BoilerUP

Star/Maersk flies EU cabotage routes that Browntails don't have the authority to fly. Perhaps you've noticed there's still quite a few Browntails operating in/out of CGN.

IPA pilots currently are not currently being compensated a single red cent for international scope violations, because none are occuring. To my knowledge TLV is being subcontracted and has been for the last 11 months or so in the interest of crewmember safety given the Hamas war. For a solid chunk of 2022, IPA pilots were compensated for extracontractual international subcontracting on HKG-CGN due to untenable pandemic controls for HKG layovers via a LOA.

I admittedly don't know specific arbitrations off the top of my head WRT 1.C.7. It is possible I wrote out of school there, especially since that language specifies "courts", and I own that. The last arbitration decision I'm aware of regarding scope was the WGA subcontracting dispute mabye 5-6 years ago that upheld IPA language, but I think that subcontracting was largely domestic. However, given the bulk of 1.C.7 language dates back to 1991, I'm extremely confident in its applicability.

Bottom line: IPA has enforced its international scope language for over three decades, against a Company that has never hesitiated to do something it believed the contract didn't explicitly prohibit them from doing. Like most pilots contracts, there is permitted subcontracting within specific parameters, which is checked/audited for contractual compliance. I don't think any IPA pilot has ever claimed our contract specifies zero/nada/never international subcontracting; it does not. Our contract does specifiy which flying IPA pilots "own", including international flying, and provides a specific enforcement mechanism for that language should a dispute arise.

Bottom line: while statements made about RLA applicability to international flying are accurate, claims contractual IPA international scope language is unenforcable are not.

JustInFacts

This is a good discussion. Obviously there are exceptions to the "UPS pilots will fly UPS freight." It surprises me that allowing a third party carrier to operate a UPS flight because a crew member becomes unavailable would be OK. Same with a mechanical problem. It also seems like UPS can schedule the routes such that UPS pilots can't operate the flights due to cabotage. Is there any requirement that the ATH flight has to operate ATH MUC CGN, or is that just a work around to the scope language.

I seem to remember that UPS lost a route after 9/11. IPA tried to get that route back for years until 17 years later, the company finally agreed to use UPS pilots and airframes. An agreement between two sides doesn't mean that language is enforcable in arbitration or court. Without a legal precedent from an arbitrator or judge, there is no way to know whether that language is actually enforcable or not.

BoilerUP

While I see your point, I would argue if the Company believed they had the ability to subcontract internationally at will and without restriction, there would be no need for them to approach the Association for a LOA.

You are thinking of CGN-IST-TLV. Subcontracting of that route happened a LONG time ago for crew safety concerns in TLV due to war/terrorism. There was a 2002 settlement agreement about this subcontracting, then the 2006 contract modified that agreement, and in the next 10 years there was discussion about "unacceptable level of risk" for the autorenew of that agreement (much of which predated my hire date). There also was a political issue of UPS obtaining landing rights in IST again, as a Turkish carrier was subcontracted for that route. Our 2016 contract ensured IPA would resume flying IST-TLV, but then resumption of that route got delayed a bit due to aforementioned Turkish politics - and IPA pilots received (contractually specified) financial compensation for that delay.

I think that's a different situation than the Company making a business decision to subcontract an international route vs. flying it with Company aircraft/pilots.

CloudSailor

The issue here is getting fdx pilots to understand the importance of Scope after drinking purple koolaid for decades (I drank it too).

Our historically management-worshipping union routinely "educated us" on Scope by saying it's unenforceable and therefore changes in language are unnecessary. The guys who've been around for 15-20+years cannot get past that. Even though IPA Scope proves our union wrong, and UPS guys are on here with solid examples, our guys still can't see past it. Brainwashing is powerful.

But losing EUR flying (with guys on this forum denying it was happening over the last 3 years), young pilots joining, the company's insulting TA after the Plandemic while opening Scope... have all contributed to most of us waking up to CBA's Section 1 - even though at the 11th hour.

CloudSailor

You can argue with him - but he is rarely in a cockpit, mostly in a cubicle somewhere waiting to hang a BZ plaque on his wall, while posting ideas that always are against the best interests of our pilots. In other words, he'd be a Managment Pilot at UPS (you still have those glorious captains right?).

JustInFacts

Unfortunately, that doesn't pre-date me. I don't buy the war/terrorism argument when I saw UPS aircraft flying CRAFF flights during the Afgan war. The TLV loss happened even though it was protected by scope.

As far as our EU base and flying goes, there were also politics involved in the TNT purchase and agreements about EU pilot jobs. Even IPA allows domestic flight of their freight that they could do if it is less than about 9 cans per day. So, if the freight isn't there for the smallest aircraft that UPS flies, what would UPS do?

You are saying that the fact that UPS doesn't subcontract out all of their international freight as proof that your scope is solid. So why is our scope weak if Fedex isn't doing the same? Don't get me wrong, I think we need improvements in our scope. However, I don't think that ALPA would be doing their job if they insisted on including language in a contract that they did not think they could enforce.

JustInFacts

Hey, still waiting for you to provide those posts that you said I made!!!

Just because you are angry and scared doesn't mean that you have to lash out. When you don't have anything better, state they aren't a pilot, or management. Classic!!!!

Hacker15e

"UPS international scope isn't enforceable, so we should just not even try to improve our scope language which has holes big enough you could fly the Queen Mary through sideways."

Negotiating against ourselves is the best kind of negotiating.

Keep it classy, fellas.

CloudSailor

Hacker15e found the essence of your posts right here:

2BEER

BoilerUp,

Thank you for venturing over to these Purple threads to share your expertise and the Brown perspective. After years of reading your posts here and on other forums, I can confidently say that you are a true credit to your pilot group and professional airline pilots overall.