Nightflyer

"The company would never do that. It's too expensive and unreliable."

Temocil27

…but don’t worry, we’ve been working with Haitian officials over the past 6 months to secure a once weekly 757 to Port-au-Prince to offset the loss

KC10 FATboy

Do you know something we don't? Or just guessing doom and gloom?

MEMA300

I am not sure why guys cant see the writing on the wall. All non-scope protected flying will be gone as soon as they can set it up. It is why a certain new guy was brought on board. He used to be that guy so they brought him in to oversee the process. November...man I hope its not that quick. Thats only good thing in 767 bidpacks.

KC10 FATboy

But they promised they wanted FedEx pilots flying purple tails. They wouldn't do that. Would they?

frozenboxhauler

Extra-terratorial flying is outside of RLA scope protections, always has been and will be until RLA language is changed, regardless of what the IPA has in their CBA.
fbh

UnusualAttitude

IPA has had great success defending their language. Maybe you should speak to their Scope experts and find out for yourself. There are also other, let's call them "less traditional", ways to shore up Section 1. I don't want to negotiate in public but I am glad we have experts working on Sec 1 this time around instead of our previous MEC/NC who wanted to play "Wizard of Oz" with us and deflect, deflect, deflect when it came to Sec 1 weakness in order to jam TA 1.0 through. Despite your personal agenda, the majority of pilots here are engaged on the issue and understand the importance of protecting their futures. There is no Sec 28 without Sec 1. For that matter, there is no Sec 3 withouth Sec 1.

BoilerUP

It is true that extra-territorial flying is outside of RLA scope protections.

However, 1.C.7 of the IPA CBA is as follows:

7.Resolution of Disputes Concerning International Operations
If any dispute arises as to the interpretation or application of Article 1 to international operations as defined in paragraph 4 above, the dispute shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with Article 7 and Article 1.F. of this Agreement. The Company, its affiliates, the Association, and their successors agree, that in connection with any dispute before an arbitrator or in court, not to raise as a defense the non-applicability of the Railway Labor Act to international operations as defined in C. above or flights which originate or terminate in the United States. It is also agreed that the provisions of this paragraph are specifically enforceable. The duty to arbitrate as well as the judicial review of any arbitration award under this paragraph shall be specifically enforceable in either the Federal District Court for the Western District of Kentucky or the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Louisville, Kentucky. For these purposes the parties consent to jurisdiction and venue in these courts. The parties further agree that the choice of law in any such proceeding under this paragraph will be Sections 153 and 184 of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. Sections 151 et seq. If the Jefferson Circuit Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction, either party may file suit under this paragraph in any state court which has jurisdiction over the parties.

If IPA Article 1 scope language was unenforcable with regards to international operations, then two questions are worth asking:

1. How have they had success enforcing it, including in arbitration, and;
2. Why would FDX management object to including scope language in a TA that helps TA ratification but doesn't actually restrict their plans?

jackryan

So you just give up and cave? Damn, you boys up in ANC are a bunch of quitters.

JustInFacts

Boiler,

Would you please provide the case(s) and arbitrators' ruling that enforced this scope language?