Question that boggles me
05-27-2021, 06:38 PM
#41
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Originally Posted by FXLAX
I’d like to see it be so expensive that the company doesn’t exercise that clause.
05-28-2021, 02:16 PM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2012
Posts: 670
Originally Posted by FXLAX
I’d like to see it be so expensive that the company doesn’t exercise that clause.
05-28-2021, 04:16 PM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr
Im guessing you are referring to the Istanbul-Tel Aviv flight. The one where UPS is under an arbitrator’s order to get the flying back on our jets and compensate us in the mean time, even though the sticking point is the Turkish government refusing to allow UPS tails to fly the route. We could always cease service on that route as a company tomorrow. That would fit your definition better, we would lose our compensation (yes it’s small after being divvied up among 3,000 pilots), and we would not get to fly that route. Definitely sounds better to me. Our scope clause directly led to subs being kicked off property outside of the 45 day exception. I am sure that some lawyer, somewhere thinks they could have written the clause better. However, in the meantime it’s well above industry standard. We can and should always push for better, more airtight language with every contract. However, gains are harder when you can’t point to someone else’s contract as an example of what you want.
05-29-2021, 04:58 PM
#44
Occasional box hauler
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 1,684
Originally Posted by Tango Uniform
Wasn’t that contracted out due to security risks? Multiple bombings and terrorist attacks in Turkey. Tel Aviv rocketed a couple weeks ago….
05-30-2021, 09:32 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 176
Originally Posted by tnkrdrvr
My understanding, (I’m new here), was that our layover hotel was hit by a suicide bomber in the late 2000’s. Shockingly, nobody wanted to fly the route after that. The company contracted out the route until things got better. When we(IPA) said we wanted back in, the Turkish government decided they wouldn’t give us landing rights at Istanbul since that would deprive a Turkish company of the contract. The company was forced to pay us what they are paying the contractor while they attempt to talk the Turks into letting us back in. It would be a sweet layover (rocket attacks aside) and drive pilot hiring, so hopefully the company and state department will make some forward progress.
05-31-2021, 01:00 PM
#46
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 757 Capt
Posts: 2,418
Originally Posted by TonyC
That would be wrong.
Kronan, have you no shame in writing stuff that is just plain wrong, especially when it is so easy to prove it wrong?
Kronan, have you no shame in writing stuff that is just plain wrong, especially when it is so easy to prove it wrong?
a. Should a wet lease operation assume flying regularly and historically performed by FedEx crewmembers, as evidenced by the FedEx bid packs, for more than two (2) bid periods in a calendar year, the Company shall pay the Association a sum of money for the period of the wet lease in excess of two (2) bid periods calculated as follows: The average pay for a Federal Express crew complement times the number of regular bid pack credit hours that would have been earned by Federal Express pilots but for the wet lease. This sum shall be calculated after the expiration of the wet lease and shall be distributed to pilots in the manner identified by the Association. Wet leases done in support of charter flying during this four month period shall not be subject to this penalty.
Along with a chiding to keep reading further into the section, on the next page.
And nothing to those attacking our Union for allowing the company to wet lease? Or allowing the Company to choose the various cities wet-leasing is being used for? And nothing to address those who think the wet-leasing penalty is going to be essentially a worthless value?
Personally, I'm expecting it to be thousands of dollars versus penny's.
And personally, I'm thankful for your pointing out the formula in paragraph c. Makes me hopeful that perhaps the reason the company has Scope in it's openers is to address the 3 man crew verbiage.
Hard to believe that slipped through considering the 72's been retired for 8 years.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
RVSM Certified
Flight Schools and Training
22
02-27-2009 12:04 PM
