Originally Posted by
acl65pilot
Until you get the DOT/DOJ to state that a holding company is an air carrier or can as as an air carrier, the changes need to come in the form of a PWA change.
That's what I'm wondering about. In the April 22nd C44 Hotline they mentioned:
• A recent National Mediation Board decision classifying Republic Air Holdings as a Single Transportation System, for the purposes of representation, does not in and of itself affect scope compliance;
Completely agree and have always thought so. This is not a violation of our scope because what RAH has done is gamed the system and it's legal. The only way it'd be a violation is if the NMB was asked to rule that RAH is STS. As in period. The question put forth by the RAH pilots union was is there STS for representation issues? The answer from the NMB was the affirmative to the question asked.
We need a new question, is RAH a STS? < period. What ALPA said was they were going to look at the issues related to the legal definition of air carrier, as in, we may pursue a tact that will further define air carrier to say all the airlines within a holdings company is STS.
however questions have arisen regarding the meaning of air carrier as it relates to US code and our PWA. At the direction of the MEC, in order to ensure scope compliance, ALPA legal counsel and the MEC will review the various issues involved related to the legal definition of an “air carrier” at the regular scheduled MEC meeting in May. Scope is a fundamental cornerstone of our contract and this issue will be reviewed exhaustively.
In May, did ALPA legal counsel drop this whole matter?
Status quo with RAH?