LOA 67 was negotiated between Frontier Airlines and the Frontier Airline Pilots Association when FAPA was the legal representative union.

LOA 67 was ratified by the members of the Frontier Airline Pilots Association when FAPA was the legal representative union.

LOA 67 was the primary stimulus in the process of obtaining concessions from RAH/Frontier stakeholders/vendors. The stakeholders/vendors followed the pilot's lead on concessions.

Without concessions from the pilots and other stakeholders/vendors, Frontier would, more than likely, have struggled to survive.

Those concessions, from the pilots and the stakeholders/vendors allowed Frontier to hold down their CASM, ex-fuel, until the little jets drove the CASM up.

If the IBT prevails, the Company loses XXMM in concessions from the pilots and possibly from some stakeholders/vendors, that would have a negative affect on the viability of Frontier.

So, spout off all you want about the IBT's desire to legally represent all parties to the SLI ("we are one?") and avoid a DFR suit.

The IBT's "stated" desire is to represent the Frontier pilots all the way down to bidding the 190's, but the truth of the matter is, the IBT is trying to overturn a legally ratified agreement between Frontier and their pilots.

If successful, it will cause harm to the Frontier pilot group.

The Frontier pilots wanted this LOA, the Company (Frontier) wanted this LOA and it was agreed to in a completely legal manner.

Who is the IBT to come in, after the fact, to "represent" the Frontier pilots (in the form of a lawsuit) against their wishes in a manner that will cause harm to the pilot group they are so "interested in representing?"

Remember, RAH had nowhere to place the 190's except at Frontier (they would have been parked or sold) and RAH would have parked many more 170's without being able to operate them in the service of Frontier.

The fact that they were able to place them at Frontier saved native RAH pilots from furlough.

You're welcome.