Bidpacks
09-08-2024, 07:33 AM
#41
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,609
Originally Posted by JustInFacts
I don't buy the war/terrorism argument when I saw UPS aircraft flying CRAFF flights during the Afgan war.
As for your statement about our domestic subcontracting allowances...you might review our Section 1 and 2 again for accuracy.
09-08-2024, 08:13 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2006
Position: MD11 FO
Posts: 1,124
1) what exact compensation do IPA pilots receive as referred to above? What does your contract say about it and how much was it approx?
2) what was name of court case and year yoi referred to in IPA taking Company to court and win? I’d like to read it thx
3) I see way more purple tails around works than UPS Aar major cities - always have. UPS is about 1/2 (60%?) Purple size in both pilots and trunk aircraft yet moves more cargo internationally. How do you understand that with all the protections and the same ability to secure regulatory authority as FedEx has?
Thx appreciate the discussion
09-08-2024, 11:41 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: The IPA EB speaks for me
Posts: 529
"J.I.F." You are far from the facts.
CRAF is CRAF, it is not "scope" in your context.
Break-
Please also read the nine freedoms of the air.
https/www.icao.int/Pages/freedomsAir.aspx
Like the RLA, they are "bigger" than any CBA, and can be used quite a bit by companies to force contracting with cabotage routes.
Once you start to digest that, it could clarify the great info Boiler posted.
CRAF is CRAF, it is not "scope" in your context.
Break-
Please also read the nine freedoms of the air.
https/www.icao.int/Pages/freedomsAir.aspx
Like the RLA, they are "bigger" than any CBA, and can be used quite a bit by companies to force contracting with cabotage routes.
Once you start to digest that, it could clarify the great info Boiler posted.
09-08-2024, 12:18 PM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: On the corner, covered in Stickum
Posts: 376
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?
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?
So many FDX pilots, like fbh, want to ignore this language in the IPA's contract. Why is that?
09-08-2024, 12:57 PM
#45
The NeverEnding Story
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Posts: 7,609
2) what was name of court case and year yoi referred to in IPA taking Company to court and win? I’d like to read it thx
3) I see way more purple tails around works than UPS Aar major cities - always have. UPS is about 1/2 (60%?) Purple size in both pilots and trunk aircraft yet moves more cargo internationally. How do you understand that with all the protections and the same ability to secure regulatory authority as FedEx has?
09-08-2024, 01:51 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2023
Posts: 404
"J.I.F." You are far from the facts.
CRAF is CRAF, it is not "scope" in your context.
Break-
Please also read the nine freedoms of the air.
https/www.icao.int/Pages/freedomsAir.aspx
Like the RLA, they are "bigger" than any CBA, and can be used quite a bit by companies to force contracting with cabotage routes.
Once you start to digest that, it could clarify the great info Boiler posted.
CRAF is CRAF, it is not "scope" in your context.
Break-
Please also read the nine freedoms of the air.
https/www.icao.int/Pages/freedomsAir.aspx
Like the RLA, they are "bigger" than any CBA, and can be used quite a bit by companies to force contracting with cabotage routes.
Once you start to digest that, it could clarify the great info Boiler posted.
Break-
Again, you are supporting my post. UPS management finds ways around that rock solid scope.
09-08-2024, 03:03 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: The IPA EB speaks for me
Posts: 529
TLV was lost for years over a separate issue at the layover city prior to TLV.
The trip runs in a different format. You are far off track using apples and oranges. I'll answer Tuck after it's reviewed.
The trip runs in a different format. You are far off track using apples and oranges. I'll answer Tuck after it's reviewed.
09-08-2024, 03:06 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2017
Position: 777
Posts: 141
Good discussion and thank you to our UPS brother for his contributions.
I think there's an important distinction here that's being ignored. Most of the discussion here is about "flying" and who does it. But few, if any, are talking freight and who flies it.
Airline X flies a route in their aircraft contracted by FedEx (or UPS) under the FedEx (or UPS) operating certificate (true wet-leasing)carrying whatever FedEx (or UPS) has deemed should go from that origin to that destination. Or a company does the same with their own certificate and route authority operates in a similar fashion without the use of the FedEx (or UPS) certificate like ASL or Star Air. That's "flying" that everyone in this discussion would love to have captured and only done by the pilots on the FedEx (or UPS) MSL pilots.
But language dealing with those situations doesn't address FedEx (or UPS) freight and how it moves. We can have all the protections in the world controlling who is piloting aircraft being flown under our certificate or on our employers behalf and still lose when our companies choose to move their freight in another manner they feel works better. Ship, truck, dog sled or in the bellys of various aircraft operating worldwide carrying pax with extra space under their feet. Tracking an aircraft being flown on behalf of FedEx (or UPS) is a much easier task than tracking cans and pallets of freight being moved piecemeal through the worldwide cargo system.
I don't claim enough expertise to speak about this and I wonder if others with better knowledge might share their viewpoints. Thanks.
I think there's an important distinction here that's being ignored. Most of the discussion here is about "flying" and who does it. But few, if any, are talking freight and who flies it.
Airline X flies a route in their aircraft contracted by FedEx (or UPS) under the FedEx (or UPS) operating certificate (true wet-leasing)carrying whatever FedEx (or UPS) has deemed should go from that origin to that destination. Or a company does the same with their own certificate and route authority operates in a similar fashion without the use of the FedEx (or UPS) certificate like ASL or Star Air. That's "flying" that everyone in this discussion would love to have captured and only done by the pilots on the FedEx (or UPS) MSL pilots.
But language dealing with those situations doesn't address FedEx (or UPS) freight and how it moves. We can have all the protections in the world controlling who is piloting aircraft being flown under our certificate or on our employers behalf and still lose when our companies choose to move their freight in another manner they feel works better. Ship, truck, dog sled or in the bellys of various aircraft operating worldwide carrying pax with extra space under their feet. Tracking an aircraft being flown on behalf of FedEx (or UPS) is a much easier task than tracking cans and pallets of freight being moved piecemeal through the worldwide cargo system.
I don't claim enough expertise to speak about this and I wonder if others with better knowledge might share their viewpoints. Thanks.
Last edited by Emmerson Bigs; 09-08-2024 at 03:45 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MD11Fr8Dog
Cargo
70
01-09-2009 08:15 AM
