Contractually, it's like running a tab at the bar. Determined when you close out the night. (See 1.B.6.a)

Such a meager amount I'm sure you'll just donate it to P4P or the charity of your choice.
FWIW-Scope penalty was $1486 in 2016 and $216 in 2017 (for exceeding Scope clause previous months surrounding peak)
Quite confident it's going to be much larger.

Contacted my rep a couple of months ago to suggest arranging a partial payment from the company since they're well beyond the historical norms of outsourcing lift.

Thank you. I hope you’re right that it’s substantial. Good idea about the partial payment, as they could just outsource forever.

The wet leasing is contractual and normally only occurs during peak. We’ve been in a peak+ situation now for about 15 months. The wet leasing doesn’t bother me at all. Once the business drops off the wet leasing will end. Better than turning away business. We can’t have a year round fleet/pilot force based on peak needs. We’d be parking airplanes/furloughing pilots every January. Or going to min BLG or invoking 4a2b...

We are hiring like I’ve never seen in 31 years. Buying brand new airframes as fast as possible.

Wet leasing is not an issue IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When are you guys going to learn what being in a UNION means?

We can sit back and watch the company do this or that, or we can stand up.

"But but but but ... the RLA blah blah blah" "But they'll never let us strike" ....

Yeah yeah yeah, I know. We're a weak union.

That’s what I figured but you said it wasn’t allowed under the scope clause.

By all means, point out the section of our CBA or under RLA that allows us to Strike over Wetleasing routing?
You know, what a Strong Union would do.

Or would that be an illegal job action?

I said the wet leasing wasn't allowed under our Scope Clause and that's why we will be receiving a wet leasing penalty.

The wet leasing penalty will be: the averabe pay for a FedEx crew complement times the number of regular bid pack CH's that would've been earned by FedEx pilots but for the wet lease.


There is limited, permitted wet leasing that results in NO $$ to the crew force and that has been a regular occurrence over my 20+ years.
There are other, permitted, wet leasing exceptions that result in NO $$ to the crew force....but none of those apply to the current situation.

It’s disingenuous to say it’s forbidden; the 14,000 lb number has been exceeded 5 days a week, 52 weeks a year for going on 13 years.

I suppose as long as you get your $86 a year of grievance bucks (or whatever paltry amount it is) you’ll keep quiet and believe it’s a strong scope clause.

This limit is also violated daily, year round, non peak ops.

But I’m sure the union said it’s okay, we’re getting grievance money for it…?

Whats the point of a scope clause if the company can’t be held to it?

Im guessing you are referring to the Istanbul-Tel Aviv flight. The one where UPS is under an arbitrator’s order to get the flying back on our jets and compensate us in the mean time, even though the sticking point is the Turkish government refusing to allow UPS tails to fly the route. We could always cease service on that route as a company tomorrow. That would fit your definition better, we would lose our compensation (yes it’s small after being divvied up among 3,000 pilots), and we would not get to fly that route. Definitely sounds better to me. Our scope clause directly led to subs being kicked off property outside of the 45 day exception. I am sure that some lawyer, somewhere thinks they could have written the clause better. However, in the meantime it’s well above industry standard. We can and should always push for better, more airtight language with every contract. However, gains are harder when you can’t point to someone else’s contract as an example of what you want.