|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979809)
No something greater than the almighty buck; pilots dealing with pilot internally and not at the table with the company.
It is my belief that at some point RJET left to their own devices will try to challenge exclusivity rights of its mainline counterparts. They will try to fly whatever they can to a a alliance flight totally going around a mainline section one. It will be divisive and a last ditch effort to save themselves. If they are part of ALPA, it will not be tolerated. It is also the same reason what the DCI's that are within ALPA are not trying the same thing. Keeping all pilots under the same National banner allows us the ability to resist being our own worst enemy. You may not buy that, but being wrong would be very costly. Even the RJDC issue was an internal ALPA issue. I prefer that any day to dealing with the company on these matters. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 979804)
Somewhat true because I am a little stir crazy... but I don't see those contracts disappearing very quickly... I mean, I only have 15 years left...
Because of this we need a different strategy. On that is low to zero cost at the table. One that the senior pilots can see as not taking money from them. Sun-setting these agreements is the first step, and then continually lowering the cap of allowable jets is the other. It is a measured pull down. |
Originally Posted by Dash8widget
(Post 979811)
I think RJET bought Frontier in mid 2009, which would be after after the JPWA was voted on - correct?
And what exactly did the pilots vote on anyway? I think the intent of that section of the PWA is pretty clear. If you show our contract to a line pilot and then show them the NMB ruling, I think most would agree that they are in violation. We voted on one thing, and APLA is giving us something else. The NMB made it clear that RJET is considered one carrier, regardless of how many certificates they may own. One could argue is that we didn't know how they were going to set up the operation but one thing for sure is Republic bought their E190s from UsAir on 14OCT09: Republic Airways to Acquire 10 Embraer 190AR Aircraft from US Airways According to our contract: If a carrier that performs category A (which is CPA operations which is Republic) or category C operations (American Eagle in LAX) acquires an aircraft that would cause the Company to no longer be in compliance with the provisions of Section 1 D. 2. c., (E190s sat 99 seats, 97 was the max) the Company will terminate such operations on the date that is the later of the date such aircraft is placed in revenue service, or nine months from the date that the Company first became aware of the potential acquisition (July 2010). (like Icrew, trying to use every possible combination of dates as I can) |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979809)
No something greater than the almighty buck; pilots dealing with pilot internally and not at the table with the company.
It is my belief that at some point RJET left to their own devices will try to challenge exclusivity rights of its mainline counterparts. They will try to fly whatever they can to a a alliance flight totally going around a mainline section one. It will be divisive and a last ditch effort to save themselves. If they are part of ALPA, it will not be tolerated. It is also the same reason what the DCI's that are within ALPA are not trying the same thing. Keeping all pilots under the same National banner allows us the ability to resist being our own worst enemy. You may not buy that, but being wrong would be very costly. Even the RJDC issue was an internal ALPA issue. I prefer that any day to dealing with the company on these matters. Then tell me why in the world the pilots at RJET would ever vote in ALPA as their union knowing that they would not allow their goals. |
Originally Posted by 1234
(Post 979822)
If they were ALPA, what exactly would/could ALPA do to stop it?
Then tell me why in the world the pilots at RJET would ever vote in ALPA as their union knowing that they would not allow their goals. That is an excellent point. There are lots of guys out there that are fine and dandy happy to fly a baby airbus.. So why would THESE guys upset the apple cart by voting in an entity that would surely try to limit their upward mobility within that company? Altruism? |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979813)
Very true, and I would love to see them gone tomorrow. For many reasons that is not realistic. The top reason is that there are income guarantees in many of them, and if DAL is still on the hook, the bargaining credit to buy them off would be so steep that most of our group would balk.
Because of this we need a different strategy. On that is low to zero cost at the table. One that the senior pilots can see as not taking money from them. Sun-setting these agreements is the first step, and then continually lowering the cap of allowable jets is the other. It is a measured pull down. When is THAT part going to start? |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979813)
Very true, and I would love to see them gone tomorrow. For many reasons that is not realistic. The top reason is that there are income guarantees in many of them, and if DAL is still on the hook, the bargaining credit to buy them off would be so steep that most of our group would balk.
Because of this we need a different strategy. On that is low to zero cost at the table. One that the senior pilots can see as not taking money from them. Sun-setting these agreements is the first step, and then continually lowering the cap of allowable jets is the other. It is a measured pull down. We may terminate without cause the Chautauqua agreement at any time and the Shuttle America agreement at any time after January 2016 by providing certain advance notice. If we terminate either the Chautauqua or Shuttle America agreements without cause, Chautauqua or Shuttle America, respectively, has the right to (1) assign to us leased aircraft that the airline operates for us, provided we are able to continue the leases on the same terms the airline had prior to the assignment and (2) require us to purchase or lease any aircraft the airline owns and operates for us at the time of the termination. If we are required to purchase aircraft owned by Chautauqua or Shuttle America, the purchase price would be equal to the amount necessary to (1) reimburse Chautauqua or Shuttle America for the equity it provided to purchase the aircraft and (2) repay in full any debt outstanding at such time that is not being assumed in connection with such purchase. If we are required to lease aircraft owned by Chautauqua or Shuttle America, the lease would have (1) a rate equal to the debt payments of Chautauqua or Shuttle America for the debt financing of the aircraft calculated as if 90% of the aircraft was debt financed by Chautauqua or Shuttle America and (2) other specified terms and conditions. Wouldn't that be doing Delta Air Lines management a huge favor getting rid of a future competitor that's using our money to fund their new operation and acquisitions? Not to mention, they want out of the RJ business, right?We estimate that the total fair values, determined as of December 31, 2010, of the aircraft Chautauqua or Shuttle America could assign to us or require that we purchase if we terminate without cause our Contract Carrier agreements with those airlines (the “Put Right”) are approximately $160 million and $370 million, respectively. The actual amount we may be required to pay in these circumstances may be materially different from these estimates. If the Put Right is exercised, we must also pay the exercising carrier 10% interest (compounded monthly) on the equity the carrier provided when it purchased the put aircraft. These equity amounts for Chautauqua and Shuttle America total $25 million and $52 million, respectively. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979777)
Look at the going rate for a BBJ Captain and FO, then compare to ours.
Look at a SWA FO rate and then those rates. Then look at productivity and provide an hourly rate for those BBJ guys and compare it to your rate. That will give you a good indication of what market forces pay compared to us. It has been a few years since I have done this, but I can tell you that our hourly rate is a lot lower than the BBJ's/Global Express pilots are. If you are really board, look at what Coke pays their pilots. They are one of the few companies that has high utilization of their pilots. Is this about what you find, ACL? |
I usually try to agree with ACL, but in this case I can't. We (DALPA) aren't even trying to fight the RAH issue. It might upset the apple cart and imperil the cushy (read lucrative) relationship our DALPA leaders enjoy with Management.
Ultimately I think all unions are doomed because they have lost sight of what they are supposed to represent and instead begin to enjoy the benefits/power of their position. They lose sight of what the line pilots want because they no longer are line pilots themselves. If we don't ask (read challenge) the company about section 1, we won't get. We'll do exactly what FTB proposes in his stop light post, we'll end up once again at the receiving end of a bully's put down. Like a elementary school fight, the bully won't stop until you stand up to him. For God's sake DALPA/ALPA grow a set and stand up for what has been negotiated. It's one thing to fight and fail, it's another to fail to fight - that's COWARDICE! |
Originally Posted by newKnow
(Post 979640)
And no B scale.
Carl - Today's winner of the Le Douche Le Bag award. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 979695)
Sorry Carl, but it's not relevant. We all know that NWA went on strike, and we... well I anyway, don't care. It doesn't mean anything.
Carl |
Originally Posted by Carl Spackler
(Post 979857)
Oh my God! How could I have forgotten that?
Carl - Today's winner of the Le Douche Le Bag award. You mean like this?:D |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 979856)
I usually try to agree with ACL, but in this case I can't. We (DALPA) aren't even trying to fight the RAH issue. It might upset the apple cart and imperil the cushy (read lucrative) relationship our DALPA leaders enjoy with Management.
Ultimately I think all unions are doomed because they have lost sight of what they are supposed to represent and instead begin to enjoy the benefits/power of their position. They lose sight of what the line pilots want because they no longer are line pilots themselves. If we don't ask (read challenge) the company about section 1, we won't get. We'll do exactly what FTB proposes in his stop light post, we'll end up once again at the receiving end of a bully's put down. Like a elementary school fight, the bully won't stop until you stand up to him. For God's sake DALPA/ALPA grow a set and stand up for what has been negotiated. It's one thing to fight and fail, it's another to fail to fight - that's COWARDICE! |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 979832)
But if we terminate the RAH owned CHQ and Shuttle CPAs we'd be doing so with cause, like MESA was terminated, right?
... Wouldn't that be doing Delta Air Lines management a huge favor getting rid of a future competitor that's using our money to fund their new operation and acquisitions? Not to mention, they want out of the RJ business, right? If ALPA won't enforce the contract, maybe an individual grievance? Has anyone tried to file? |
Let's go back to 1993 for just a moment. You had a new President, Bill Clinton and Buzzpat was already in his office probably, you had the Buffalo Bills losing their 3rd consecutive Super Bowl, Iraq refused to allow weapons inspectors in, the World Trade Center was bombed, Lorena Bobbit was slicing and dicing, Bobby Brown was arrested in Atlanta, NASA lost control of a Mars orbiter and Whitney Houston's I Will Always Love You was number 1.
Oh and... Now I don't have any quotes but I'm sure it went something like this: Pilot: What the #@$% is that? ALPA: It's a regional jet. Pilot: And we're going to fly that thing? ALPA: Actually Comair is going to fly it. Pilot: Whoa! We're not flying it? ALPA: No, no. You don't want to fly it. It's not a Boeing, Douglas or even an Airbus. It's just a crappy cramped little jet that we here like to call a "FLAP" and nobody will like it anyways and eventually the company will stop flying it. It's not worth a second thought, it'll go away. Pilot: How in the hell did we get to this position?!?!? Now, here we are in 2011 wondering is ALPA about to tell us that this...ALPA: Don't blame us, you voted for it for the past 17 years! Republic Airways http://i938.photobucket.com/albums/a...g?t=1302720057 Republic Airways Holdings, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, is an airline holding company that owns Chautauqua Airlines, Frontier Airlines, Lynx Aviation, Republic Airlines and Shuttle America. Our business strategy was developed by our experienced team of senior airline executives. The company’s business model incorporates sound business strategies and insights for the development and management of airlines operating throughout the United States. We are professionals for whom flight – and the business of flying – are equal parts art and science. The Republic Airways senior leadership team has extensive experience growing airlines while delivering a high-quality and low-cost product. They have successfully developed the enterprise into a leading airline holding company that includes one of the largest regional jet fixed-fee operations in the industry, with code-share partnerships with American Airlines, Continental Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and US Airways. Republic also owns and operates its own brand, Frontier Airlines, an award-winning low-cost airline. ... is not a single airline and we shouldn't we worried about a thing and it's not against our contract as far as we're concerned so stuff it you keyboard warriors? Sweet. Wonder where this will end up? |
Originally Posted by trlaketige
(Post 979742)
ACL, I raise the B.S. flag. Once again Alpa allowed an end run while looking for a play up the middle. This career has been one big death spiral for the last 25 years. The harder we pull, the tighter the spiral. ALPA has been at the controls the whole time.
Jim Carl |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979791)
Look at what a Heat Surgeon Makes for a routine bypass surgery. His office will get about five to seven grand depending on the insurance provider. Now compare that to 1985. Look at their W-2's. Not in comparison to us, but to what they used to make. Again market forces.
Best paid Doctors today are Radiologists. 600K or so to start with a health care system and 17 weeks of vacation. Trust me I know this as it was what a close friend was paying to hire them. As more Docs enter this skill set the forces will readjust. As for what you quoted. We have a tremendous responsibility, and not one that we should diminish. even if everyone else wants to. It is a responsibility that the passengers do not necessarily want to pay for because we as an industry have conditioned them that they do not have to. Doctors are doing it too with PA's etc. We see them as good enough without a serious risk to our well being. It comes with doing your job well almost all of the time and it becomes routine. Routine for you and for the market in which you work. That said, we as pilots need to realize the danger of diminishing what we do. It effects us at the ticket counter and at the negotiating table. Here's what I think is a really good article along these lines. I don't agree with every single statement in this article. But I think the vast majority of it is spot on. This article was my very first input to my new reps in MEM. (Still waiting for a response from them on this.) Anyway, I highly recommend that everyone (especially Satchip) read this. It's long... so read it when you have the time to really digest it. The Way It Has To Be |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 979856)
I usually try to agree with ACL, but in this case I can't. We (DALPA) aren't even trying to fight the RAH issue. It might upset the apple cart and imperil the cushy (read lucrative) relationship our DALPA leaders enjoy with Management.
Ultimately I think all unions are doomed because they have lost sight of what they are supposed to represent and instead begin to enjoy the benefits/power of their position. They lose sight of what the line pilots want because they no longer are line pilots themselves. If we don't ask (read challenge) the company about section 1, we won't get. We'll do exactly what FTB proposes in his stop light post, we'll end up once again at the receiving end of a bully's put down. Like a elementary school fight, the bully won't stop until you stand up to him. For God's sake DALPA/ALPA grow a set and stand up for what has been negotiated. It's one thing to fight and fail, it's another to fail to fight - that's COWARDICE! This!!! Carl |
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 979864)
That's part of the irony here. The System Board of Adjustment might just uphold this grievance unanimously. If we could only convince ALPA to file it.
If ALPA won't enforce the contract, maybe an individual grievance? Has anyone tried to file? With any grievance, there's always a company rep and a union rep. Very rarely, the company will agree that they were wrong, so the vote is 2-Yes, and 0-No...the grievance is won. When the company doesn't agree, a neutral arbitrator is selected to break the presumed tie vote. But if your own union agrees with the company, the grievance is lost without ever going to an arbitrator because the company votes no, and the union rep votes no. Your individual grievance is lost. Carl |
Originally Posted by Luftwaffe
(Post 979436)
The FAA certificate determines a scope violation.
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 979527)
Says who?
This is the crux of the problem. I hope we get a thorough explanation of where this notion comes from. The contract says nothing about certificates and neither does the federal definition of an air carrier. This certificate thing just seems like a convenient explanation that the ALPA lawyers made up out of thin air in order to justify their reluctance to enforce any part of any mainline scope clause. Can they point to any instances in the past where the government defined "air carrier" by certificate? The govt uses the same criteria as the NMB. Ownership and control. Common or interlocking management, Boards of Directors, operational integration, etc. etc. They "pierce the corporate veil". They look beyond the legal fiction to the reality of the situation. A "certificate" is nothing more than a piece of paper in some FAA bureaucrat's desk drawer. It has no bearing on how Bedford manages his empire. Most importantly for our purposes, separate certificates does not prevent RAH from using the money they make from their Delta guaranteed profit flights to set up and subsidize other flights that directly compete with Delta. If you believe the certificate reasoning then what is the purpose of that paragraph in our contract? Its useless. How could it ever be enforced if all an airline has to do is put their large aircraft on separate certificates? I've looked and I can't find it. It might be there, I just haven't found it. Can anyone help? Carl |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 979856)
I usually try to agree with ACL, but in this case I can't. We (DALPA) aren't even trying to fight the RAH issue. It might upset the apple cart and imperil the cushy (read lucrative) relationship our DALPA leaders enjoy with Management.
Ultimately I think all unions are doomed because they have lost sight of what they are supposed to represent and instead begin to enjoy the benefits/power of their position. They lose sight of what the line pilots want because they no longer are line pilots themselves. If we don't ask (read challenge) the company about section 1, we won't get. We'll do exactly what FTB proposes in his stop light post, we'll end up once again at the receiving end of a bully's put down. Like a elementary school fight, the bully won't stop until you stand up to him. For God's sake DALPA/ALPA grow a set and stand up for what has been negotiated. It's one thing to fight and fail, it's another to fail to fight - that's COWARDICE! Any jailhouse lawyers out there? Is it legitimate for a pilot or pilots to sue ALPA for lack of representation on a contractual issue. I don't know because I'm not a litigious guy, but I can read english and I have read section 1. I find no defensible "its not against the contract" position in what I read. I cannot even see how someone can read the language and not come to the same conclusion. The problem I have with the "file a grievance" crowd is that this is not something I have against the company, this is something I have against ALPA. |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 979900)
Any jailhouse lawyers out there?
Is it legitimate for a pilot or pilots to sue ALPA for lack of representation on a contractual issue. I don't know because I'm not a litigious guy, but I can read english and I have read section 1. I find no defensible "its not against the contract" position in what I read. I cannot even see how someone can read the language and not come to the same conclusion. The problem I have with the "file a grievance" crowd is that this is not something I have against the company, this is something I have against ALPA. If you are unhappy with the "file a grievance", you should be mad at Congress. The RLA is what forces this process on us. |
Originally Posted by tsquare
(Post 979828)
When is THAT part going to start?
|
Originally Posted by trlaketige
(Post 979794)
Acl, I assure you it isn't emotions. It is having had a front row seat over the last 25 years. Watching Alpa advertise and "sell" each and every contract. Alpa has gotten exactly what they wanted from the rank and file. I can't remember a contract or strike vote that didn't follow the recommendations of Alpa leadership. Much of that "sell job" involved telling me what an ironclad scope clause we had, and how they would protect it. And now we have Buzz telling us to " pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". Fool me once.........
|
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 979900)
Any jailhouse lawyers out there?
Is it legitimate for a pilot or pilots to sue ALPA for lack of representation on a contractual issue. I don't know because I'm not a litigious guy, but I can read english and I have read section 1. I find no defensible "its not against the contract" position in what I read. I cannot even see how someone can read the language and not come to the same conclusion. The problem I have with the "file a grievance" crowd is that this is not something I have against the company, this is something I have against ALPA. You are absolutely within your right to file a grievance individually. Contact your base rep to get it started. I can GUARANTEE you that the contract administration people will NOT follow through on it. You can continue the grievance at that point, but you will be doing so on your own dime, and ALPA won't even provide you with any of their negotiators notes or other material. OTOH, if you WANT ALPA'S help with this, you need a Contract Administrator that is willing to push, and a MEC willing to fund independent legal counsel. DALPA gets an ASS load of money...we should be able to fund this ourselves. The way to get the ball rolling on this is recall the elected LEC reps who support the current MEC leadership. The Chairman, with some exceptions, picks and chooses the committee members, who are the REAL movers and shakers on this. To get rid of them, you need to get rid of him. To do that, you need to start ****canning some reps. Get it started, it's easy to do. Call your reps, and tell them you want a special LEC meeting, where the agenda is the recall of the reps. The ANC FO rep got recalled so fast it made his head spin. THIS IS NOT HARD. Gather your buds. Pass the resolution. Make SURE you follow up with the vote. Put someone in who is a pitbull on this stuff, and hates the current way the leadership does business. You don't even have to recall them all. A shot or two across the bow, and the others will fall in line if they like their job. Throw the bums out, even if they are "good guys". If they don't EXPLICITLY say they would endorse a change of leadership, along with a house cleaning of the committee structure, then bu-bye. Don't say "but my rep is a good guy otherwise"....buell ****e, that doesn't do ANYTHING to solve this problem, which is the biggest one we have. Nu |
Originally Posted by forgot to bid
(Post 979832)
But if we terminate the RAH owned CHQ and Shuttle CPAs we'd be doing so with cause, like MESA was terminated, right?
We may terminate without cause the Chautauqua agreement at any time and the Shuttle America agreement at any time after January 2016 by providing certain advance notice. If we terminate either the Chautauqua or Shuttle America agreements without cause, Chautauqua or Shuttle America, respectively, has the right to (1) assign to us leased aircraft that the airline operates for us, provided we are able to continue the leases on the same terms the airline had prior to the assignment and (2) require us to purchase or lease any aircraft the airline owns and operates for us at the time of the termination. If we are required to purchase aircraft owned by Chautauqua or Shuttle America, the purchase price would be equal to the amount necessary to (1) reimburse Chautauqua or Shuttle America for the equity it provided to purchase the aircraft and (2) repay in full any debt outstanding at such time that is not being assumed in connection with such purchase. If we are required to lease aircraft owned by Chautauqua or Shuttle America, the lease would have (1) a rate equal to the debt payments of Chautauqua or Shuttle America for the debt financing of the aircraft calculated as if 90% of the aircraft was debt financed by Chautauqua or Shuttle America and (2) other specified terms and conditions. Wouldn't that be doing Delta Air Lines management a huge favor getting rid of a future competitor that's using our money to fund their new operation and acquisitions? Not to mention, they want out of the RJ business, right?We estimate that the total fair values, determined as of December 31, 2010, of the aircraft Chautauqua or Shuttle America could assign to us or require that we purchase if we terminate without cause our Contract Carrier agreements with those airlines (the “Put Right”) are approximately $160 million and $370 million, respectively. The actual amount we may be required to pay in these circumstances may be materially different from these estimates. If the Put Right is exercised, we must also pay the exercising carrier 10% interest (compounded monthly) on the equity the carrier provided when it purchased the put aircraft. These equity amounts for Chautauqua and Shuttle America total $25 million and $52 million, respectively. This new CPA (ASA) is more at risk for RJET than the previous ones. Why we are not fighting it: Until their is a material change in how the business is structured or operated, there is no change. Single Carrier for purposes of the pilot group may cause that structural change, but apparently it is not reason enough based on how an "Air Carrier" is defined by us. How about you wait and see what the Union publishes later this week on the matter. I assume they will give a thorough and valid explanation. I know I would love nothing more for this to be a clear and concise violation, but wants are different than reality. Slandering the union that they are not trying or would not try is purely a cheap shot. We live in a legal world, and if there was a true violation we would fight it and spend a lot of money doing so. |
Originally Posted by satchip
(Post 979834)
|
Whole lot of rhetoric being tossed around but in the end will anything be done? Knowing ALPA I doubt it
|
Originally Posted by Check Essential
(Post 979864)
That's part of the irony here. The System Board of Adjustment might just uphold this grievance unanimously. If we could only convince ALPA to file it.
If ALPA won't enforce the contract, maybe an individual grievance? Has anyone tried to file? Dragon, it comes down to the fact that the current RJET setup has been accepted since the days of AMR Eagle flying out of LAX. We then accepted Freedom which was a certificate of Mesa, flew larger jets than our PWA allowed at the time but on a different certificate. RJET is the same case. Like I have said, find proof that pilots are changing certificates without initial indoc or the like and the case can be made that the holding company has become the air carrier and not the certificate. Looking at our legal Document(PWA) and seeing what you think you see does mean something, but how air carrier is defined by the PWA, and then how we have defined it though past practice is more important in the legal sense, which will become the precedence here. |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 979925)
Heyas Scambo,
You are absolutely within your right to file a grievance individually. Contact your base rep to get it started. I can GUARANTEE you that the contract administration people will NOT follow through on it. You can continue the grievance at that point, but you will be doing so on your own dime, and ALPA won't even provide you with any of their negotiators notes or other material. OTOH, if you WANT ALPA'S help with this, you need a Contract Administrator that is willing to push, and a MEC willing to fund independent legal counsel. DALPA gets an ASS load of money...we should be able to fund this ourselves. The way to get the ball rolling on this is recall the elected LEC reps who support the current MEC leadership. The Chairman, with some exceptions, picks and chooses the committee members, who are the REAL movers and shakers on this. To get rid of them, you need to get rid of him. To do that, you need to start ****canning some reps. Get it started, it's easy to do. Call your reps, and tell them you want a special LEC meeting, where the agenda is the recall of the reps. The ANC FO rep got recalled so fast it made his head spin. THIS IS NOT HARD. Gather your buds. Pass the resolution. Make SURE you follow up with the vote. Put someone in who is a pitbull on this stuff, and hates the current way the leadership does business. You don't even have to recall them all. A shot or two across the bow, and the others will fall in line if they like their job. Throw the bums out, even if they are "good guys". If they don't EXPLICITLY say they would endorse a change of leadership, along with a house cleaning of the committee structure, then bu-bye. Don't say "but my rep is a good guy otherwise"....buell ****e, that doesn't do ANYTHING to solve this problem, which is the biggest one we have. Nu What a pilot or the group as a whole needs to deal with in the RJET case is simple. You must prove there has been a material change from the day before this ruling was rendered. Until that proof exists you will lose each and every time. Right or now, we accepted the multiple certificate shell game long ago. To now try to unravel that with out RJET making some sort of material change would be a fools errand. Courts and arbitrators look at facts, and past practice to give a ruling. Isn't it better to let this fester and leave RJET to its own devices, get the tangible proof before we storm the windmills? What have your reps said? I had a very long chat with two of my reps over this and the simple fact is, wants and realities, on my end as well as their are totally different. If you are going to recall people, make sure you have the support. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 979934)
I did suggest that. See how far it goes.......
Dragon, it comes down to the fact that the current RJET setup has been accepted since the days of AMR Eagle flying out of LAX. We then accepted Freedom which was a certificate of Mesa, flew larger jets than our PWA allowed at the time but on a different certificate. RJET is the same case. Like I have said, find proof that pilots are changing certificates without initial indoc or the like and the case can be made that the holding company has become the air carrier and not the certificate. Looking at our legal Document(PWA) and seeing what you think you see does mean something, but how air carrier is defined by the PWA, and then how we have defined it though past practice is more important in the legal sense, which will become the precedence here. Why does ALPA not at least acknowledge this problem? Why don't we at least ASK the question of our vaunted lawyers? I say again - they're afraid, not that they might lose or god forbid, win, they are afraid of losing their positions of power. There seem to be two ways to acquire power at mother D, DALPA or Management Pilots. At least I know where the CP types are coming from. |
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 979939)
OK, so we should just go back into the corner and color, right?
Why does ALPA not at least acknowledge this problem? Why don't we at least ASK the question of our vaunted lawyers? I say again - they're afraid, not that they might lose or god forbid, win, they are afraid of losing their positions of power. There seem to be two ways to acquire power at mother D, DALPA or Management Pilots. At least I know where the CP types are coming from. That is rhetoric. From what I gathered from my reps, the legal council is constantly involved in code share compliance, and this NMB ruling was no different. If you think our leadership does not constantly consult our legal team, you are kidding yourself. They are in almost every meeting providing valuable legal perspective at every intersection, on every issue. This one is no different. It,once again, drives home the fact that we live in a legal word full of legal realities. Wants are nice, but the lawyers and arbitrators there to quickly remove wants from realities. If anyone thinks our lawyers are no up to snuff, I suggest coming to ATL and sitting down with them some time and talking to them. You will quickly get the idea, that there guys are not spring chickens. They know what they are doing. It is what is legal to them, and they carry no agenda. |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 979925)
Contact your base rep to get it started. I can GUARANTEE you that the contract administration people will NOT follow through on it.
First, YOU should read Section 18.B.2. it will only take you two paragraphs to realize you just gave someone bag dope. Then please come back on here and apologize to him. Second, Contract Admin has assisted independent grievants on several occasions, including a current independent grievance filed by some PMNW pilots.
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 979925)
You can continue the grievance at that point, but you will be doing so on your own dime, and ALPA won't even provide you with any of their negotiators notes or other material.
I cannot even see how someone can read the language and not come to the same conclusion. Why would he need negotiator's notes if it's so simple? He's off to a good start though. Unlike some, HE actually read the contract...
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 979925)
OTOH, if you WANT ALPA'S help with this, you need a Contract Administrator that is willing to push, and a MEC willing to fund independent legal counsel. DALPA gets an ASS load of money...we should be able to fund this ourselves.
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 979925)
Don't say "but my rep is a good guy otherwise"....buell ****e, that doesn't do ANYTHING to solve this problem, which is the biggest one we have.
|
Let's get back on topic!
|
Originally Posted by dragon
(Post 979939)
I think the biggest problem we have right now are a few guys who think they understand, but don't bother to do any research or read the #$&! contract.
Permitted aircraft are 50 seat RJs and 255 aircraft 51-76 seaters of which no more than 120 can be 71-76 seaters. That 120 number can increase with pre-merger DAL mainline fleet growth or decrease to 85 if the flow is cancelled and it's possible all of those 120 76 seaters can be made into 70 seaters if a pre-9/11 mainline pilot is furloughed. [PWA 1.B.40] If, however, a Delta Connection carrier flying for Delta on a CPA or RPA flying permitted aircraft then acquires an aircraft that is not permitted then Delta will terminate such operations and will need to do so either by the date that non-permitted aircraft entered revenue service or 9 months from the date that Delta became aware of the potential acquisition, whichever comes later. [PWA 1.D.2.C] However, a Delta Connection carrier on a CPA or RPA may fly both permitted and non-permitted aircraft if the non-permitted flying is not performed for Delta, there is no reduction in Delta’s existing block hours as a result of that connection carrier using the non-permitted aircraft, the aircraft is not flown on a city pair served by Delta and last only if that jet aircraft that was never certified to carry more than 106 and currently only seats 97 passengers or less. [PWA 1.D.2] |
I have got three comments about this page on L&G: 1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude. 2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been. 3. This girls shirt is too long. 4. Her pants are also too long. Ok four comments. |
The way I see it, and according to the NMB Finding from 07APR11 the IBT asked "the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) to investigate whether Republic Airlines (RA), Shuttle America (Shuttle), Chautauqua Airlines (Chautauqua), Frontier Airlines (Frontier), and Lynx Aviation (Lynx) (collectively the Carriers) are operating as a single transportation system for the craft or class of Pilots."
So the question was very specific as it related to craft or class of pilots and the NMB ruled: "The current investigation establishes that RA, Shuttle, Chautauqua, Frontier and Lynx are operating as a single transportation system (Republic Airlines et al./Frontier) for the craft or class of Pilots..." So they answered a specific question as to whether RAH is STS for craft or class of pilots, and the NMB said yes. Now why not ask another question, “are they an STS operationally?” After all this is what they say: "Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. (RAH) is the holding company that owns RA, Chautauqua, Shuttle, Frontier, Lynx, and the former Midwest and operates both “fixed fee” and “branded” operations." "Management is integrated, and all labor relations and personnel functions for the Carriers are administered by RAH under the stewardship of Ron Henson, VP, Labor Relations. RAH stated that the single carrier that currently is comprised of Chautauqua, Shuttle, and RA will continue to exist in its current form and will be held out to the public and marketed under the brand of the applicable flying partners or the Frontier brand. Frontier (and Lynx until its closing) will continue to be held out to the public and marketed under the Frontier brand." "According to IBT, the entities are operating as a single transportation system as evidenced by substantial operational integration, common control and ownership, and overlapping senior management and labor relations at each subsidiary…. Pilot recruiting for each of its subsidiaries is handled by RAH. In addition, IBT contends that further evidence of single carrier status is the fact that all the Pilots of the various subsidiaries have been integrated into a single seniority list." “Finally, the IBT contends that there have been significant steps towards the integration of Frontier into the single transportation system since the Board’s March 2010 decision regarding the Flight Attendants. Chautauqua Airlines, 37 NMB 148 (2010). Examples of this integration include further consolidation of administrative, operational, and labor functions of Frontier into RAH at its Indianapolis, Indiana headquarters; consolidation of the Frontier employees under RAH’s handbooks and policies; Frontier’s website links prospective employees to the RAH website to search for open positions; and finally, there has been a combination of the branded operations by the various affiliates into the Frontier brand, which has resulted in RA and Chautauqua aircraft being painted in Frontier livery, and the flying of RA and Chautauqua planes as Frontier branded operations.” There seems a lot of evidence that an STS exists and all ALPA needs to do is agree and demand that our scope clause be upheld shifting any DCI flying away from RAH and sadly to other DCI carriers but more likelihood they're ALPA pilots. So would ALPA find that RAH is STS? I think so: “ALPA contends that all of RAH’s subsidiaries are a single transportation system for the craft or class of Pilots, but also argues that the Midwest Pilots are part of the single transportation system. …. This ongoing integration of operations has now integrated Frontier/Lynx into the single transportation system, so that the system today includes the Carriers “plus Midwest.” ALPA believes that the intertwined nature of RAH’s two types of operations make the finding of a single transportation system the only result consistent with the RLA’s representation structure.” YEAH ALPA! right? I mean, they'll file right? http://www.chamillionaire.com/assets...00x270-547.gif |
Originally Posted by Karnak
(Post 979946)
You're wrong...on both counts!
First, YOU should read Section 18.B.2. it will only take you two paragraphs to realize you just gave someone bag dope. Then please come back on here and apologize to him. Second, Contract Admin has assisted independent grievants on several occasions, including a current independent grievance filed by some PMNW pilots. Did you read his post carefully? Here's what he wrote: I don't know because I'm not a litigious guy, but I can read english and I have read section 1. I find no defensible "its not against the contract" position in what I read. I cannot even see how someone can read the language and not come to the same conclusion. Why would he need negotiator's notes if it's so simple? He's off to a good start though. Unlike some, HE actually read the contract... I think he should start with a solid understanding of the issue. It prevents pilots from, say, posting bad dope on something that can be easily understood by reading the contract. I think the biggest problem we have right now are a few guys who think they understand, but don't bother to do any research or read the #$&! contract. They give bad advice. Heyas, Nowhere in 18.B.2 does it say anything other than the most general process outline for a grievance. It doesn't say anything about what the association will or will not do about grievances they don't agree with. It all comes down to what the contract administrator wants to do. And in some case, what he wants (or is instructed) to do is nothing. Heck, the fNWA guys can't even get their rig grievance heard, and that was from BEFORE the merger of the MEC. These guys have been BEGGING for this grievance to be heard, but now we're in for what, ANOTHER special MEC meeting to "handle it". What are we up to...three? Or was it four special MEC meetings on this? Any one of which probably costs more than the arbitration hearing. If 18.B.2 is so clear, why hasn't this been heard? It has be that DALPA must be a willing participant in the grievance process, and if they are not, things can get drug out a LONG time. Scambo's point is clear. If the contract language is plainly apparent, why should he HAVE to independently grieve it. Should blatant violations be jumped on already? Isn't that what we pay DALPA for? My point was also clear, so that big hat must be squeezing your brain. If Scambo doesn't like the way things are being handled, I pointed out the way for him to correct it, and it isn't even all that much effort. Nu |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 980016)
I have got three comments about this page on L&G:
1. I hope Karnak understood that I believe a violation of section 1 has occured in a large/gross magnitude. 2. FTB's section 1 explanation was not as detailed as it could have been. 3. This girls shirt is too long. 4. Her pants are also too long. Ok four comments. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 AM. |
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Website Copyright ©2000 - 2017 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands