A previous post has caused me to revisit some CBA/'Attachment A' wording. I'll just present it here, along with my non-legal "interpretation" of what it means. Not trying to spin it - just how I read it. While performing some basic word searches, I could find no wording in the CBA about aircraft registered in the United States. So, this more restrictive wording appears to be new. My opinion - this new wording, at best, muddies the water. At worst, it may allow foreign airline operation.

I took the liberty of only copying what I believe to be pertinent to this discussion. Feel free to go to the source documents.

I do appreciate any other interpretations of this. Evaluate it as you see fit.

CBA Section 1: Recognition, Scope, and Successorship
Paragraph B. Scope, Operation of Company Aircraft

3. All International and Domestic Revenue Flights conducted with aircraft that are owned, leased, or operated by the Company, having a MTOGW of greater than 60,000 lbs., and operated pursuant to the Company's Airline Operating Certificate or any additional Part 121 Airline Operating Certificate obtained by the Company, shall be operated by pilots on the Federal Express Master Seniority List in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

My "Public Schooling System Education" interpretation - FedEx gets the above aircraft, we get to fly them.


CBA Section 1: Recognition, Scope, and Successorship
Paragraph C. Parent and Affiliates

Should the parent of the Company (FedEx Corp.) or any subsidiary or Affiliate directly or indirectly controlled by the parent of the Company acquire with the intention of retaining and operating a U.S. certificated air carrier or air operation operating aircraft of over 60,000 lbs. MTOGW, then the acquired carrier's routes and operation of aircraft above the MTOGW of 60,000 lbs. shall be assumed by the pilots on the FedEx Master Seniority List.

My "Public Schooling System Education" interpretation - FedEx buys a U.S. certified airline, we get to fly them. This section does not address FedEx buying a foreign airline, not sure why not. Think our Union should have closed that hole. However, to me, 1.3. above covers that - even if they buy a foreign carrier, we get to fly the jets.


CDG/HKG FDA Agreement (Attachment A)

3. I acknowledge that my duties as a pilot assigned to the CDG FDA and/or the HKG FDA shall be performed on Federal Express aircraft registered in the United States and operated within the Federal Express worldwide route system.

My "Public Schooling System Education" interpretation - This appears in direct conflict with the current CBA 1.3. Since this is the most recent addition to the CBA, I believe it would take precedence. If so, FedEx buys a foreign carrier (with foreign registered aircraft), the CDG/HKG FDA guys DO NOT get to fly them. Who exactly does get to fly them? We, if approving this LOA, will be adding language to our CBA saying that we don't. Scope enhancement? For who?

With regards to your first quote, section 1.3.....

The CBA definition of "International Flights" HAVE to touch U.S. soil. Flights intra-Europe and intra-Asia are NOT included.

Flights intra-Canada are currently flown on FedEx registered aircraft over 60,000 lbs. by Canadian crews. (Morningstar.) This is done because of cabatoge laws.

Our current CBA states that for ANY reason, FedEx may codeshare, wet lease, and interline on any extra-territorial flights (inter-Europe, inter-Asia.)

So unless a flight touches the lower 48 inbound or outbound, we are not guaranteed or entitled to fly it. Therein lies the problem, and the LOA does nothing to close that.

Thanks for the input. That is true, and the weakness in Scope you mention does still appear to still exist.

I'm wondering why the wording "...aircraft registered in the United States..." will now exist if this gets approved. Why is it needed when it does not currently exist? Who put it in?

Am I missing how it is enhancing our current Scope?

Is it making it easier for FedEx to purchase and operate a foreign carrier?

Would it provide an opening for said carrier to land in ANC?

I don't have the answer, but I do find it hard to believe that some lawyer just threw it in there for no reason at all.