Originally Posted by
sizzlechest
My post wasn't about specific procedures in any CBA. It was that a vacancy was created and it needed to be made open to everyone based on whatever CBA rules there are.
If there is "a vacancy that was created and it needed to be made open to everyone", exactly HOW would those vacancies be filled by a pilot operating under a separate CBA,
when neither party's CBA addresses the issue?
How exactly does a pilot move from one Company to another?
There are NO "
CBA rules" regarding this issue in either CBA.
Eischen stated, in writing, once that the IBT had the cart in front of the horse and later that the cart was getting even further ahead of the horse, based on IBT's actions.
What work rules would a Frontier pilot operate under if they flew the 190?
CHQ CBA or Frontier CBA?
What would be their bidding position, for monthly bids and for vacation?
Would there have to be a rerun of a monthly bid or of the vacation bid?
What would be their longevity and pay?
Are they seat locked?
May they return to Frontier when displaced or when there are vacancies at Frontier?
Into what seniority position would they return? IMSL or original Frontier seniority?
What would the IBT's grievance be based on? A CBA violation? Of which CBA?
You can't grieve the Eischen award and Eischen no longer has jurisdiction over the award.
Originally Posted by
sizzlechest
Your assertion that the IBT is not operating properly where DFR is concerned is your opinion alone.
Not so much really. It is many people's opinions, including well paid Attorneys at both Companies and within the Frontier pilot group.
More important, as previously mentioned, Frontier's FO's unemployment benefit is greater than a RAH FO's pay. What is their motivation to fly a shiny commuter?
Most of Frontier's FO's already have at least 1,000 turbine PIC (hiring mins and all that), so they don't need to step way back to get that time.
Originally Posted by
sizzlechest
the LOA67 lawsuit is about operating outside union ground and side deals. that is in the interest of the covered employees.
Surely, you jest. There is only one party that stands to gain in the litigation, the IBT - not the RAH pilots - just the IBT
Originally Posted by
sizzlechest
Just because you do not like it doesn't mean it's not right. The IBT has been looking at both the 190 and Q vacancies, it's not like they came up with it last week.
I doubt that, but if they have been considering the issue for awhile, they are not pursuing the matter to benefit any Frontier pilot. The sole purpose is to muddy the waters on the SLI, IMSL, Separation and Representation issues.
Shouldn't the EBoard be focused on the 4 articles they've been attempting to negotiate for a couple of years and stop all the ancillary Bull****?
I mean, it took them a year to come up with the "never before heard of practice" of "linkage" in negotiations. That's the norm, it's not a new concept and yet the IBT had never thought of, or tried, that philosophy going back to 2003?
And that "linkage" epiphany took a year even with the assessment for a full time, "Highly experienced Attorney" and CM's vast experience "over the past 25 years" or so?
How long are the terms of the current EBoard?
Is everyone at RAH still happy with the IBT and all the support they are getting from National? Wasn't the battle cry from Las Vegas something like, "By all available means?"
UTU did a heck of a job for the Lynx pilots, even though they hadn't collected beans in dues. Food for thought, as long as the IBT doesn't disown you for treasonous behavior.