Well, we have filed many grievances and won most of them. Our total collection for the three years leading up to the merger was close to $30 million, including $10 million for the staffing grievance. Remember the big controversy over the 76 GRIEVANCE settlement, it started with a GRIEVANCE. We spent over $1 million on the no furlough clause grievance after 9/11 where we lost and then won a recall after we went back to the arbitrator again and then grieved the second furlough and won.

Most complaints that get filed get full pay within a week or two of their first call as opposed to waiting a year for a grievance to be filed.

So instead of acting like a little girl, maybe some people should stop acting like a forgetful old man. Do we have to remind you every month about the actions taken?

To summarize, we file a grievance when the actual legal contract has been violated, not when some forum lawyer decides he is now a legal professional. Got it?

 

Well, once again you are completely wrong on your facts. First, they settled the Pan Am case because the PILOTS on the Pan Am MEC acted inappropriately during the Delta acquisition. The lawyers were brought in to clean up the mess left behind by the Pan Am MEC.

The RJDC was settled for less than a million dollars simply to make the lawsuit go away. It would have cost many multiple millions to try the case and our lawyers made a settlement for partial legal fees and a "meet and confer" clause over scope negotiations. Maybe you would prefer a lawyer that will just run up the bill on you, but professionals don't do that. (the DPA lawyer has basically run his current client, USAPA, out of money, so maybe that is why he is looking for fresh meat)

Don't know the specifics of the UAL case and neither do you. Who made the mistakes? If someone commits a wrongdoing, you can't blame the lawyers because there is a cost to it.

The lawyers at Cohen Weiss and Simon could make much more money if they sold out labor and went corporate.

So what is the significance of the ruling by the government? Well at least I admit I don't know, you pretend you know but you just bluster away with no substance behind your bluster. If this changes the situation, we will have professional labor lawyers, the best in the country, to help us sort through the meaning of this and then file a grievance if it's warranted.

Or we could just flounder away like giant blowhards on the internet.

 

I remember, before I was hired, that the company was assigning seniority per new hire class in reverse of what it should've been per the contract. According to the DALPA guy talking to us he said that it was a new hire pilot that figured it out and pointed it out and a correction had to be made. He used that as an example as to why regular pilots should always review the contract and point out things they see as wrong.

I'll always remember that story as people tell us to back down.

 

Let me get this straight, RAH goes off and creates this multi-certificate ploy after they got beat by the APA. So they figured a work around, which in essence means, we are not going to abide by the spirit of the law while really not abiding by the letter either but nobody has complained yet.

So now its been found that RAH, as it was all along, is a single carrier. But we're not supposed to do anything about it?

All roads lead to Rome here regardless of whether Bedford puts up a sign that says its Albuquerque and points out that the fire houses around town all have different chiefs. It's still Rome and only an idiot can't see it. Now that one judge has looked at it and stated it is indeed Rome then why can't another judge do the same?

 

Translation: ALPA lawyers are bush-league and couldn't find employment anywhere else. They can't even figure out how to bust their own in-house union without losing and paying $700,000 plus in judgments. With that in mind, we've got no choice but to tell the members that our professionals don't read the clear meaning of the printed word the way you do. They read it the way management reads it. That way our lawyers won't have to litigate...and lose.

Got it?

Carl

 

AND WHY IN THE HELL DO WE NOT WANT TO TRY? WHY?! WHAT IS WRONG WITH DALPA SAYING "THIS IS GOOD NEWS, WE'RE GOING TO STOP THIS MULTI-CERTIFICATE SCAM NOW."

Instead "well, you don't know what you're talking about because you're just a pilot and if we know anything as a pilot's union is that pilots don't know anything. So status quo and don't question our lawyers."

Funny, there is always 2 lawyers in a case, one for and against the same thing so you can't question any lawyer?

But Skywest there is your green light, go for it. We'll pay for your Airbuses. ALPA won't grieve it if you consider voting them in too.

Maybe the Teamsters would like 12,000 mainline pilots? I'm all for anything at this point. Imagine if the 2000+ pilots who signed those DPA cards, probably few signing them because they're in love with the DPA, invited another established union? Could we finally get ALPA to do it's job correctly which includes not pushing back against the pilots?

 

I might just have to call my old friend Vito to help out with this request.





Carl

 

Wow, nice work there Carl. Real nice. I bet your using something better than my free Microsoft Paint program for that!

 

The Board finds a single transportation system only when there is substantial integration of operations, financial control, and labor and personnel functions. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 32 NMB 163 (2005); Huron and Eastern Ry. Co., Inc., 31 NMB 450 (2004); Portland & Western R. R., Inc., 31 NMB 71 (2003); American Airlines and Reno Air, 26 NMB 467 (1999). Further, the Board has noted that a substantial degree of overlapping ownership, senior management, and Boards of Directors is critical to finding a single transportation system. Precision Valley Aviation, Inc., d/b/a Precision Airlines and Valley Flying Serv., Inc., d/b/a Northeast Express Reg’l Airlines, 20 NMB 619 (1993). The Board’s criteria for substantial integration of operations do not require total integration of operations. US Airways/America West Airlines, 33 NMB 49 (2006).


I don't know all this legal stuff. I think its just hard for the average line pilot to believe that Republic is not an air carrier. What the heck is Republic Air Holdings if its not a company providing air transportation? They are tricking the system through a legal subterfuge.
Right is right. Our contract prevents codesharing with a company that has Airbuses and E-190s. At least we thought it did.
At this point, ALPA may have to file this grievance just to maintain any sort of credibility with the membership. We've been giving away pieces of our scope clause for so long that its kinda like the sun rising in the morning. A little scope erosion pops up -- ALPA lets it slide or agrees to "settle". Drip, drip, drip.
I'm just tired of it.

 

Thats what Im thinking too. You would think that if this ruling gave DALPA the ability to challenge RAH it would be good for other regional ALPA carriers. If RAH isn't allowed to do the flying then it could be transferred over to other ALPA regionals. While this doesn't bring the flying back to DAL it does stop the multilevel scope end arounds that RAH is playing and sets a precedent while potentially helping out your other union members.

The scary thought is that ALPA doesnt want to open Pandoras box here because they want the ability to grow other ALPA regionals in the same manner that RAH has and feel that the short term transfer of flying is small potatoes to the growth one might see by getting bigger jets with scope end arounds at these super regionals.