Well, they already use the escape hatch in order to wet lease more than the limits stated and it seems as though the third party lift ACM cost are low enough for them to pay us the paltry penalty.

“Should the Company violate the four bid period restriction, the Company shall pay to the Association the following for each wet lease conducted the greater of the number of block hours sched- uled or flown…”

But my previous scope was to show the bigger loophole that puts the entire domestic operation under threat of outsourcing as well.

Scope needs to be simple. FedEx master seniority list pilots must operate all cargo aircraft legally allowed by domestic and international laws. Do you agree?

 

How does this affect the Caravan fleet?

How does FedEx service (international as well as domestic
) destinations that only have a pallet or two of freight a day?

Will losing this impact domestic fleets flying pallets shipped by pax airlines?

Not disagreeing with improving scope but there is a lot of details that have to be considered so we don’t hurt ourselves either.

 

Existing scope already have exceptions for aircraft weighing less than 60,000 MTGOW, belly freight, peak, emergencies, etc. I guess I wasn’t clear with those still being there. But like I’ve said, it’s simple. FedEx master seniority list pilots must operate all ‘all-cargo’ aircraft legally allowed by laws, no economical exceptions. Do you agree with that more specific provision?

 

bUt wE sIgNeD sEvEn YeAr ConTrAcTs dUrInG cOvId!!!!

 

If the company is willing pay the penalty aka Recruitment Bonus=they are making money and to top it off we are giving up money to the middleman known as the Union instead of directly to us. Simple accounting again, just like the floating of tying our pay to profit.

 

Yeah, it obviously makes economical sense for them to outsource if they are doing it. I prefer to scope that flying in than to get a paycheck a year later. I understand the peak exception or if the faa grounds a fleet type. But other than a few specific situations, I don’t want to see wet leasing of all-cargo aircraft.

 

It looks like our only path towards a real industry leading CBA, with Scope protections to our international flying, is voting down the TA. If we don’t take care of Scope this time around, many of us won’t be here to vote on the next CBA. Due to being furloughed. Also, plan on saying goodbye to most Int’l DDH’s between now and next Section 6. Girt EUR, then APAC.

We are screwed if we go through all the steps necessary to reopen Scope and improve it. But we are way, way more screwed if our new retirement/pay rates just lead us to bury our heads in the sand while we hope to fix Scope “next time”. Those are the magical payrates the Corp. is looking for = enough to get us to vote Y, barely - while forgetting about Scope.

By the way - I’ll be first to admit how naive I was by listening to ALPA (and believing them) over the years on Scope. Here, and at previous airline.

 

It wasn't weakened. It was strengthened in our favor. This was addressed at the MEC meeting today.

 

Not trying to be the naysayer.

Scope protects anything that touches the USA including USA to international destinations and the return flights. How do you protect flying within international countries or between international countries when the RLA and US law does not?

 

If that is the case, does the company follow the contract (pay rates, catering, etc) on the previously mentioned international flights, due to their benevolence? Or is it just EVERY other section besides Section 1 in enforceable internationally? Heard this a few times before and haven’t heard a good answer yet