Originally Posted by AirbusMonitor

I don't think anyone is "arguing" about Flight Attendant contracts.

It seems to me the the letter from IBT indicates that they are as disrespectful (or just don't give a damn) of Labor, CBA's and the law as RAH corporate is.

Actually, the most interesting aspect of this is the IBT's attempt to circumvent McCaskill-Bond by claiming the amendment applies only to "Air Carriers" and not to holding companies.

Republic Airways Holdings acquired Midwest Air Group and Frontier Airlines Holdings.

The IBT states, "Further, the "Bond-McCaskill Amendment" has no application to the transaction between Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. and Midwest Air Group, Inc. That provision applies only to "covered transactions", defined as "a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier." No such transaction occurred here. Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. is not a carrier so its acquisition of Midwest Air Group, Inc. (likewise not a carrier) is not a covered transaction."

Years ago an American MD-80 damaged their nose gear assembly during push-back and had problems in retracting the nose wheel after takeoff. American tried to sell the FAA that they were not responsible as the push-back crew didn't work for American, they were contract workers. The FAA said (words to the effect), "Bullsh*t, if we buy that argument then you'll just contract out all your employees and have zero responsiblity for anything."

The IBT is doing their best to avoid the spirit and intent of McBond at any cost.

It is possible that somewhere between 3,100 to 3,450 pilots in the IBT (Republic), ALPA (MIdwest), FAPA (Frontier) and the UTU (Lynx) will be voting on a common representitive union.

The point of my posting their letter here is to raise the question, "Is this the group you want to represent you?"

I don't.

Additionally, the Frontier Flight Attendants are currently voting on a choice between the IBT and the AFA, it seems pertinent to their situation as well.