Sorry...I know this has been discussed here before, but can someone please show me the paragraph that specifically speaks to increased scope in the LOA?

If it's only "implied" in the LOA, then please direct me there also.

Many thanks.

I felt the same way. BTW, wasn't scope supposedly one of the big gains in the contract and yet we are fighting to improve it again we are told.

I didn't see the line "all flying in aircraft greater than xx,xxx pounds on behalf of FedEx or subsidiaries will be performed by pilots on the FedEx seniority list except where specifically prohibited by law." Or anything else along those lines.

Conner

Just re-read the LOA again, I can't find any mention of scope either. I figured that since this LOA really "tightens up our scope protection" over the current CBA, I'd be able to find something in there. Nope. I'm not a smart man though, if this was addressed at a hub meeting or something and I've missed it in the 78 LOA threads on this board someone fill me in please.

Seriously.....calling all LOA advocates, MEC lurkers, Mgt lurkers, ALPA lawyers would advised the NC...please log in and reply.

Please show me where scope is explicitly or implicitly written in this LOA?

It appears to me the biggest reason some still want to vote for this LOA is that they are "under the impression" or "have been told" the LOA will somehow prevent the company from hiring foreign pilots now or in the future.

Please show me the verbiage in the LOA you are hanging your hat on?

Thanks,

I am not any of the above, but here is the BIG LOA scpoe language that DW is hanging his hat on:

FOREIGN DUTY ASSIGNMENTS IN HONG KONG AND PARIS
This Letter of Agreement is made and entered into in accordance with the provisions of Title II of the Railway Labor Act, as amended, by and between FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as the “Company”) and the pilots in the service of FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, as represented by the AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCATION, INTERNATIONAL (hereinafter referred to as the “Association”).
WHEREAS, the Company has announced its intention to open foreign duty assignments (FDAs) in Hong Kong, China and Paris, France, and
WHEREAS, the Company and the Association have studied certain details of basing pilots in Hong Kong (HKG) and Paris (CDG), and have concluded that contractual provisions other than those contained in the basic Agreement are advisable in order to provide for the smooth and orderly establishment of those FDAs.

Seems like all they have to do is mention RLA, and these guys get the proverbial hard on!

Flush this thing, its starting to stink up the place......

I'm not any of the above (jailhouse lawyer maybe ), and have asked the same question to both the company and the union with no good answer.

I posted this on another thread earlier......

I'm not sure - but this may be what they're "hanging their hat on" - FWIW.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

....in the Attachment A that everyone who volunteers to man the FDA has to sign before they go - just a couple of pieces related to scope here - NOTE that these points are MUTUALLY agreed to (in writing) by the individual pilot and the company:

...These duties are accepted as mutual and include the following:

1. The provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between Federal Express and its flight deck crewmembers as represented by ALPA shall continue to govern my employment as a Federal Express pilot during my CDG FDA and/or my HKG FDA.

7. I shall continue to be a member of the craft or class of fight deck crewmembers of Federal Express currently represented by ALPA pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. ALPA will continue to act as my exclusive collective bargaining representative during my assignment at the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA.

9. Any dispute between myself and Federal Express over the interpretation of the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of Sections 19, 20, and 21 of that collective bargaining agreement.

There's also another line dealing with being governed by US Law and not Chinese and/or French and/or any other country's laws......

+++++++++++++++++++

OPINION: #9 is probably one of the more "enhancing" statements....this kind of additional language may have precluded the company's position that the pilots of the Subic FDA were not covered by the CBA, RLA, and/or US laws - and then ALPA might not have had to sue them over that position - maybe? and it also might further undermine that position (which the company is believed to still hold) if the LOA is approved. But, again, I'm only a jailhouse lawyer this is all I could find on my own that might enhance any current scope language.

AFW,

I agree that this language clearly strengths our RLA protections, but therein lies the rub. As explained by MH, the RLA doesn't even have a definition for the type of the flying that they are saying gets enhanced with this LOA. ALPA calls it extraterritorial flying, and MH says that definition comes from the company lawyers. You can't have legal protection against something that doesn't have a legal definition. This is such a simple question (scope) about this LOA, yet you don't see any of the people who want this to pass jumping in and offering clarification. Imo, it's because they cannot. MH can put out all the emails he wants, but he stopped just short of saying so in a hubturn meeting and personally I feel that is why he made the comment about not being sure whether he would vote yes or not at the meeting. His heartburn wasn't so much with the other portions of the deal, but this one and I think it's because he doesn't think it goes far enough but he's happy to get the RLA precedent for other issues. As far as reason to vote for this deal though, scope seems to be a sleight of hand.

Our current CBA (at least I can't find it anywhere) doesn't define the type of flying that will be done in these FDA's. Para 1.B.2 defines "International Flying" as: all Company flights which originate from, terminate in or transit the U.S. or its territories via a location outside the contiguous 48 states. International flights also include all flights conducted by any pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List assigned to Foreign Duty Assignment ("FDA"), or Special International Bid Award ("SIBA"). This seems pretty cut and dried to me. For the LOA to strengthen this, I would expect to read somewhere in it a further definition to include all extra-territorial flying in aircraft over 60,000# as "International Flying as defined in the CBA" or something to that affect. But there's nothing in there. The MEC Majority Opinion does state "Less tangible, but equally important, is that this agreement incrementally strengthens the commitment of our company to the use of Fedex pilots to fly Fedex freight in other countries." But it doesn't state how it does this. Maybe somehow just the act of having an LOA does it for us? Anyone?

This is just one passing idea from me on scope - I haven't even fully worked it all out in my own mind honestly. If anyone cares to save me some trouble............
I believe the extra-territorial flying in our scope clause can only remain ours if the governmental agreements are in place that allow such. Anyway, it seems to me that if Fred wants to pull the plug on our scope, he just has a little sit down with some foreign gov'ts and asks that we no longer be allowed to be based there.

Example:
LOA passes. Fedex gets us cheap and we think we get scope. Next contract we make it expensive. Fred tells Chinese that we probably should be prohibited from living in HK and commuting into CAN for work. Fred offers Chinese pilots the job. Fred smiles. Back to cheap labor.

I agree. It is a very vague and illusive issue - and probably not one even my superior jailhouse lawyering skills could conclusively argue to anyone.

I was just trying to answer the question that began this thread by pointing out that there actually is some (although not much and not very clearly defined) mention of "scope" in there.

You're right though.....even what I found in there doesn't really address the issue of who gets to fly our freight around Euro/Asia (aka - "extraterritorial flying")

Although........IF the company agrees that the CBA is binding.......the CBA does say that (Section 1.B.):

B. Scope, Operation of Company Aircraft
The Company’s revenue fl ights (including Company revenue charter
fl ights), conducted with aircraft owned, leased, or operated within
the domestic or international operations described below, conducted
with aircraft over 60,000 lbs. MTOGW, shall be fl own only by pilots
whose names appear on the Federal Express Master Seniority List
in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
1. “Domestic fl ights” are all those Company fl ights wherein all
fl ight legs within a single pairing originate and terminate at cities
located solely within the contiguous 48 states.
2. “International fl ights” are all Company fl ights which originate
from, terminate in or transit the U.S. or its territories via a location
outside the contiguous 48 states. International fl ights also include
all fl ights conducted by any pilots on the Federal Express Master
Seniority List assigned to Foreign Duty Assignment (“FDA”), or
Special International Bid Award (“SIBA”).

So......IF the LOA states that the company agrees the CBA applies......then WE (pilots on the FedEx Express master seniority list - not Chinese or French guys) get all the extraterritorial flying that operates out of the FDAs? right?

not sure that makes the full circle connection - maybe I'm grasping at straws - but that's the best I can come up with given my limited education.