Airline Pilot Central Forums - The UPS holey scope clause (it leaks!!)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scope Chairman (Post 1806585)

FDX operates as they do because they don’t fly cabotage segments. If they did, it would be subcontracted – like UPS. An easy way to track this is if the first two letters of the ICAO designator are the same, then chances are the route is cabotage. You must, however, remember that cabotage is ONLY for the revenue, not the aircraft. What this means is that a foreign airline CAN fly between two cities within the same country provided it doesn’t pick up volume destined for the other airport within that country.

To use your example, if UPS started the evening with volume from LEBL, flew that volume to LEVC to pick up additional volume but not drop off any volume from LEBL, then continue on to EDDK, this route would not be cabotage. In EDDK UPS would utilize the privileges of Change of Gauge Y, Change of Gauge W, 5ths or 7ths to move the volume out to the world.

Finally, cabotage is not measured by a region, like the EU. It is measured by the nations involved, but some still believe it is measured by the region. This confusion entered the dialogue when the US/EU Open Skies agreement developed “The Community Clause” to describe and validate international route authority negotiations between the US and the EU, a true first in bilateral negotiations. Never before has a group of nations, no matter how codified they were, been allowed to negotiate State to State bilateral agreements.

Cabotage is the volume, not the plane.

I think we pretty much said the same thing ref cabotage. i just used broader strokes. In this case, the company maintains that Star provides local service between EINN and EIDW (by local service i mean volume, not just airplane)? I would almost call shenanigans but I can see them moving one box on that flight just to justify it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scope Chairman (Post 1806585)

You are correct about finding the reference in other locations; the answer lies in the Consolidated Memorandum of Cooperation (11/18/2005 U.S. Text), Article 9.8:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scope Chairman (Post 1806585)

Neither Party shall require an airline of either Party providing the aircraft to hold traffic rights under this Agreement for the routes on which the aircraft [wet leases only] will be operated.

Beyond this reference you will find elsewhere in the Agreement that such agreements may be requested for a single 7 month period, with a single 7 month extension (14 months total), but this is very rare.

After a more indepth (and sober) search I found a similar reference in the 2007 ATA agreement. I left this stuff behind when I left my previous carriers and was arranging subservices for broken airplanes prior to these dates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scope Chairman (Post 1806585)

No clue why they don’t fly the flag, but we will ask.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scope Chairman (Post 1806585)

Hope this helps Deespatcher. You are well read.

I asked once, got an answer that didn't make sense. Personally I'd just like to see EIDW on a browntail so I can not be at the mercy of DL or UA for rides over. Guess I'll just settle for EKPR this year.

Keep fighting the good fight.