|
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. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:47 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands