Then why is ASL flying more block hours than TNT was before FedEx bought them? Sorry, I wouldn’t take anyone’s word for it anyway. If what you say is true, even though the numbers don’t add up, I wouldve asked to show us the agreements in writing, due diligence and all.

Anyway, the point to my post was that the RLA does apply everywhere we operate.

Does it matter that their scope is apparently as bad as ours? That’s not what we should be worried about. We should be worried about OUR scope, not anyone else’s. If we can negotiate industry leading retirement, we should expect no less than industry leading scope. Don’t you agree?

If the pilots would’ve polled low on items like retirement or pay rates (or insert any other major pillar of our contract), would you be okay with those sections not being pursued? Or should leadership decide that even though scope/retirement/pay/benefits/QOL didn’t poll highly, they should pursue strengthening them, especially scope considering the weakness of it? Sometimes people need to lead. Not trying to strengthen scope is a major failure of leadership. I’m sorry to say that but I feel it’s true. I was so underwhelmed when reading the openers for the first time. Gut punch.

 

Yup. Leadership failure.

 

Hmm…I wonder how they came to that conclusion? You know you can go to the FDX MEC website and there is a comparison. From the “Interline, co-load, code-share, part charter, and block spare agreements with other carriers” for FedEx:

4. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Agreement, the Company may continue to interline, co-load, code-share, part charter and enter into block space agreements with other carriers to move freight and service in International (outside the contiguous 48 states) markets as required. Within the Domestic system (the contiguous 48 United States) the use of the above shall be done only: (1) when necessary to expedite or (2) when economically necessary, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.

 

And now UPS. Explain to me how UPS’ scope clause is inferior:
7. Common Carriage Limitations

a. Common carriage within the fifty (50) United States will be in accordance with the definition of “Common carriage (within the fifty (50) United States)” contained in Article 2.

b. The “Common Carriage Weekly Aggregate Limits” set forth in paragraph c. below are maximum limits on utilization of common carriage on all scheduled service between international points (i.e. those outside of the U.S.); on flights between an international point and the Western U.S. region; and on flights between an international point and the Eastern U.S. region. An “international point” for purposes of this section shall include a one hundred and twenty-five (125) nautical mile radius of the international airport of departure/arrival. The “Western U.S. region” and “Eastern U.S. region” will be determined as outlined in Article 1.D.7.e.(4) below.

c. Weekly aggregate limits between two international airports or between an international airport and a U.S. region (as described above) will be based on the Company’s frequency/utilization of common carriage service:

(1) Five (5) or less service days per week:

If the flight is 5:00 block hours or less, UPS is limited to no more than forty-five (45) containers per week when the Company utilizes any common carrier for five (5) or less service days per week. In those cases where the scheduled flight time between locations is over 5:00block hours, the limit shall be no more than fifty (50) containers per week.

(2) Six (6) service days per week:

If the flight is 5:00 block hours or less, UPS is limited to no more than fifty-four (54) containers per week when the Company utilizes any common carrier for six (6) service days per week. In those cases where the scheduled flight time between locations is over 5:00block hours, the limit shall be no more than sixty (60) containers per week.

(3) Seven (7) service days per week:

If the flight is 5:00 block hours or less, UPS is limited to no more than sixty-three (63) containers per week when the Company utilizes any common carrier for seven (7) service days per week. In those cases where the scheduled flight time between locations is over 5:00block hours, the limit shall be no more than seventy (70) containers per week.

d. In the event UPS exceeds any common carriage limitation listed above, each such exceedance will be reported to the Association and will be counted as a subcontracting day pursuant to the limitations on subcontracting contained in Article 1.D.1.c., unless UPS has invoked Article 1.D.7.e.

e. Temporary Common Carriage Flex

For the purpose of developing new markets for the Company, and new work opportunities for crewmembers represented by the IPA, the parties have agreed that the regular “Common Carriage Weekly Aggregate Limits” may be “flexed” to temporarily allow for greater utilization of common carriage than stated in Article 1.D.7.c. in accordance with the following rules and limits:

(1) The parties have established a Joint Competition Committee (JCC) (see Letter of Agreement). In order to test the viability of expanding a market by increasing normal common carriage limits, the Company may declare a one-time per route, thirtynine (39) week “flex period.” During the flex period, UPS may utilize up to one hundred and fifty (150) containers per week on the route (between the international points; between international points and U.S. regions as outlined above). If a route has been “flexed”, subsequently reverts back to normal limits and then exceeds the limits set forth in Article 1.D.7.c., each such exceedance will count as a subcontracting day in accordance with this Section unless the JCC agrees that another flex period is warranted.

(2) At the conclusion of the thirty-nine (39) week flex period, the JCC will meet and conduct an analysis of the route. If the average weekly common carriage meets or exceeds the following volume triggers, then UPS will either transition the flying to IPA represented crewmembers within fifty-two (52) weeks of the initiation of the flex period, or the common carriage limits will snap back to the normal limits outlined in Article 1.D.7.c. above. Based on the Company’s frequency/utilization of common carriage service, the triggers are as follows:

(a) Five (5) or less service days per week:

If the flight is 5:00 block hours or less, fifty (50) or more containers triggers IPA flying. In those cases where the flight time between locations is over 5:00block hours, the trigger is one hundred (100) or more containers.

(b) Six (6) service days per week:

If the flight is 5:00 block hours or less, sixty (60) or more containers triggers IPA flying. In those cases where the flight time between locations is over 5:00block hours, the trigger is one hundred and twenty (120) or more containers.

(c) Seven (7) service days per week:

If the flight is 5:00 block hours or less, seventy (70) or more containers triggers IPA flying. In those cases where the flight time between locations is over 5:00block hours, the trigger is one hundred and forty (140) or more containers.

(3) In the event volume levels have grown above the normal common carriage weekly aggregate limits, but have not reached the “trigger levels” outlined above, then the JCC may consider a waiver on a case-bycase basis. In the absence of a mutually agreed to written waiver, normal limits will be reinstated within fifty-two (52) weeks of the initiation of the flex period.

(4) Waivers will be considered by the JCC if continuation of the “flex” is expected to increase IPA member work opportunities. For example, a waiver may be granted if a particular route is expected, at some point, to grow to the level necessary to “trigger” the addition of IPA flying. Even for those routes not expected to reach “trigger” thresholds, the parties may determine that the addition of extra volume into the UPS system is supportive of maintaining or expanding IPA flying opportunities system wide. Any waiver to the normal common carriage rules will be placed in writing, signed by the parties, and limited to no more than one (1) year in duration. Renewals will be considered. The Company will designate which U.S. airports are considered UPS “Western Region” versus UPS “Eastern Region” and notify the JCC.

(5) The JCC will receive quarterly reports of any common carriage movements which have been “flexed” in accordance with Article 1.D.7.c. above. The JCC will meet upon written request to review the Company's use of common carriage movements in a “flex” state and to determine whether such movements comply with the criteria in Article 1.D.7.

f. The Company’s utilization of common carriage, including the limitations and opportunities to temporarily “flex” those limitations, will not be used to reduce existing flying or to deprive IPA represented crewmembers of opportunities for additional flying. Under no circumstances will the Company’s rights to use common carriage be used as a mechanism for creating an independent or alternative transportation system.

 

Yup, and that is missing the point of what I was trying to say. So, I’ll try again. Regardless of how many people say it, I do not believe scope is unenforceable in extraterritorial flying. If that was the case (RLA & US labor law not applying to that flying) then the CGN pilots and 76 guys flying Europe point to point in the EU could strike under EU laws, right?? Same with strictly APAC flying.

The company cannot have their cake and eat it too. They either abide by the RLA in ALL flying (including extraterritorial flying) or that particular flying (extraterritorial flying) is covered by the country’s laws in which it occurs. It cannot be either/or at the whims of the Company.

Our CBA is in effect regardless of where we operate. So why is it that people keep saying Section 1 of our contract is unenforceable, when every other section is enforceable??

Lastly, I’ve read Secrion 1 more than once. I encourage everyone to take 5mins and read our international scope. 1 paragraph. Pretty easy reading. The company CAN do whatever they want to move freight between intl and intl cities. This needs to be changed and changed now

 

Boy, the spewing continues with fairy tales. UPS moves 95%+ of their volume across Europe. Now, a very large amount gets trucked by UPS or railed. Only time sensitive packages get flown, and only by UPS planes. Same philosophy as US, whatever doesn’t need to fly will get trucked. That is why we are smaller. Except for rail, everything gets moved by UPS. I am not aware of any additional routes after TLV went away that fly any UPS packages on non UPS planes, outside of peak.

 

What is Star Air's role out of Cologne? My understanding is that they exclusively carry UPS freight.

http://real.flightairmap.com/airline/SRR

 

What are you talking about? We use many contractors out of CGN. Star flies to many destinations all over Europe and out of EMA to EDI and BFS. Titan A321s are flying to Milan and Naples. Swift 757s fly to a few destinations in Spain.

Look at the IPA scope report…

 

To your first point, is there real factual data that shows that ASL is taking CGN 757 flights away from FedEx pilots? According to the union yesterday, the increase in ASL flying we're seeing are the ASL flights from the Liege hub which were moved to Paris. The NC also discussed how our Scope section gives the company the flexibility to open up markets using smaller contractors and then grow them into the Express network. This setup has allowed FedEx Express to become the huge network it is today. The NC said the ASL flying is the result of the TNT agreement with the EU when FedEx purchased TNT.

I do agree that we should look closely into what's happening in Europe to ensure FedEx isn't changing the status quo. The company has said they intend to do European flying from Memphis with 757s. FedEx management craves control. The biggest problem they have with FedEx Ground are failures associated with subpar contractors. In the trucking business, there's plenty of companies standing by to do the same work and/or compete with. The same is not necessarily true in the aviation world.

Call me naive but I think FedEx, a company that exploited the contractor model for their ground system, seeing what UPS in the 80s experienced with their air contractor system, doesn't want to go to that type of model.

To your second point, that is a cheap shot again at our union leadership who in my opinion are doing a really good job. Get involved if you want change. How many LEC/MEC meetings have you been to? Why haven't you gone to a meeting and put a motion on the floor for the MEC/NC to adopt protective fifth freedom language?

Our scope rules have been status quo and in line with industry standard. We are a Union. The leadership can't decide to pursue issues that they feel is important to THEM. They represent us. If they see a problem then they can educate the crew force. Currently they do not think there's a problem (back to my point above).

If you want protective scope language for fifth freedom flights in our contract, you are going to have to build a consensus and have that issue poll well. And I am in agreement with you that we should explore ideas but walking into the National Mediation Board room and tell them we want additional or new changes is going to be disastrous for us.

 

Any FedEx pilot can go onto pfc and retrieve the block hours. Ive done it and posted that information here. Others have done it and created spreadsheets showing the data. I know because I’ve seen them and it backs up what I saw. Pilots here have said many times how mush more airplanes ASL have on our ramp and also stated they are doing many more city pairs we used to do. So that seems to jive with the data I’ve seen. And like I said earlier, we shouldn’t take anyone’s word for it when it comes to scope. If there is some kind of agreement made, we need to see it and scope absolutely everything around it for the duration that agreement lasts and then scope the rest of it when/if it expires. We need all that in writing in our scope section. Let me be clear, even if all current ASL flying is kosher, we should still strive to scope ALL flying we can legally operate, period, dot, full stop, the end.

I don’t buy the flexibility argument otherwise they would demand the same domestically. They already have the same flexibility they have domestically, trucking, rail, belly freight, wet leasing during peak, and aircraft under 60,000 lbs MTGW. Would you be ok with them outsourcing domestic flying on Mesa 737s so that they can develop markets? Or would you rather have the 25-40 737s and our pilots doing the flying “developing” those markets? So if we can do it domestically than we can do it anywhere.

Fedex management craves control? I’m sorry, sincerely with all due respect, but this still sounds like the last vestiges of pilots who have been here for 20+ years. I’ve been at an airline that went from honey dory to fit hit the Shan with a change of ceo. Has anything that has transpired lately not give you pause? We are ALWAYS one CEO away from being something different than we are now, for good or for bad. This is why we need things in writing, to protect against what we don’t know may come.

Lastly, to my cheap shot. Okay, I’ll take that. Maybe it’s my frustration coming through. But if it was a cheap shot, it was directed at a previous mec who came up with the underwhelming openers. And it was in context of them saying scope didn’t poll high. Well I don’t think the variable pension plan polled highly either yet they took the leadership to pursue it anyway. Anyway, that mec is in the past and now we deal with the cards we dealt ourselves. I understand we can’t just start opening things back up. I’ve never said we should do that. We will probably have to vote a TA down before anything else can happen. Which brings me to your consensus comment. That’s what I’m doing here and when on layovers and when I speak and email my rep. I am involved. I’ve been to mec meetings but I haven’t been to any lc meetings because there literally haven’t been any meetings scheduled, ever. So even if I wanted to introduce a resolution, I can’t because that can only be done at lc meetings. Not that that would be helpful at this point in time anyway. We will have to wait and read the entire TA and vote accordingly. If it passes, then scope remains status quo, weak. If it doesn’t, then we’ll have an extraordinary opportunity to change that, regardless if leadership says it is industry standard and working...for now. And why would you want industry standard anyway? Especially when that standard leaves us vulnerable. Don’t you feel we deserve industry leading?