I'm not sure why FDX ALPA drafted this press release instead of joining IPA in a law suit?

FedEx Pilots Respond to Release of Pilot Fatigue Rule - Yahoo! Finance

Great job FDX ALPA!!! You showed them!!! :confused::confused::confused:

The IPA law suit is a nice gesture but doesn't stand a chance at changing anything. First look back through history, it takes on average 10 years for a law to make its way through the system and be changed by a court (unless it is politically charged). Even if they prevail we will not see any changes for at least 10-15 years. Look at the Exxon Valdez case, it was settled in 2006, 17 years after the event. Do you think UPS and the FAA can stonewall as well as Exxon. Second, they really have no chance of winning. All the FAA needs to do is point out there are multiple sets of rules companies fly under. This is just one more set, of many.

Because they are lame?:rolleyes:

Except that labor cost at FedEx is classified as operating expense and not cost of goods sold. As a result increased labor costs have zero effect on 'Gross Profit'.

A more appropriate comparison of cost would be to total operating expense, or to operating profit. You are causing confusion by using a term which at Fedex differs little from revenue, but sounds alot like net income.

Of course not ... :rolleyes:

IPA legal should have consulted with MD10 Pilot attorneys first to gather their expert opinion on the matter. Oh never mind, it can be found for free on an internet forum.

Seriously, I 'm not going to speculate at what can be achieved with the lawsuit ... but the option of standing around and doing nothing is unacceptable to most IPA pilots.

;)

Don't take this the wrong way, it is intended to be directed at the FedEx pilots mostly.

This is basically what's wrong with this country; too many people looking for the government or the lawyers to solve their problems. You want to fix this, go straight at your management and use your best tool: Unity.

I haven't heard a peep about the ATP requirement, is that located somewhere else? I know in the original bill it said August of 2013, does that still stand.

I stated the fact that FDX annual gross profit exceeds $30 billion. That's a fact and an appropriate use of the financial term. Maybe you would use a different comparison, but that does not make my comparison incorrect or confusing. It highlights the fact that the FAA's reasoning for exempting cargo carriers based on cost is flawed. I think we both agree FDX and UPS can afford to implement the changes. If the smaller cargo operations cannot compete in that environment, the free market says they will simply go out of business. Luckily, many of those jobs will be absorbed by the bigger companies. This certainly will be the case for many of the regional carriers in the passenger world since the cost of operating the 50 seat jets will surely increase under the new rules.

On the latter points we certainly agree. In fact I think both the we and the company would benefit from part 117 being applied to cargo. I haven't read all 300+ pages yet, but it seems our competition would be much more affected than us.

That is and will continue to be done !

UPS management is our greatest asset when it comes to achieving unity within the IPA.

;)