Long term outsourcing agreement
11-01-2021 | 03:58 PM
#131
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 1
Just found the email from the union Scope Committee a few weeks ago. We all got it. Many appear to have not read it. Lays it all out clearly. To be clear, I’m all for scope improvements. Lets not act like this is a new dynamic though. If it was cheaper the company would be outsourcing more not buying new airplane after new airplane. Hiring is at its highest rate in company history per the fleet updates sent out recently. Are we chasing our tails a bit? Before we know it we wont even know what we are trying to accomplish this round of negotiations. Retirement, pay, a few quality of life things.
“Our scope language addresses wet leasing. The Company may wet lease a minimum of two aircraft for up to four bid periods per calendar year with three of those bid periods required to be consecutive. Three unique penalty triggers then may apply.
The first is provided in Section 1.B.6.a. and covers wet lease operations that “assume flying regularly and historically performed by FedEx crewmembers” for more than two bid periods. Such wet lease operations which exceed two bid periods begin to accrue penalties through the conclusion of the wet lease. This is the situation for the two Western Global MD-11s mentioned above.
The second trigger is provided in Section 1.B.6.b. and covers wet lease operations that exceed the maximum number of aircraft based upon the net number of hulls the Company adds to the fleet during the calendar year. The most recent scope penalty payment was based on this provision.
The third trigger is provided in Section 1.B.6.c. and covers wet leasing done beyond the previously mentioned four bid periods. Penalties under this provision are significantly higher than the preceding two.
From a recent historical perspective, Company wet lease activities resulted in penalties from 2015, 2016, and 2020. Notably, the duration of some of the current wet leases are running significantly longer than past wet leases. We are carefully following this development and have highlighted this aspect to the MEC and the Negotiating Committee”
“Our scope language addresses wet leasing. The Company may wet lease a minimum of two aircraft for up to four bid periods per calendar year with three of those bid periods required to be consecutive. Three unique penalty triggers then may apply.
The first is provided in Section 1.B.6.a. and covers wet lease operations that “assume flying regularly and historically performed by FedEx crewmembers” for more than two bid periods. Such wet lease operations which exceed two bid periods begin to accrue penalties through the conclusion of the wet lease. This is the situation for the two Western Global MD-11s mentioned above.
The second trigger is provided in Section 1.B.6.b. and covers wet lease operations that exceed the maximum number of aircraft based upon the net number of hulls the Company adds to the fleet during the calendar year. The most recent scope penalty payment was based on this provision.
The third trigger is provided in Section 1.B.6.c. and covers wet leasing done beyond the previously mentioned four bid periods. Penalties under this provision are significantly higher than the preceding two.
From a recent historical perspective, Company wet lease activities resulted in penalties from 2015, 2016, and 2020. Notably, the duration of some of the current wet leases are running significantly longer than past wet leases. We are carefully following this development and have highlighted this aspect to the MEC and the Negotiating Committee”
Let’s not act like it’s new but let’s act on it now that more pilots seem to be aware of it now. Unless you think there is a noble reason why management decided to open scope section?
11-01-2021 | 04:34 PM
#132
Thread Starter
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 258
Likes: 2
I’m not sure what you mean by 20% of SWA passengers?
As for outsourcing costs, the training facility is maxed out. They put an MD10 sim in the falcon building a couple of years ago to make room for one more Boeing sim. And then they decided not to spend the capital to expand training facilities. We have 5000 pilots and trying to hire another 2000 in the next couple of years. Pretty soon after that we may be the size of the SWA pilot group. Guess how much SWA paid for their facilities in order to train that many pilots versus just outsourcing? So it’s not just incremental costs for the next pilot hired. It’s the cost of building another couple dozen sim bays and simulators and all associated infrastructure. Of course that is more expensive than the next new hire class plus penalty payments. So should we feel ok that they outsource a few of our jobs in the past and some more now to temporarily save on capital expenditures or are they done with those expenditures and hence the reason why they opened up scope in negotiations?
As for outsourcing costs, the training facility is maxed out. They put an MD10 sim in the falcon building a couple of years ago to make room for one more Boeing sim. And then they decided not to spend the capital to expand training facilities. We have 5000 pilots and trying to hire another 2000 in the next couple of years. Pretty soon after that we may be the size of the SWA pilot group. Guess how much SWA paid for their facilities in order to train that many pilots versus just outsourcing? So it’s not just incremental costs for the next pilot hired. It’s the cost of building another couple dozen sim bays and simulators and all associated infrastructure. Of course that is more expensive than the next new hire class plus penalty payments. So should we feel ok that they outsource a few of our jobs in the past and some more now to temporarily save on capital expenditures or are they done with those expenditures and hence the reason why they opened up scope in negotiations?
That would allow far more people to be trained without expanding our training center beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Bottom line, FedEx has options to increase internal staffing and did not need to outsource 2 Atlas B747’s long term.
11-01-2021 | 04:55 PM
#133
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2021
Posts: 209
Likes: 10
Many airlines utilize Boeing and Airbus training centers while using their own instructors or even rent sim space from other airlines if it’s available another option would be the many sim facilities like Flight Safety, Pan Am, CAE, etc. The simulators might not be accurate to our cockpits but we could use them for the type rating and then use our sims for a short differences course.
That would allow far more people to be trained without expanding our training center beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Bottom line, FedEx has options to increase internal staffing and did not need to outsource 2 Atlas B747’s long term.
That would allow far more people to be trained without expanding our training center beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Bottom line, FedEx has options to increase internal staffing and did not need to outsource 2 Atlas B747’s long term.
11-01-2021 | 05:18 PM
#134
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 1
From: FO
Many airlines utilize Boeing and Airbus training centers while using their own instructors or even rent sim space from other airlines if it’s available another option would be the many sim facilities like Flight Safety, Pan Am, CAE, etc. The simulators might not be accurate to our cockpits but we could use them for the type rating and then use our sims for a short differences course.
That would allow far more people to be trained without expanding our training center beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Bottom line, FedEx has options to increase internal staffing and did not need to outsource 2 Atlas B747’s long term.
That would allow far more people to be trained without expanding our training center beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Bottom line, FedEx has options to increase internal staffing and did not need to outsource 2 Atlas B747’s long term.
767 LDS, 757 with whatever they call the fancy screens,I just don’t know if or where those sims even exist. All the pax carriers have classic 767/757 cockpits that I know of.
MD-11, of course UPS as Md-11 sims and I’m sure there’s a couple out there since a few ACMI operate the type.
777 is probably the easiest to find outside sim time.
11-01-2021 | 05:42 PM
#135
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 424
Likes: 1
From: B767 FO
FDX likes to reinvent the wheel like most airlines, but they already know how to contract sims. During the 727/DC-10 days Contract Sims at UAL/AA were common. When I got hired my Initial training on the 727 was in MIA at Pan Am and Boeing. Was a good deal.
As mentioned, our only option it seems is to contract 777 sims.
We’ve already bought AA’s 757 Sim a few years ago with the IS&S Avionics and converted it to match our airplanes. Our MCP from what I understand was slightly different than AA’s.
As mentioned, our only option it seems is to contract 777 sims.
We’ve already bought AA’s 757 Sim a few years ago with the IS&S Avionics and converted it to match our airplanes. Our MCP from what I understand was slightly different than AA’s.
Last edited by OKLATEX; 11-01-2021 at 05:59 PM.
11-01-2021 | 06:09 PM
#136
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 1
Long term outsourcing agreement
Many airlines utilize Boeing and Airbus training centers while using their own instructors or even rent sim space from other airlines if it’s available another option would be the many sim facilities like Flight Safety, Pan Am, CAE, etc. The simulators might not be accurate to our cockpits but we could use them for the type rating and then use our sims for a short differences course.
That would allow far more people to be trained without expanding our training center beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Bottom line, FedEx has options to increase internal staffing and did not need to outsource 2 Atlas B747’s long term.
That would allow far more people to be trained without expanding our training center beyond what is absolutely necessary.
Bottom line, FedEx has options to increase internal staffing and did not need to outsource 2 Atlas B747’s long term.
We are making different points to the same argument.
11-01-2021 | 09:49 PM
#137
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 268
Likes: 1
From: BE-20, LR35
Spoken like someone who has never developed a training program and then worked with the regulator to get it approved. You can't just magically declare you have a differences program and poof it exists. FedEx has an AQP training program for each airframe AND a Part 142 Training Program. Though similar, they are separate programs with separate approvals and manuals etc. We do not have a differences program in the 75 listed on our training website, so I doubt it exists. AA's 757's had the V-bar flight director, we have cross pointers...a difference that could potentially make those at our certificate management team at the FSDO go completely nuts and demand a separate training program. The FAA uses the 8900 as their bible, which they think spells out how they should do everything. Those who have worked with the FAA soon realized that just because it says one thing in the 8900 doesn't mean everyone at the FAA interprets it the same way. The days of an LR-JET type rating covering 8 different jets is over. New common type ratings are unheard of today with new types. Long story short, you don't just go rent a sim and turn it on immediately...it takes time and resources and is usually a stop-gap.
Yes we used to train in Iceland for our Europe based pilots. I suspect we eliminated that because Iceland is quite literally one of the most expensive places on earth to send someone for training.
Think we are the only company planning to hire a lot of pilots in the coming years? Good luck, you'll be competing with every domestic and most international carriers for "renting" that extra capacity.
We are not anywhere close to the size of Southwest's pilot group AND we have multiple fleet types which creates staffing inefficiencies with regard to training.
I'm aware that hiring one pilot is less expensive than building a new sim building and buying sims. I said marginal pilot for that specific reason. Lets say a sim theoretically provides the capacity for 90 pilots per year. Hiring the 52nd through 59th pilot is relatively cheap.
Ever wonder why Southwest will not pursue outsourcing? Historically it was because a regional carrier will not work in a point to point system in an efficient way, as it does for the hub and spoke carriers. Now, I suspect staffing needs will be an additional constraint that will absolutely hammer the regionals (which makes me happy) and may require legacies to add A220's ERJ 195's to their fleets and staff in house.
My point is, and my questions remains unanswered, does ANYONE know the terms of the ATLAS contract? I certainly don't. I suspect none of y'all do either. Therefore you cannot tell me that it is 100% cheaper to outsource. In my opinion, FedEx is holding back airplanes and pilots to protect their system. Covid has created shocks in our pilot group with regard to quarantines and pilots going out sick/close contacts removed from flying etc. In my opinion, management put a value of xxx dollars on having a certain number of airplanes and pilots committed to protecting our system in house. They saw Atlas as an option to instantly increase coverage/capacity. Why do you think it's a long term contract? Well, why was FedEx requiring long term contracts to new customers when belly freight stopped moving on passenger planes when the world stopped for a couple months? BECAUSE WE COULD. Well, Atlas stands in a position to demand a long term contract because if we don't they can easily find someone who will right now. If you haven't noticed, the supply chain is seriously strained and people are paying whatever it takes to get their products moving.
Anyways, I don't think I'll change any minds. I already said I'd prefer fedex planes and pilots to fly fedex packages and I'll always feel that way. I simply think the decision was more complex than company posturing before a contract and I think the costs are likely much closer than people think.
Yes we used to train in Iceland for our Europe based pilots. I suspect we eliminated that because Iceland is quite literally one of the most expensive places on earth to send someone for training.
Think we are the only company planning to hire a lot of pilots in the coming years? Good luck, you'll be competing with every domestic and most international carriers for "renting" that extra capacity.
We are not anywhere close to the size of Southwest's pilot group AND we have multiple fleet types which creates staffing inefficiencies with regard to training.
I'm aware that hiring one pilot is less expensive than building a new sim building and buying sims. I said marginal pilot for that specific reason. Lets say a sim theoretically provides the capacity for 90 pilots per year. Hiring the 52nd through 59th pilot is relatively cheap.
Ever wonder why Southwest will not pursue outsourcing? Historically it was because a regional carrier will not work in a point to point system in an efficient way, as it does for the hub and spoke carriers. Now, I suspect staffing needs will be an additional constraint that will absolutely hammer the regionals (which makes me happy) and may require legacies to add A220's ERJ 195's to their fleets and staff in house.
My point is, and my questions remains unanswered, does ANYONE know the terms of the ATLAS contract? I certainly don't. I suspect none of y'all do either. Therefore you cannot tell me that it is 100% cheaper to outsource. In my opinion, FedEx is holding back airplanes and pilots to protect their system. Covid has created shocks in our pilot group with regard to quarantines and pilots going out sick/close contacts removed from flying etc. In my opinion, management put a value of xxx dollars on having a certain number of airplanes and pilots committed to protecting our system in house. They saw Atlas as an option to instantly increase coverage/capacity. Why do you think it's a long term contract? Well, why was FedEx requiring long term contracts to new customers when belly freight stopped moving on passenger planes when the world stopped for a couple months? BECAUSE WE COULD. Well, Atlas stands in a position to demand a long term contract because if we don't they can easily find someone who will right now. If you haven't noticed, the supply chain is seriously strained and people are paying whatever it takes to get their products moving.
Anyways, I don't think I'll change any minds. I already said I'd prefer fedex planes and pilots to fly fedex packages and I'll always feel that way. I simply think the decision was more complex than company posturing before a contract and I think the costs are likely much closer than people think.
11-02-2021 | 06:52 AM
#138
Banned
Joined: Jun 2018
Posts: 1,838
Likes: 0
Spoken like someone who has never developed a training program and then worked with the regulator to get it approved. You can't just magically declare you have a differences program and poof it exists. FedEx has an AQP training program for each airframe AND a Part 142 Training Program. Though similar, they are separate programs with separate approvals and manuals etc. We do not have a differences program in the 75 listed on our training website, so I doubt it exists. AA's 757's had the V-bar flight director, we have cross pointers...a difference that could potentially make those at our certificate management team at the FSDO go completely nuts and demand a separate training program. The FAA uses the 8900 as their bible, which they think spells out how they should do everything. Those who have worked with the FAA soon realized that just because it says one thing in the 8900 doesn't mean everyone at the FAA interprets it the same way. The days of an LR-JET type rating covering 8 different jets is over. New common type ratings are unheard of today with new types. Long story short, you don't just go rent a sim and turn it on immediately...it takes time and resources and is usually a stop-gap.
Yes we used to train in Iceland for our Europe based pilots. I suspect we eliminated that because Iceland is quite literally one of the most expensive places on earth to send someone for training.
Think we are the only company planning to hire a lot of pilots in the coming years? Good luck, you'll be competing with every domestic and most international carriers for "renting" that extra capacity.
We are not anywhere close to the size of Southwest's pilot group AND we have multiple fleet types which creates staffing inefficiencies with regard to training.
I'm aware that hiring one pilot is less expensive than building a new sim building and buying sims. I said marginal pilot for that specific reason. Lets say a sim theoretically provides the capacity for 90 pilots per year. Hiring the 52nd through 59th pilot is relatively cheap.
Ever wonder why Southwest will not pursue outsourcing? Historically it was because a regional carrier will not work in a point to point system in an efficient way, as it does for the hub and spoke carriers. Now, I suspect staffing needs will be an additional constraint that will absolutely hammer the regionals (which makes me happy) and may require legacies to add A220's ERJ 195's to their fleets and staff in house.
My point is, and my questions remains unanswered, does ANYONE know the terms of the ATLAS contract? I certainly don't. I suspect none of y'all do either. Therefore you cannot tell me that it is 100% cheaper to outsource. In my opinion, FedEx is holding back airplanes and pilots to protect their system. Covid has created shocks in our pilot group with regard to quarantines and pilots going out sick/close contacts removed from flying etc. In my opinion, management put a value of xxx dollars on having a certain number of airplanes and pilots committed to protecting our system in house. They saw Atlas as an option to instantly increase coverage/capacity. Why do you think it's a long term contract? Well, why was FedEx requiring long term contracts to new customers when belly freight stopped moving on passenger planes when the world stopped for a couple months? BECAUSE WE COULD. Well, Atlas stands in a position to demand a long term contract because if we don't they can easily find someone who will right now. If you haven't noticed, the supply chain is seriously strained and people are paying whatever it takes to get their products moving.
Anyways, I don't think I'll change any minds. I already said I'd prefer fedex planes and pilots to fly fedex packages and I'll always feel that way. I simply think the decision was more complex than company posturing before a contract and I think the costs are likely much closer than people think.
Yes we used to train in Iceland for our Europe based pilots. I suspect we eliminated that because Iceland is quite literally one of the most expensive places on earth to send someone for training.
Think we are the only company planning to hire a lot of pilots in the coming years? Good luck, you'll be competing with every domestic and most international carriers for "renting" that extra capacity.
We are not anywhere close to the size of Southwest's pilot group AND we have multiple fleet types which creates staffing inefficiencies with regard to training.
I'm aware that hiring one pilot is less expensive than building a new sim building and buying sims. I said marginal pilot for that specific reason. Lets say a sim theoretically provides the capacity for 90 pilots per year. Hiring the 52nd through 59th pilot is relatively cheap.
Ever wonder why Southwest will not pursue outsourcing? Historically it was because a regional carrier will not work in a point to point system in an efficient way, as it does for the hub and spoke carriers. Now, I suspect staffing needs will be an additional constraint that will absolutely hammer the regionals (which makes me happy) and may require legacies to add A220's ERJ 195's to their fleets and staff in house.
My point is, and my questions remains unanswered, does ANYONE know the terms of the ATLAS contract? I certainly don't. I suspect none of y'all do either. Therefore you cannot tell me that it is 100% cheaper to outsource. In my opinion, FedEx is holding back airplanes and pilots to protect their system. Covid has created shocks in our pilot group with regard to quarantines and pilots going out sick/close contacts removed from flying etc. In my opinion, management put a value of xxx dollars on having a certain number of airplanes and pilots committed to protecting our system in house. They saw Atlas as an option to instantly increase coverage/capacity. Why do you think it's a long term contract? Well, why was FedEx requiring long term contracts to new customers when belly freight stopped moving on passenger planes when the world stopped for a couple months? BECAUSE WE COULD. Well, Atlas stands in a position to demand a long term contract because if we don't they can easily find someone who will right now. If you haven't noticed, the supply chain is seriously strained and people are paying whatever it takes to get their products moving.
Anyways, I don't think I'll change any minds. I already said I'd prefer fedex planes and pilots to fly fedex packages and I'll always feel that way. I simply think the decision was more complex than company posturing before a contract and I think the costs are likely much closer than people think.
11-02-2021 | 11:00 AM
#139
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,174
Likes: 1
Long term outsourcing agreement
I'm aware that hiring one pilot is less expensive than building a new sim building and buying sims. I said marginal pilot for that specific reason. Lets say a sim theoretically provides the capacity for 90 pilots per year. Hiring the 52nd through 59th pilot is relatively cheap.
Ever wonder why Southwest will not pursue outsourcing? Historically it was because a regional carrier will not work in a point to point system in an efficient way, as it does for the hub and spoke carriers. Now, I suspect staffing needs will be an additional constraint that will absolutely hammer the regionals (which makes me happy) and may require legacies to add A220's ERJ 195's to their fleets and staff in house.
My point is, and my questions remains unanswered, does ANYONE know the terms of the ATLAS contract? I certainly don't. I suspect none of y'all do either. Therefore you cannot tell me that it is 100% cheaper to outsource. In my opinion, FedEx is holding back airplanes and pilots to protect their system. Covid has created shocks in our pilot group with regard to quarantines and pilots going out sick/close contacts removed from flying etc. In my opinion, management put a value of xxx dollars on having a certain number of airplanes and pilots committed to protecting our system in house. They saw Atlas as an option to instantly increase coverage/capacity. Why do you think it's a long term contract? Well, why was FedEx requiring long term contracts to new customers when belly freight stopped moving on passenger planes when the world stopped for a couple months? BECAUSE WE COULD. Well, Atlas stands in a position to demand a long term contract because if we don't they can easily find someone who will right now. If you haven't noticed, the supply chain is seriously strained and people are paying whatever it takes to get their products moving.
Anyways, I don't think I'll change any minds. I already said I'd prefer fedex planes and pilots to fly fedex packages and I'll always feel that way. I simply think the decision was more complex than company posturing before a contract and I think the costs are likely much closer than people think.
Ever wonder why Southwest will not pursue outsourcing? Historically it was because a regional carrier will not work in a point to point system in an efficient way, as it does for the hub and spoke carriers. Now, I suspect staffing needs will be an additional constraint that will absolutely hammer the regionals (which makes me happy) and may require legacies to add A220's ERJ 195's to their fleets and staff in house.
My point is, and my questions remains unanswered, does ANYONE know the terms of the ATLAS contract? I certainly don't. I suspect none of y'all do either. Therefore you cannot tell me that it is 100% cheaper to outsource. In my opinion, FedEx is holding back airplanes and pilots to protect their system. Covid has created shocks in our pilot group with regard to quarantines and pilots going out sick/close contacts removed from flying etc. In my opinion, management put a value of xxx dollars on having a certain number of airplanes and pilots committed to protecting our system in house. They saw Atlas as an option to instantly increase coverage/capacity. Why do you think it's a long term contract? Well, why was FedEx requiring long term contracts to new customers when belly freight stopped moving on passenger planes when the world stopped for a couple months? BECAUSE WE COULD. Well, Atlas stands in a position to demand a long term contract because if we don't they can easily find someone who will right now. If you haven't noticed, the supply chain is seriously strained and people are paying whatever it takes to get their products moving.
Anyways, I don't think I'll change any minds. I already said I'd prefer fedex planes and pilots to fly fedex packages and I'll always feel that way. I simply think the decision was more complex than company posturing before a contract and I think the costs are likely much closer than people think.
We aren’t taking about one more sim in the falcon building. We are talking about adding a whole other wing, a new building, to the existing training facilities. Then furnishing it with a dozen more simulators. And hiring more instructors. And etc etc. Its either that or pay Atlas to move our freight and pay us a penalty. FedEx was getting heat from Wall Street on capital expenditures. They still are evidence from their continued defense of in the last earnings call. So they scrapped that idea and went with the short term cheaper alternative. This was all pre-COVID. Eventually, I hope, they will build the extra wing because they’ll probably have to in order to expand the way they are currently planning. And because in the long term, it probably is cheaper as the cost of each additional pilot is incremental once the facility is up and running.
Or alternatively they can get scope concessions instead. The big picture here is that management opened up scope for a reason. And it’s probably not in our best interest why they did. So changing the equation to incentivize management NOT to outsource is paramount regardless of what that cost is now.
Lastly, there is no need to wonder why SWA doesn’t outsource. Their pilots’ scope clause doesn’t allow any domestic outsourcing and very little of international. It had nothing to do with regional point to point flying (which expressjet successfully staffed for 18 months). The very little outsourcing their near international scope allows (when it was negotiated before they started international flying), is disincentivized by language in that section of their scope clause. Which is why SWA later chose not to outsource their near international flying and instead do it all themselves.
Scope is everything.
11-02-2021 | 11:36 AM
#140
Line Holder
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 268
Likes: 1
From: BE-20, LR35
We aren’t taking about one more sim in the falcon building. We are talking about adding a whole other wing, a new building, to the existing training facilities. Then furnishing it with a dozen more simulators. And hiring more instructors. And etc etc. Its either that or pay Atlas to move our freight and pay us a penalty. FedEx was getting heat from Wall Street on capital expenditures. They still are evidence from their continued defense of in the last earnings call. So they scrapped that idea and went with the short term cheaper alternative. This was all pre-COVID. Eventually, I hope, they will build the extra wing because they’ll probably have to in order to expand the way they are currently planning. And because in the long term, it probably is cheaper as the cost of each additional pilot is incremental once the facility is up and running.
Or alternatively they can get scope concessions instead. The big picture here is that management opened up scope for a reason. And it’s probably not in our best interest why they did. So changing the equation to incentivize management NOT to outsource is paramount regardless of what that cost is now.
Lastly, there is no need to wonder why SWA doesn’t outsource. Their pilots’ scope clause doesn’t allow any domestic outsourcing and very little of international. It had nothing to do with regional point to point flying (which expressjet successfully staffed for 18 months). The very little outsourcing their near international scope allows (when it was negotiated before they started international flying), is disincentivized by language in that section of their scope clause. Which is why SWA later chose not to outsource their near international flying and instead do it all themselves.
Scope is everything.
Or alternatively they can get scope concessions instead. The big picture here is that management opened up scope for a reason. And it’s probably not in our best interest why they did. So changing the equation to incentivize management NOT to outsource is paramount regardless of what that cost is now.
Lastly, there is no need to wonder why SWA doesn’t outsource. Their pilots’ scope clause doesn’t allow any domestic outsourcing and very little of international. It had nothing to do with regional point to point flying (which expressjet successfully staffed for 18 months). The very little outsourcing their near international scope allows (when it was negotiated before they started international flying), is disincentivized by language in that section of their scope clause. Which is why SWA later chose not to outsource their near international flying and instead do it all themselves.
Scope is everything.
Now you’re saying express jet is an example of point to point regional jet flying as a success story? I’m not sure Express Jet and success have ever been in the same sentence together (other than the two I typed above).
Words mean very little when responding to wall streets constant nitpicking.
Yes the company opened scope. Anyone know what they are asking? Yeah, me either. I presume is a reduction of penalty payments with regard to unforeseen supply shocks, but I may be wrong and we will find out soon enough.
Once again, and for the final time, you don’t know the true cost of the contract and you don’t know the marginal cost of adding the capacity in house (assuming it was even possible at all in this time frame which it likely was not). Our training capacity is increased given the new utilization of FTDs with visuals for a larger part of training. You don’t even know what our programs capacities are at! Neither do I, but at least I am not running around making claims without facts. I’m simply pointing out things that I do know from personal experience at a previous job that probably came into play in this decision.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
