Originally Posted by
forgot to bid
That's what I'm wondering about. In the April 22nd C44 Hotline they mentioned:
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.
I agree. I do not see the decision, which was decision on "labor" as the lynchpin, I see the "findings" that the NMB used to arrive at that decision as key. I know you and I have discussed this, and we agree.
I am not a rep, and frankly I have not talked at length with my reps as to why, but my deduction is that the contract was written a certain way, and legally speaking they are in compliance. It may have not been the intent, but it is the result. Just because we thought that it would help below 76 seat economics does not mean that an operator like RJET cannot use the wording to their advantage. They can and are.
What is needed to "fix" this is a contractual change. It would not stop RJET as that would be very costly, but it would stop future scenarios of this nature. It also is important to fix because of these metal neutral JV's that are the half step away from a holding company or Transnational that will be across many countries laws and jurisdictions.
In May, did ALPA legal counsel drop this whole matter?
Status quo with RAH?
I did not believe it would be dropped, but that a contractual, legal, or legislative change would be needed. Frankly, with the election season rolling around, these candidates need money, and big business is their cash cow. This will not see a resolution to our liking until after the election. Your only hope is the DOJ/DOT and I am not holding my breath for them.
My guess is, nothing will change unless we buy the change at the table. It will be a significant cost, because it is important for issues far bigger than F9/RJET.