My understanding from a F9 person is this ruling is strictly regarding the pilot integration of F9 and the Republic carriers regarding seniority and eventual union representation. With the single carrier ruling F9 pilots are now fenced for 7 years but the arbitrator ruled highly in favor of Republic pilots in integrating the seniority list thereafter (see US Air/America West). A healthy percentage of F9 pilots will eventually get displaced and filtered down to E-jets now that there is one, single seniority list and all of the airlines are considered one.

F9 folks are waiting to see what Bedford does now. As far as I know, there has been no talk of vacating F9's certificate or anyone else within Republic Holdings. Republic could hypothetically sell a portion of F9 to find a work around the single carrier ruling and any potential issues with DL or AA flying. Then again, many at Republic view Bedford with zero trust and wonder if he'll use the single carrier ruling to eventually lower the average pay of the mainline F9 pilots.

 

You could be right Sink, but I don't know how else we can fight our own national union that has far different priorities than we do. I support DPA because it would have been OUR in-house union. But I would also support a DPL (Delta Pilot's League), or DPM (Delta Pilot's Mafia) or any other in-house union that frees us from the priorities of national.

Sorry about that Delta Pilot's Mafia comment. I hear the Teamsters already got that name copyrighted in case we ever sign with them.

Carl

 

If DAL axes any of the Republic flying (Chautauqua and Shuttle America), Delta is on the hook for the aircraft...if the cessation of services is terminated before the contract's expiration. It's spelled out very clearly in the Annual Report. I think all of the Shuttle E-jets are owned and the 145's are leased, so DAL would have to buy or lease the aircraft assigned to the contracts.

 

That's easy: "When will the Scope violation grievance be filed?"

Any other answer except "Monday morning"... is no answer.

Carl

 

He's waiting for the talking points fax from our MEC.

Carl

 

They won't. So...what do we change?

Carl

 

I'm taking your word for it because it sounds like what we've talked about here before. I would imagine that Ejets could find their way over to CPZ and the E145s could go to ASA and make their way over to XJT or something.

We won't see DCI shrink but we could possibly stop any further use of the multiple certificates under one roof ploy... hello Skywest.

 

An excellent and poignant rhetorical question.

My point all along is that our LEC reps start out with the right ideas. But they slowly become re-programmed by constant pressure from ALPA national. Without that pressure from national (both finanacial and expert staff members), our LEC reps wouldn't continually become disconnected from the membership. Any in-house union will do. Anything that gets us away from the priorities of ALPA national.

Carl

 

Not that this will ever happen but the one way to solve that is to be able to vote for LEC's and the President of the union. The system as it exists right now breeds exactly what we have which is substantial and multiple barriers to change. Thus it will never be changed until the top fights for it. But I doubt we'd see such a George Washington like leadership- one willing to leave power.

But the ability to perform what is in essence a legal and controlled revolution would give us what we seek most in the governance of our union.

 

Ask them if they now plan to file a grievance against the Republic codeshare since the govt has apparently made it official that Republic is a single carrier.

Here's a refresher of what's going on here:

The Delta Pilot contract Section 1.D.2.c ("Exception" paragraph) requires Delta to terminate codesharing with any "domestic air carrier" that operates or acquires large aircraft. "other than permitted aircraft types"
Republic acquired aircraft that would violate that section when they purchased Midwest and Frontier.
ALPA has always said that doesn't count. Their reasoning is that Republic Airways Holdings is not an air carrier. It is just a holding company for separate corporations operating under separate FAA certificates. (ie = Frontier, Republic, Chautauqua, Lynx, Shuttle America, etc. are the "air carriers").
DALPA says we don't codeshare with Frontier or Republic and they are the ones operating the Airbuses and E-190s, so its not a violation. Many pilots have said that is clearly wrong. This RAH situation is the EXACT sort of thing that 1D2c was written to prevent. We are subsidizing and bankrolling our competition. If RAH can get around it simply by using FAA certificates then that section of our contract is meaningless. It might as well not even be in there. DALPA has repeatedly declined to file a grievance and find out. They say the ALPA National lawyers have told them they would lose.

The critical question is the definition of a "domestic air carrier".

Our contract Section 1.B.22 uses the definition in federal law.

§ 40102. Definitions

(a) General Definitions.— In this part—

(2) “air carrier” means a citizen of the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation.

(15) “citizen of the United States” means—

(C) a corporation or association organized under the laws of the United States or a State

Most thinking people (non ALPA lawyers) would agree that RAH is a corporation and that they are quite obviously undertaking to provide air transportation. The definition says nothing about operating certificates or anything even remotely like it.
ALPA maintains that the various airlines under RAH are separate air carriers even though they are all owned and controlled by the same corporation. Its going to be a lot harder for them to continue saying that with a straight face now that even the govt has said they are a single air carrier.


There's one further complication. Delta used to codeshare with American Eagle. That was never grieved. Does that mean we have forfeited the right to enforce that part of our contract? ??

Then there's the ALPA politics. (there's always ALPA politics).
Lee Moak wanted to be ALPA President when this came up. He needed RJ pilot support. Scope grievances would not be good for his campaign. Then we have the "recovery compact" thing with management. etc. etc. etc.
ALPA National doesn't want scope battles. They want dues.
etc. etc. etc.

sorry about the long post. I'll stop now. </rant>
If you can't tell, I think ALPA has failed on this issue. Scope enforcement is critical. We'll see what they do now that the NMB has ruled.