JustInFacts

This is from the 2006 contract. I can't find their current contract online, so this may have changed, but I doubt it.

From 1.D.3 "Likewise, nothing in this Agreement shall prevent the Company from moving volume by means other than air transportation."



Can you post the contract reference and language for this?

BoilerUP

Here's a link to the IPA TA2016 that was overwhelmingly ratified; I provide this document as it contains both strikethroughs and bolded new language. If somebody wants a clean version of Contract 2016 let me know and I'll post a link to that.

1.D.7 Common Carriage Limitations was new language in TA2016, and can be referenced in the above document.

There's nothing in our contract that REQUIRES volume move by air; the Company is free to move volume by whatever mode makes service guarantees.

acecrackshot

You're not. By a long shot. I think an outside specialist attorney is a great first step. The fact that previous MECs/NCs completely uncritically the art of the possible in this matter (to include excluding HI/AK and PR flying as not domestic) is perhaps one of the most egregious cases of union negotiating since the RJ.

FXLAX

Its 1D7 in the link provided above. The fact that it's new language is proof that new scope restrictions can be negotiated.

JustInFacts

I encourage everyone to read the link that was provided by Boiler. Thank you for that link!!!

Here are a few items from their scope section. How do you think Fedex management would interpret them given the current environment?

2. InternationalSubcontracting 33

a. Notwithstanding C. 1. above, the Company shall not be required to utilize Company aircraft operated by Association represented crewmembers in international operations if the Company, or its affiliates, do not possess all the requisite regulatory authority and all traffic authority, taking into account the most expeditious and efficient movement of the traffic, for that international operation,

Next from 1.D.7

c. Weekly aggregate limits between two international airports or between an international airport and a U.S. region (as described above) will be based on the Company’s frequency/utilization of common carriage service:

Five (5) or less service days per week:

If the flight is 5:00 block hours or less, UPS is limited to no more than forty-five (45) containers per week when the Company utilizes any common carrier for five (5) or less service days per week. In those cases where the scheduled flight time between locations is over 5:00 block hours, the limit shall be no more than fifty (50) containers per week.

The abover weekly restriction goes on the talk about 6 and 7 service day weeks which total either 9 or 10 containers per day depending on the block time.

And from Section 2.

1. Container - means the volume which can be contained in the A-2 container currently
   
2. 34 used by the Company (i.e. 352 pieces) or an equivalent amount. means the volume
   
3. 35 which can be contained in the A1 container currently used by the Company
   
4. 36 (i.e., 507 cubic feet). If loose packages are loaded in the belly of an aircraft, a
   
5. 37 container shall equal fifty-six hundred (5600) pounds. If volume is palletized, it
   
6. 38 shall equal one container if its area is equal to or less than the footprint (i.e.,
   
7. 39 125 inches x 88 inches) of an A1 container.
   

So, that restriction is between 50400 lbs and 56000 lbs per day or up to 392000 lbs per week between two international airports or between an international airport and the us.


If the flights are only domestic, and fall under common carriage. Here is what that says.

1. Common carriage (domestic) (within the fifty (50) United States) - scheduled service
   
2. 3 provided by an air carrier not affiliated with the Company and independent of business
   
3. 4 provided by the Company. Air transportation service provided for the Company by
   
4. 5 another air carrier involving more than one (1) package container per flight will be
   
5. 6 considered common carriage if such flight has been scheduled and operated at least a
   
6. 7 year in advance of the time its cargo space is first utilized to transport parcels for UPS.
   
7. 8 Service involving more than five (5) containers of volume per flight will be considered
   
8. 9 subcontracting.
   

1. 29 Common carriage (express freight) – Movements of express freight will be subject to the
   
2. 30 domestic and international definitions of common carriage as are set forth above,
   
3. 31 subject to the provisions of Article 1.D.5.

So how do you think Fedex would interpret that 5 container per flight limit? How many flights are there in the US.

Yes, we should improve our Scope. What we shouldn't do is blindly take someone elses scope and say we want that without thinking about how it will affect us or how the company can interpret it.

tnkrdrvr

Doing anything blindly is foolish. However, copying and pasting from an existing legal contract that has already been tested is a time honored form of plagiarism in the legal profession. It’s not always necessary to reinvent the wheel. Good luck to everyone at Purple moving forward.

FXLAX

We shouldn't just copy and paste everything. We should take count of what currently works and doesn't work for us in our scope going forward. Then we should look at the entire landscape of scope language and consult those who crafted that language to learn why and what worked and didn't work. We should ask others what they think could help our situation.

The main point is that scope language can help make sure more of our pilots are used in whatever business model FedEx chooses. We can improve definitions with objective criteria to phrases like, when necessary to expedite, or most efficient and expeditious, etc. We can put objective criteria to when enough volume constitutes the use of a purple tail instead of belly freight. We can scope in more of our international flying by closing loopholes. But first we have to want it and the. We have to beleive it can be done. Without those things, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.