Go Back   Airline Pilot Central Forums - Find your next job as a Pilot > >
Cargo Part 121 cargo airlines
 

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-18-2015, 09:04 AM   #11  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Deespatcher's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: protecting my license until I get the next job.
Posts: 122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scope Chairman View Post
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 View Post
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 View Post

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 View Post
No clue why they don’t fly the flag, but we will ask.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scope Chairman View Post

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.
Deespatcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 10:45 AM   #12  
Line Holder
 
pony172's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Position: long haul
Posts: 72
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UPSpilott View Post
No wonder our scope is so weak. We got a company man running that committee!
We have the best EB and scope in the business. And one D ouche B ag that writes junk like the quote above. It's contract time and sounds like a NURP!
pony172 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 02:39 PM   #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Rocket Bob's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: B-747-400 FO
Posts: 300
Default

UPSPilott hasn't said anything remotely accurate or useful in a long time, just a troll..
Rocket Bob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 03:23 PM   #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Vito's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757/767 Capt
Posts: 476
Default

I'm starting to think UPSPilot is Mgt too. His posts seem contrived to stir the pot. No real man acts that way, sort of like the chick I dumped back in High School and hated me forever...a little too emotional.
Vito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 03:39 PM   #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
To Stay or Go's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Posts: 135
Default

This is sounding like the Bar and Grill.
To Stay or Go is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 04:27 PM   #16  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Short the Market
Posts: 137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whalesurfer View Post
2) UPS displacing IPA crewmembers for an equivalent amount of time as the ABX crews are operating the route. Details will be worked through and announced once the LOA is finalized.

While we would have preferred to have had the opportunity to fly the route ourselves for the January-March time period, the Company’s agreement to displace IPA crews is appropriate and appreciated,” said Travis."
This sounds like the company's favorite type of solution - a cost neutral one. As a bonus it demonstrates the necessity of airline within an airline system they are so fond of.
ThreeSides is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2015, 07:03 PM   #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Posts: 889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontSeat View Post
Why do people keep saying 109...it is 108. There was a mole NURP among the 109...that person was never union material to begin with...
Very good point.
whalesurfer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
 

 
Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UPS Furlough (Part III) TonyWilliams Cargo 250 09-09-2010 04:31 PM
Political group does a 180 on FDX for UPS 767pilot Cargo 113 10-15-2009 06:19 PM
NWA aims to end scope clause restrictions LAfrequentflyer Hangar Talk 3 10-20-2005 07:39 AM
UPS-IPA contract talks Freighter Captain Cargo 0 07-05-2005 09:50 AM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:42 PM.


vBulletin® v3.9.3.5, Copyright ©2000-2019, MH Sub I, LLC dba vBulletin
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1