Originally Posted by jackryan

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

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Cowpoke

3. How many beautiful brand new Maersk Air Cargo Widebody aircraft operate out of CGN every night?

Originally Posted by Cowpoke

3. How many beautiful brand new Maersk Air Cargo Widebody aircraft operate out of CGN every night?

4. If the IPA used negotiating capital to write such wonderful scope language into their contract, why are those pilots not provided the protections that it would seem to provide?

5. What compensation is UPS currently providing their pilots for operating outside of the language of their scope protections in this section?

Originally Posted by Birdsmash

You do know Maersk operates their own air freight network don’t you? I think it’s 16 767s plus soon to be 2 777Fs. MSC and CMA CGM are the other two big container shipping companies that also now operate their own air networks.

Originally Posted by Birdsmash

You do know Maersk operates their own air freight network don’t you? I think it’s 16 767s plus soon to be 2 777Fs. MSC and CMA CGM are the other two big container shipping companies that also now operate their own air networks.

Originally Posted by Cowpoke

To be clear, I’m not throwing any spears towards IPA / UPS. It’s a conversation about what amount of negotiation effort should be placed in international scope protections. As FBH previously stated……..any contractual provisions are unenforceable. Next time you taxi down the ramp at CGN in the early am, take a look around. Perhaps a gentleman from Brown can offer an opinion.

Originally Posted by Cowpoke

As stated, the section referenced provides beautiful language and a lot of feel good. I’ve heard it said many times that “we need to have the international scope protections that UPS has”. Unfortunately, UPS contracts a large share of their international flying to a service provider that operates a large fleet of wide body aircraft on a UPS ramp, carrying UPS freight. It seems that the scope language is not providing the intended benefit.

Originally Posted by Cowpoke

Is your point that the Star Air fleet operating out of CGN is coincidental? Ask anyone that previously operated out of CGN. Those aircraft are on the UPS ramp carrying UPS freight. No, not just a few aircraft carrying a few cans for UPS. They are the contract service provider for UPS.