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?
--The vacancies can be filled in accordance with IMSL seniority, they are outside the fence.
How exactly does a pilot move from one Company to another?
--They bid and get awarded a vacancy. they then come in for indoc and all the paperwork and get an ID.
There are NO "
CBA rules" regarding this issue in either CBA.
--Does there have to be? the 190s operate on the YX certificate. the legacy-CHQ CBA would voer that I suppose. This would be like the handful of guys that came off the furlough street to F9.
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?
--CHQ CBA
What would be their bidding position, for monthly bids and for vacation?
--IMSL seniority. The vacation would be from whatever is left over as that bid closed. Maybe they would allow some extra weeks for whoever came over.
Would there have to be a rerun of a monthly bid or of the vacation bid?
--Dunno
What would be their longevity and pay?
--Whatever they have for longevity and the CHQ pay scales.
Are they seat locked?
--I imagine they would IAW with the CHQ CBA.
May they return to Frontier when displaced or when there are vacancies at Frontier?
--Good question.
Into what seniority position would they return? IMSL or original Frontier seniority?
--See above. The seniority would be IMSl I bet.
What would the IBT's grievance be based on? A CBA violation? Of which CBA?
--I am not the EBoard or a lawyer so i do not know.
You can't grieve the Eischen award and Eischen no longer has jurisdiction over the award.
Not so much really. It is many people's opinions, including well paid Attorneys at both Companies and within the Frontier pilot group.
--Still opinions. I did not know that you were posting on behalf of "many people's opinions, including well-paid Attorneys at both Companies and within the Frontier pilot group." I imagine IBT's well-paid lawyers and members of the legacy pilot group see it differently.
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?
--Health insurance? Get outta the house? Not to sponge off unemployment? They love to fly and it shows? I don't know what any particular person's reasons would be.
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.
--That's cool too...
Surely, you jest. There is only one party that stands to gain in the litigation, the IBT - not the RAH pilots - just the IBT
--Don't call me Shirley! 
It's not the IBT but, unions in general, that benefit from something like this. FAPA may have made some deal but they continue to edit it after the fact and intentionally covered their actions from the IBT after the vote... they are not an entity authorized to bargain with the company and they did and continue to do so.
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.
--So you know what is going on inside their heads? Like i said, whether or not a F9 pilot takes it is moot. It was not made available in any case. What waters are there to muddy? We have STS. We have a SLI. We have RJET. It's not a case of ownership. We are all the craft and class of pilot.
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****?
--That is the job of the NC, not EBoard. In fact, the EBoard specifically removed itself from any meetings where CBA type negotiations/talk were taking place with management. Single point of contact and all.
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?
--{shrug}
How long are the terms of the current EBoard?
--I think 2 years. there is an opening now because one person had family things that took priority. Throw your name in the hat if you like.
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?"
--I think it was something like that. I didn't expect anything to happen overnight and I am sure that people interpreted that to mean "guns blazing" or something. I imagine that National will support us continually and they have been appearing in-person at our mediation sessions. I would guess not everyone but I am not speaking for everyone. just my opinion is all. i think people expect to have magic things happen and that IBT or national has some magic wand but they do not. It's the RLA, the Mediator's schedule and the lack of action by the NMB. It's hard to do much when NMB tells you to mind your own business and you cannot self-help. So we continue to work and subsidize F9 operations. Sure, some 170s would have been parked along with 190s but BB would have found something to do with them just like he did with the Frontier-I 170s in 2007-2008. if that would have triggered a furlough then that's the way it is. As it looks now, that would not have been a super-long furlough, if any, since we cannot fill classes now. Maybe BB would have continued to run the old midwest network... maybe not. the point is, nobody know what would have happened.
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.
--The bylaws are bylaws. i have no idea about the UTU and what they did or did not do. of course, they probably were not dealing with the same whole situation as IBT is/was.