I really dislike your post. You are defaming the union leadership to which I think nearly all of them (maybe one or two) were not around for any past wrongdoing. The plaintiff's lawsuit post contract 2015 is public. You can see what was alleged. I almost joined the lawsuit and would have been #5. No gag order, the case was settled. If I have that wrong, please, someone correct me. I am good friends with the person who brought the case and your account is not my recollection of events.

I think everyone needs to calm down. For many here, this is your first system bid where movement is going backwards. This is the first time you're learning that FedEx, as others have known, isn't the mecca your squadron mate told you it was. The sky isn't falling. Relax. Stay unified. And God sakes, VOTE !!!! Make sure all of your classmates and friends do.

I would love nothing more than to be wrong about this. So please assuage my concerns and show me in the contract how this is true. Maybe I’m reading it all wrong?

This is a scope thread. No one has mentioned the system bid. Let’s not conflate the two. One has nothing to do with the other. They are separate discussions. This scope issue was being discussed before any mention of a system bid coming out.

When I was at Atlas we had UPS cans onboard routinely. "UPS Supply Chain Solutions"

I can verify this as I had them on my airplane too. I took pictures of it at the time and sent them to Atlas's leadership, but they already knew about them, had forwarded it to UPS and were told that there was nothing UPS's union could do.

Our (5X) scope article has provisions for SCS volume which is presented as ADHOC flying helping to open new markets or something like that. Limited to 7 wet leased a/c.

“It is understood that the Company has established an affiliate (SCS) which provides freight forwarding services to third party customers which can involve arranging for service by air. The activities of SCS will not be conducted so as to create a double breasted operation, or for the purpose of depriving IPA represented crewmembers of flying opportunities, or diverting flying opportunities to other pilot groups.”

There are also provisions for common carriage volume:

”Common carriage (within the fifty (50) United States) - scheduled service provided by an air carrier not affiliated with the Company and independent of business provided by the Company. Air transportation service provided for the Company by another air carrier involving more than one (1) package container per flight will be considered common carriage if such flight has been scheduled and operated at least a year in advance of the time its cargo space is first utilized to transport parcels for UPS. Service involving more than five (5) containers of volume per flight will be considered subcontracting.

Common carriage (flights between international airports; flights between an international airport and the Western U.S. region; and flights between an international airport and the Eastern U.S. region) - means the purchase of space on an aircraft operated by other than the Company, or its affiliates, when said aircraft is not scheduled or operated only to service the Company. Such an airline shall operate two (2) flights, or one (1) round trip a week on the same day or days of the week for eight (8) or more weeks in any ninety (90) consecutive days or a total of thirty-six (36) or more flights or eighteen (18) or more round trips in any ninety (90) consecutive days. The container limits for these flights are set forth in Article 1.D.7.

Common carriage (express freight) – Movements of express freight will be subject to the definitions of common carriage are set forth above, subject to the provisions of Article 1.D.5.”

Limited volume permitted.

Second paragraph after the bullet points in the Q2 2023 MEC Meeting Fast Read that was delivered tonight (4/20) ... "The MEC also received a presentation from Scope Committee Chair Captain RB..." The rest of the paragraph details what was discussed.

Sure wish there was some amplifying details along with it.

Keep reading, it explains why no details.

”A portion of this presentation was held in executive session with the ALPA Legal Department.”

The MEC is on excuse number 5 of why we can’t improve Scope. They went into executive session because they know there are solutions but they aren’t willing to sacrifice anything to achieve those solutions. Its retirement benefit increases at all costs, even at the costs of jobs. Just look at what a recent MEC rep posted on JF. Actively selling the TA, mentions only sec 28 gains.