDX Professional Instructor positions (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1319105 and http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1310550).

In October 2011 you talked about your crash pad during Basic Indoctrination, and named the pilot who used to run BI (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1071828).

It's hard to find a post that you've made that doesn't in some way disclose your relationship to FedEx. You used to fly long haul, you were an expat for 20 years, you spent some time at Mildenhall, you were in ALPA, you were in the International Brotherhood of Teamsters when Bourne took you (Atlas) away from ALPA, now you live on a lake in Olive Branch and you work for FedEx. Maybe it's a cubicle, maybe it's a professional simulator instructor job.

Your very first post on APC was defending The Company (and claiming inside knowledge) when they shared the contents of a Safety Report (pre-ASAP) with the FAA and threatened discipline of the pilot (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...tml#post932384).


I think we all know which side you're on. It's a little late to start denying it.





Wouldn't know it by your posts in this thread, or others.



Well then, you have some explaining to do.
If you have nothing to do with our ASAP program, what were you doing reading ASAP data?



No, that's not all you were trying to point out. You were trying to rationalize why FedEx is required to have this program they call QA, and trying to convince us we should just oblige and go along like stupid little sheep.


When you dive headlong into a controversy between pilots and their belligerent managers, you should expect to catch some flak. You know what they say about big dogs running and which ones should stay on the porch.


Un-bleepin'-believable. Are you serious, or are you trying to pull our legs? Really? Look at the top of the page for the words in the blue bar "Search this Thread". Click on it. Type FRMS in the box that pops down, and then click GO. 8 posts will pop up -- this post will be on top, the most recent. Scroll to the bottom. The first post that mentions FRMS is MY post, the very FIRST post I made in this thread (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1666198).

Have you been paying attention? Have you been reading these posts, or is that too bleepin' difficult for you?

I said it again in my SECOND post (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1667556).

I didn't mention it in my third post, but I did in my fourth where I struck you out (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1668696).

Do the search on FRMP ("Program" instead of "System") and you'll see I've mentioned that several times, too, each time pointing out that we currently have that program in place, a program agreed to by ALPA, FedEx, and the FAA (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1684167, http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1684663, and http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/ca...ml#post1696100).


And you've just now discovered FRMS?


Unbelievable.



I am done.






.

Apparently not.






.

Max
To answer your question
No I am not a FedEx pilot nor have ever been one
I flew for brand x and worked in the ALPA local grievance and I did spend several weeks walking the line
I do not work for or with management
I do not have anything to do with ASAP, or the QA program. I do not know how the QA program is run other than what I read on this forum but it is obvious the union is not happy with it and I have only been trying to pass along my knowledge and correct misconceptions since I do have a lot of experience with IOSA, the FAA, IOSA, and the CMOS. Obviously I failed
Happy now?

I forgot. I do work for FedEx

So here's another question. How is it that you quote from the FedEx FOM and SMS manual if you are not a FedEx employee?

Did you know that the company sends the manuals to and IOSA AO and the CMO has copies of all the manuals approved and accepted?

I'm not sure you answered the question? Please post link where these manuals are available?

Answer a question with a question- yep, I know that tactic. How about you answer a question with a straight answer, else we'll know you for the imposter you are.

Edited for content

Tony - Well Done

On the other hand, the veracity and credibility of other main participant in this thread is shot

Let's all move on to other, more useful, topics

The point that seems to escape you is that while many of your points are likely true, they are also completely and utterly irrelevant to the majority of posters here.

IOSA is a program of IATA, which is itself a "Trade Association" of airline management. FedEx has joined the IATA frat. I haven't. Neither have you. As an airline management trade association, IATA has certain goals and agendas. IATA is not a friend of labor. Their goals and agendas are frequently at odds with those of the people their member airlines employ. (e.g. see IATA's "liberalization" policy). IATA's policies are in no way, shape or form, regulatory. They do, however, lobby for regulations in line with their goals and agenda.

The pilots employed by FedEx also have a "trade association" (ALPA), who also doesn't have regulatory authority. They also lobby for regulations in line with their goals and agendas.

In this regard, IATA and ALPA are at the same level of the regulatory arena (tho the playing field can by no means be construed as being "level").

To rehash some background: One of the pillars of an effective SMS, ASAP, was held up by FedEx management for over a year over the issue of whether ASAP reports could be used for discipline. The FAA doesn’t think this is a good idea, ALPA doesn’t think this is a good idea, IATA doesn’t think this is a good idea. AFAIK, FedEx management is the ONLY entity involved with ASAP who thinks this is a good idea. FedEx management apparently is of the opinion that ANY information that is known, by whatever means, can and should be grist for the discipline mill. Despite eventually coming to an agreement on the use of ASAP data, we have multiple anecdotal reports of ASAP data being used by FedEx management in manners proscribed by the agreement.

Now, FedEx decides to buy in to one of IATAs frat rules (a “QA” subset of SMS), but they chose to do so without seeking the buy-in of their pilot group, despite the general consensus, even within IATA, that such a buy-in is essential to the best effectiveness of a QA program. FedEx previously tried a QA program (LOSA), but it was administered by an outside vendor, and apparently didn’t give FedEx what they really wanted in a QA program. What might this be, you ask? (discipline?)

FedEx builds their own QA program, one that uses Check Airmen as the observers. Check Airmen who were interviewed by and selected by management, and who draw an additional stipend from management for performing CA duties. Who can be fired by management at management’s whim. To supplement this observer corps, they interview and select a cadre of First Officers, advertising the position as a management apprenticeship. For this apprenticeship they are also paid, by management, an additional payment rumored to be in the neighborhood of the value of 30 pieces of silver. They tell the crew force that the observers are NOT there to observe the crew (but they HAVE to be in the cockpit). They will write reports that the crew will not see, (indeed, the crew doesn’t even see the questions the observers are answering). The crew is told that the reports will be deidentified, by unidentified personnel who are selected and paid by management, And that the reports will never be used for any form of discipline. Does anyone in the crew force believe this? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? And then they insult our concerns with a tone-deaf joke about “black helicopters.”

The bottom line is that the majority of the crew force at FedEx doesn’t give a rat’s a$$ about an IATA program, that in the FedEx iteration, seems to serve management’s goals at our expense. Perhaps, in some future unicorn and rainbow universe, if FedEx management started giving a rat’s a$$ about the goals and agendas of MY “trade association”, I’d start caring about (some of) the goals and agendas of their “trade association”

And nope, they don't have to ride in the cockpit...and until there is a MOU on this program, like LOSA, they can enjoy their international catering in the back....

nice post NF and Tony, by the way...

And I agree, time to move on, remember, never argue with an idiot...or wrestle a pig...