Capt TedStriker

US Circuit Court Sides with FAA

In an unsigned opinion issued today, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the IPA’s petition to review the FAA’s decision to exclude cargo carriers from new flight crewmember duty and rest rules mandated by Congress in 2010. The three judge panel ruled that it was “reasonable for the FAA to consider costs when determining whether the final rule should apply to all-cargo operations.”
“The Court has spoken,” said IPA President Bob Travis. “The focus now shifts exclusively to UPS.”
Travis continued, “The Company has told the world that they intend to address pilot scheduling safety issues through the collective bargaining process. Will UPS be true to its word? No excuses remain, these negotiations will tell us.”
Currently, the parties are in the second of four consecutive weeks of mediated contract negotiations. Scheduling is on the agenda each week.
“From the beginning, we have known that the Company’s strong opposition to one level of aviation safety has been money driven. UPS used their open wallet, and considerable resources to engineer the cargo carve-out in the first place. What the NTSB termed ‘a broken safety culture at UPS’ remains and must be fixed,” he added.
Travis stated the fight at the negotiation table will continue where the Association has always believed a final resolution will be reached.

ups757cpt

No surprise here!
If you listen to the oral arguments you could see this coming a mile away.
I was a little disappointed in the performance of the IPA attorney who
was representing us.
He seemed to be unprepared or maybe intimidated.
Can't really blame him though, the fix was in from the start.

We have the best government money can buy no doubt.

Oh well, time to move on.

ClutchCargo

Sorry that it didn't work out for you guys. Perhaps now you will join with FDX ALPA to find a legislative solution. Personally, I'll stick with FAR 121+ our FDX work rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTFover

Unrelated, but for how long have you been in negotiations?

Rocco

Almost 5 years! You think this ruling will help?

Rocco

Is there a choice I'm unaware of??

ClutchCargo

No. I just think that FAR 117 has inferior rest/duty/augmentation rules to our CBA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TonyC

Our workrules ARE FAR 121 the second an "Operational Emergency" is declared.

("Operational Emergency" being a failure to plan for manning or shipping demand so we can't follow the contract AND deliver the freight, so screw the contract.)

I'm still amazed by how hard we pushed and how loudly we advocated for science-based rules, and now that they've been developed we don't want to abide by them. Is that not the definition of hypocrisy?


When it comes to fighting the all-cargo carveout of Title 14 CFR Part 117, there's no "us" and "them" as far as UPS pilots and FedEx pilots. "We" have the same interests and should share the same goals. The IPA chose one path to get there, and FedEx ALPA chose another. Success by either path would constitute a win for us all, and a defeat for either is a defeat for us all.

I wish I had more confidence that the people we have paid a WHOLE LOT of money to lobby Washington, D.C. on our behalf to end the carveout were actually in favor of it. To hear some SIG leaders, former Negotiating Committee members, former MEC Officers, and MEC Members talk, we don't WANT to be included in Part 117. If that's the case, why are we expending such considerable resources to pretend to lobby for it?

Maybe we could agree on some fundamental principals and resolve to stick to them.

Crazy, I know.


Back to reality, I've heard numerous times that many Representatives and Senators have been hesitant to offer their support until the legal path reached its conclusion. Had that been successful, they could have claimed victory while remaining neutral -- politics, right? Well, looks like now it's time to step up and do what's right. If we really believe in One Level of Safety, it's time for a full-court press on Capitol Hill.







.

SaltyDog

The IPA has worked on the Legislative solution from the very beginning of the carve out with CAPA, ALPA, and others.
IPA alone chose an added option of Judical. This kept the carve out issue alive as the legislative has been difficult for all of us.
This isn't a ALPA or IPA is better crap. IPA chose max effort to include judicial. We are well invested on legislative efforts as well as contractual.
We have been to many offices over the years including these 2 senators
UPS Pilots Applaud Senator Klobuchar for Introducing Amendment to End Cargo Exclusion from Part 117