We passed each other in NY this past Sunday. Since then, nada.

Cliff notes answer is there is no violation to pursue. If you read the language in the ruling the separate certificate = no Scope violation seems extremely weak.

The fact the union could just say nothing here move along is bizarre. Contracts and law are constantly being interpreted and case law redefined. The RAH ruling does seem to refine that RAH and it's subsidiaries are essentially one airline. By not challenging this we ensure it becomes precedent and practice, if we fight it and lose we are no different than where we are now And if we win it could be the beginning of restoring Scope.

Seems like there is nothing to lose and everything to gain. ALPA, Bueller, bueller...

http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2011/38n039.pdf

Yep, he got sick of all of this and took a 30 day cooling off period.

Especially when you don't care to look for one.


http://johnfenzel.typepad.com/john_f...he3monkeys.jpg


Carl

Ya know I was thinking about this. I just read the entire NMB ruling and something popped in to my head.

The "Republic" Certificate is doing Frontier Coded flying. Now to the best of my knowledge there is not CPA(Capacity Purchase Agreement) between Republic and F9 for these 190's to be doing this flying. Therefore, the holding company; RJET, must be the one that determined that Republic (certificate) perform this F9 flying.

That sounds like Single Carrier status at the Holding company level to me. :eek:

All I know is that after reading this ruling due diligence in this matter is needed.

Taking your post as true at face value, then DALPA owes us an official explanation as to WHY there is no scope violation. I told my rep I want one (everyone reading this should click on their rep's e-mail link and do the same thing), and I think we all deserve it. Surely, Contract Admin can generate a plain English version of the DALPA position.

Enemy;

I am going to make two assumptions based upon what you just wrote:

1. You are an elected union representative. I make this assumption because noone can read section 1 and come to the conclusion you stated above.

2. You do not desire to be re-elected to an LEC position.


When I typed these two assumptions, I had a complete quote of what enemy had posted. Afterward, he completed his post. Rather than delete my response to his (incomplete) post, I just decided to leave it. There are 2 things I encourage everyone who reads this board to do:

1. Read section 1, there is some legaleze, but when you have the definitions, and the language, you cant conclude there is nothing here.

2. Contact your reps after educating yourself and strongly encourage them to file a grievance.

Section 1 is the most important part of the contract. If we dont defend it, we dont deserve our jobs.

Contact your reps (no need to tell you that ;) ) I did, interesting

How do you see that?

I got that from the DALPA forum, but like I said, wait until the communication comes out. There is a Special MEC Meeting next week, and I am sure this will be one of many items discussed.

After thoroughly reading the NMB ruling (impartial third party btw) their conclusions may be used in defense of our section one.

You think I am not in contact with my reps? Ha, I have been for quite some time, and I give them my direction all of the time. I have presented facts with my opinion, and now it is up to them to arrive at a decision.