Originally Posted by zoooropa

RAH announced a new CPA for 34 Q400's back in May. This agreement created a huge amount of potential new upgrades for legacy RAH pilots. Additionally, some of the new Q flying is occurring in a rather large legacy F9 domicile known as Denver. For some strange reason, seven months have passed and not one word was spoken between the IBT and F9 management regarding that vacancy bid. Now we have three orphaned 190's, based out in no-mans-land and all of the sudden the IBT is playing the role of hero.



You are skipping a bunch of words in the windfall known as the Eischen Award

"In the event that the NMB finds a single transportation system and then certifies a single bargaining representative for the system-wide craft or class of pilots, applicable CBAs will remain applicable, in accordance with their terms, until consolidated or otherwise modified by
valid mutual agreement between the affected single carrier and a certified single pilot craft or class bargaining representative, if any. There appears to be consensus that the RAH/IBT and Frontier/FAPA collective bargaining agreements remain applicable to the pilot craft and class of those respective properties and that there is no CBA applicable to the UTU-represented pilot craft or class. RAH, ALPA, and perhaps some of the other Parties, continue to dispute whether,
or to what extent, the terms and conditions of the ALPA/Midwest CBA retain vitality, and upon whom that particular Agreement is binding and enforceable. However, as noted supra, the contested legal, contractual and administrative issues in that particular dispute are beyond the
proper reach of the jurisdiction and authority granted me under the terms of the DRA that governs this seniority list integration proceeding."

In other words, the "fence" is meaningless with regard to the 190's and Q's at this point.

Since we are refreshing everyone's memory here, I will add a few more quotes from The Award..


Page 43

"The main reason we took the leap in to the brand business was precisely because we did not see any growth opportunities for RJ flying with our major airline partners. In fact, we feel there is a much greater risk that contracts will not be renewed as the requirement for RJ, especially 50-seat aircraft, is shrinking. . . Had we not made the acquisitions we did last year, we would not have 15 E-190s in operation; we would not have a home for 16 E-170s or a home for 12 small RJs we are flying in Milwaukee. Add all that up and we would have 43 fewer aircraft in service at Republic. You take those 43 aircraft out of the picture and we would have had to furlough more than 1,300 Republic employees . . ."

and one of my favorites on page 33 (I still can't figure out who wrote the opinion, as it doesn't match the IMSL in any way, shape, or form)

"The Frontier acquisition now provides the regional jet pilots something of major value to any commercial pilot: a "road less traveled" to the "holy grail": the higher pay and benefits, enhanced life style, better
working conditions and enhanced prestige of a mainline carrier Captain position."

Bottom line, I ask the following question to sizzle and tiller and nbecca and 3662 and any professional pilot on this message board...

When Frontier separates next year, do you support the divestiture in the interest of "labor" or do you fight the sale in an effort to destroy something that you almost had but never really attained?

The IBT is currently suing my employer under the pretense that the RLA needs to be defended and pattern bargaining needs to prevail. Meanwhile, the IBT is undermining my employer's efforts in creating an independent, profitable entity.

You can't claim to defend higher paying jobs while simultaneously attempting to destroy higher paying jobs.

Which leads me to the inevitable DFR lawsuit...