|
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 10:32 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands