What I’m saying is first, it doesn’t matter whether you think expressjet successfully scheduled crews into point to point service. That’s because it was irrelevant to your guess as to why SWA doesn’t outsource. We know the answer. The answer is they their scope doesn’t allow it. Next, what I’m saying is that management told us they decided not build another wing to the training facility a few years ago. And the reasons is because they are getting push back from investors about capital expenditures, they prioritized away from training capacity. Yeah, it’s not cheap to use up cash to build another building to house another dozen more sims, FTDs, procedure trainers, etc. And to this day, they still haven’t started building it. So maybe it takes 3-4 years. Well, we would be halfway there by now and could see the end of the outsourcing tunnel. But since it was cheaper not to build another wing, and wait another who know how many years before it’s started, let alone complete and operational, I’m saying that it’s cheaper for them to outsource and open scope in the meantime. And if you think that they are negotiating scope for our benefit, then I don’t know what else to say to you. The more favorable we make it or keep it for them to outsource, the longer they wait to finally pull the trigger on added training facilities.

Here is what we know for sure. Right now, they made decisions not to build more training capacity. We know they are outsourcing more than they have in the past. We know they opened scope. We know they are cognizant of expenditures, of course they are, it’s their job to save as much costs in order to increase shareholder value. That is known. You don’t need to know more than those things to know that management will choose to save money anywhere they can, whether that be short term in delaying expenditures, or in outsourcing, or in eroding our contractual scope language for the long term.

Scope is everything. That is what I’m saying. Anything that takes away from that sentiment is not good for FedEx pilots.

 

Well thought out answer. However this isn't Blackboard.

 

How much is the wet lease penalty each year? How much would an FO receive?

 

All answered in Scope communication a few months ago. Short answer is the penalty payment is substantially more. In case you missed it the nuts and bolts are below.


“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 my reading comprehension of that communication in full it appears much more cost efficient to have FedEx pilots fly it.

I think we have a large penalty payment coming soon per Positive Rate Comm sent a few weeks ago.

 

So to answer his question…..we don’t know. NWAP, it’s OK to not know sometimes.

 

wet lease penalties aren’t different for Capt/FO’s.
one, limited payment of $544.17 was distributed last fall. (Typically lists as RecruitBns on your paystub)

recent comms sound like the amount almost nailed down, fingers crossed, my expectation is a multiple of what we’ve already received. The amount of wet leasing has been unprecedented during the time of the Covid.

 

If it truly is more cost efficient to have FedEx pilots fly it, wouldn’t have FedEx pilots flown it?

 

If you don’t have the airplanes or the pilots then you can’t. Hints the wet leases going away as staffing is getting caught up, per SIG notes this month. As Kronan posted above, they don’t pay just an FO rate. 3 possible penalties triggered. Proofs in the fleet count and history. It works!

If it was more cost efficient to wet lease and pay the penalty payments then why increase the fleet count consistently and increase FDX pilot jobs? Why not just outsource and pay the penalty payments? A bean counter obviously does the math and comes to the same conclusion.

 

The communication I refrenced stated the amount for the one penalty that was triggered. You can look it up if so inclined. I did most of the work for you already in referencing the document. Per Positive Rate we will soon know another dollar amount.

 

Soooo you don’t know how much is coming? Got it. Why is it so hard for you to admit you don’t know? I don’t know and neither does any other pilot. Or better yet, why is it so hard for you to not comment on something you don’t know?