Originally Posted by ECCVref20 (Post 3633209)

As quoted from the NC video:

“So I know there may be pilots in this room that absolutely are fearful about their job, their job security, and they want scope reopened and fixed. And they say ‘damn the rest of you, it can can wait.’ That’s unconscionable, because there are pilots going out the door every day under the old system. And we have to, as fiduciaries and leaders of this union be responsible to those pilots who are literally heading out the door with the old pension.”

-PM

Pretty divisive no matter what angle you look at it from. And, no it's not being taking out of context, this statement stands for itself.

I respect the work the NC has and continues to do, but to attack someone with a comment like "go back to your crappy little airline where the grass is greener" just because they are just as concerned about stagnation or losing their job as much as others (assuming you) are about their retirement is hypocritical.

Originally Posted by pinseeker (Post 3633260)

Well, you left out what was said before your quote which actually would put more context on the discussion. He was talking about the risks of re-opening an already TA'd section of the contract. So, I see it as him saying that those who are stating that they won't even consider the risks and are bent on voting "NO" no matter what is brought to them unless Section 1 is re-opened are saying "screw everyone else unless I get what I want." IMO, he is saying that attitude is unconscionable.

Nowhere did he or anyone else on the NC or MEC say "go back to your crappy little airline."

Freight is down. We are seeing it, UPS is seeing it, and so are other cargo carriers. This has happened before and will happen again. If you came here thinking there was a promise of rapid career progression, sorry for your disappointment. Junior guys leaving because they want to and senior guys staying to see an improvement in the retirement isn't going to fix that problem for you. Business will turn around. It may take a little time. Until then, take a deep breath and let's wait and see what kind of TA we are presented with.

Originally Posted by oncewasgood (Post 3633288)

As another poster stated, you completely took that quote out of context. You purposely left out the before and after. Like a standard politician, you piecemealed out a small part to try to push your agenda. Absolutely disgusting.

I don’t believe that statement is divisive at all. It’s 100% correct. It shows absolutely zero unity to look at a contract from a perspective of one person at a small snapshot in time. That is a selfish perspective and PM was well within his rights to say just that. I support his perspective 100%.

Originally Posted by magic rat (Post 3633293)

Which set of numbers do you want? Numbers BEFORE or AFTER the ramp space we built for them? It was maybe 3-4? Now close to 30. Far outnumbering our 75s….

Originally Posted by BrianH (Post 3633749)

First off, there are plenty of industry leading examples for Scope.

I am not willing to give up anything, we want to fly all the Fedex freight. And how do we enforce, well that is easy, we agree to a TA with section one improved and expect the company to treat us professionally and abide by the TA. We hold up our end of the TA, it is only right we expect them to hold up their end as well.

Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox (Post 3633771)

What do you say to the Scope Chairman who says protecting international flying that doesn't touch the USA is unenforceable from an RLA standpoint?

Originally Posted by BlueMoon (Post 3633779)

I’d ask for the case law that supports his assertion.

Is there any? Generally curious.

Originally Posted by PurpleToolBox (Post 3633780)

I don't know. I was hoping someone smarter than me could answer the question or provide feedback.

Originally Posted by BlueMoon (Post 3633779)

I’d ask for the case law that supports his assertion.

Is there any? Generally curious.

Originally Posted by Sluggo_63 (Post 3633792)

I'd like the answer too, but even if our CBA said "all FedEx freight will be flown by pilots on the FedEx Master Seniority List," how would that affect our intra-Canadian flying done by Morningstar? Does Transport Canada & IATA say "oh, it's in your contract, well never mind about these pesky Freedoms of the Air things?"

I'm really not sure.

Originally Posted by BlueMoon (Post 3633818)

right, there is some flying we legally couldn’t do. Like the intra Canada flying Morningstar does.

I don’t want to limit the company from doing that.

i want any flight we can legally operate to be operated by FedEx seniority list pilots.

I’m also willing to let the company use belly freight, but it can’t be more than what would support a flight on a FedEx aircraft between city pairs.

There is a workable solution.