Seggy

Proud to donate to the strike fund today! Keep it up guys and gals!

GlasssPilot

As a former Amerijet pilot I can say the management there is as low as low can be. They have no limits to how low they can go.

I just signed up to give two hours of pay. I figure as a former employee I should give twice as much as what the "average Joe" should give.

If you think Amerijet pilots are worth just a tad more than using a plastic bag to go to the bathroom,

or you think being paid HALF of what was promised,

or you think being charged 5 hours pay to be reimbursed 2.5 hours pay to call in sick (not to mention you lose the pay of the trip in the first place),

or you think it's CRAP to have to print you own training manuals during initial training,

or you think 20 hour duty days are crap,

or you think earning $800 paychecks every other week as an FO flying his ASS off is crap,

or you think having to pay for your own hotel room up front is crap,

or you think Amerijet is CRAP and the pilots deserve better then please, at a minimum, donate ONE HOUR OF YOUR PAY to the cause.

One Hour Pay, how much is that? Not much really. These guys need your help if they are to succeed. Please take the time to write the check. Payday was today. If enough guys write the check then these guys may actually get a raise to go on strike.

a pay raise to go on strike???

THAT WOULD BE THE BEST MESSAGE EVER!!!!!!

JetJock16

I just donated about 4 hours of pay. All Amerijet pilots as well as the rest of us need this win. so HOLD STRONG!!!!!!

When I can give more I will.

757upspilot

Contributed via Pay Pal. took all of 3 minutes.

Subpilot

By definition, status quo means things stay the way they are. I wouldn't think a preexisting contract is required otherwise wouldn't the wording be "... per existing contract" vice "... as status quo?"

CactusCrew

I don't know, that's why I asked ...

Found these via GOOGLE (just some highlights):

On March 7, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed its opinion in the case of International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. North American Airlines. [1] It addressed the question of whether a labor union is entitled to enjoin an air carrier to prevent it from unilaterally altering the working conditions of its pilots, while negotiations for an initial collective bargaining agreement are still pending. [2] The court cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of the status quo provisions of the Railway Labor Act of 1926 in Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., in ruling that unilateral alteration of working conditions are not prohibited in cases where there is no prior collective bargaining agreement, regardless of any pending negotiations. [3] The Teamsters case well illustrates a continuing debate as to whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of the RLA's status quo provisions still adequately serves the RLA's original purpose of promoting peaceable resolution of labor dispute.

.....................

In the 1942 Williams case, the Supreme Court held that the parts of the RLA prohibiting changes to pay during collective bargaining do not apply to the carrier in cases where there is not a prior collective bargaining agreement.
Under the Court's interpretation of the statutory language of the RLA, particularly the phrase "in agreements," the status quo provisions apply only to agreements reached after collective bargaining.

...........................


The International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT") alleged that North American Airlines violated its obligations under the status quo provisions of the RLA, by unilaterally altering the pilots' rates of pay, rules, and working conditions, in the midst of negotiations for an initial collective bargaining agreement. [18] The National Mediation Board ("NMB") had certified IBT as the collective bargaining representative for the pilots in January, 2004. [19] In November of that year, North American announced a plan to reduce costs that included pilots' scheduling changes. [20] Negotiations with IBT regarding these changes were not successful, and, pursuant to IBT's application, the NMB instituted mediation proceedings on December 13, 2004. [21] On December 28, 2004, North American announced a reduction in pilots' wages, a reduction of the minimum monthly flight hour guarantee, and other limitations of working conditions. [22] These alterations took effect on January 7, 2005. [23] IBT sought an injunction to prevent North American from unilaterally altering working conditions and to return the conditions to what they were prior to negotiations. [24]

The Court of Appeals applied the rule from Williams, precluding the requirement of maintaining the status quo before the collective bargaining agreement has been completed, thereby denying IBT's request for an injunction. [25]

FmrFreightDog

Quick question for an Amerijet guy. On your scab list, is Director of Training B.P. the same former EAL B.P.??? Knew him from a different life, and he was a pretty good guy. Sorry to see him mixed up in all of this.

Thanks, guys, and good luck. Glad to see you standing strong.

BigWake

B.P.....yes he is former EA stern. I personally like him. Sorry to see him caught up in this bad situation.

Jetjok

I've no longer a dog in this fight, but after reading some of the sh!t that the Amerijet guys had to endure, they got my vote, and I voted with my wallet via PP. Good luck to the Amerijet group and know that regardless of whether others contribute to your cause or not, they are indeed with you.

JJ

jaded

Apparently on climbto350 some confidential North FL company is hiring CA/FO/FE for a 727 operation... I wonder...