I want the answers to those questions. If you don’t know the answers just say you don’t know.

 

Probably not the case but nothing stops us from flying the routes ASL took!

 

Thanks for correcting the record. We are all trying to achieve the same thing.

 

I may have been wrong about RLA versus NLA, the problem is that the RLA does not cover international operations (operations that don't touch the USA). I think this is the reason why UPS has the following clause in their contract, "The Company, its affiliates, the Association, and their successors agree, that in connection with any dispute before an arbitrator or in court, not to raise as a defense the non-applicability of the Railway Labor Act to international operations as defined in C."

I think the NC's email sent out today was encouraging. It didn't sound like doom and gloom.

 

Our flying hours are still higher than before ASL. If the routes are under performing, let them put a 737 on it.

 

The point is, WE should be doing that flying.

If it’s in 737’s, fine, type us. Wouldn’t be that hard to do. We even have the payrate in our CBA.

 

Absolutely but that 737 should be flown by two FedEx pilots.

 

I find it unconscionable that every day, our senior, and junior pilots are watching our flying being outsourced under the old Section 1.

 

Louder for the people in the back please. After all, we already have the pay scales for it. If management needs to re-gauge to smaller than a 57, that is a management problem, not a line pilot problem. Which for that matter, their reasoning for utilizing ASL, IMHO is not at all related to gauge. We have both scope problems, AND a volume (management) problem.

Also, louder for the people in the back please.

 

I'd say it's really how the company CHOOSES to operate. They can avoid Morningstar in Canada and not violate the freedoms rule. All Canada cargo leaves and turns in the USA for sort then returns to Canada. Yes it costs a lot more but there are a lot more FDX pilot jobs. Saying the international scope flying issues cannot be solved is short sighted when union reps say that. It can be solved, it just might be very costly. So the issue is can we find a less costly solution that keeps those pilot jobs in house? I feel pretty good that all the smart FDX Hacks Cross chess players already know they would solve the problem if scope ever became an issue for them. There is just no way they would ever tell ALPA. It's up to our in house experts to find the solution then force through a scope clause that makes the company use the better option for our pilots.

Our union just needs to think outside the box for these type issues. For example, If we cannot find a way around belly freight, then tell the US Majors that our pilots are going to put in a clause that allows belly freight only on carriers that also give our pilots pass privileges for life. Who know maybe we could improve our QOL on a contract without giving something up. FDX spends millions on belly freight shipping every year and I get the issues around belly freight, but try get us something. Just making a wild suggestion off the top of my head, but I'm sure some of the really smart guys/girls here could come up with much better ideas.