|
Originally Posted by Nosmo King
(Post 999835)
What new ACARS software? Did I miss a bulletin again?
|
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 999755)
I do not not have a vote, nor have I had our lawyers explain it to me, so I cannot answer that question.
I know that there is a negative effect to losing this that could usher in some unintended consequences. I do agree though that it was not the intent of the original language, and that as always intent is important. |
Originally Posted by satchip
(Post 999856)
That is what gets me. We get assurances that it doesn't violate our contract but our reps are not telling us exactly what the lawyers told them. I want to hear WHY it doesn't violate our section 1.
The conspiracy-theorist side of me tends to think it has something to do with ALPA courting the Republic pilots. Though my mind isn't settled as far as the DALPA vs. ALPA thing goes, it angers me as a union member to see ALPA being less supportive to the pilots it is supposed to support in exchange for chasing new groups. |
Originally Posted by acl65pilot
(Post 999755)
I do not not have a vote, nor have I had our lawyers explain it to me, so I cannot answer that question.
I know that there is a negative effect to losing this that could usher in some unintended consequences. I do agree though that it was not the intent of the original language, and that as always intent is important. File the grievance and challenge that RAH is operating as a single carrier then mediate it and request clarification from the NMB on RAHs status. If we lose the grievance we still have a big fight on scope in section 6 and it's becoming more and more apparent that it's a fight that DALPA is not going to fight at any time nor should we expect much in the way of a raise. (Off topic rant :cool:) How many articles has Delta Air Lines put out preparing pilots for lower expectations? How may has DALPA put out? Council 44 stated publicly that they would inform their pilots when a decision had been made about the RAH issue. We still haven't heard a thing even though it now sounds like the MEC has made this another "dead issue" and the pilots are to be left in the dark about it. :mad: |
Originally Posted by NuGuy
(Post 999822)
The new ACARS software is virtually identical the software NWA was using, well, since before I got hired over a decade ago. Most of the "future use" stuff worked, though. The "connecting gates" function was VERY handy.
Nu |
Originally Posted by satchip
(Post 999856)
That is what gets me. We get assurances that it doesn't violate our contract but our reps are not telling us exactly what the lawyers told them. I want to hear WHY it doesn't violate our section 1.
fwiw the "sigh" seemingly comes from the NMB. Please remember that the IBT brought this issue forward to the NMB about RAH STS for one narrow purpose knowing full well the ramifications to their pilots if the NMB ruled STS for RAH when it came to scope clauses. Now quick rehash, here is what the NMB said about STS in general in the RAH ruling: 1. the Board cited the following indicia of a single transportation system: a. In Trans World Airlines/Ozark Airlines, [W]hether a combined schedule is published; how the carrier advertises its services; whether reservation systems are combined; whether tickets are issued on one carrier’s stock; if signs, logos and other publicly visible indicia have been changed to indicate only one carrier’s existence; whether personnel with public contact were held out as employees of one carrier; and whether the process of repainting planes and other equipment, to eliminate indications of separate existence, has been progressed. 38 NMB No. 39 - 154 – b. Other factors investigated by the Board seek to determine if the carriers have combined their operations from a managerial and labor relations perspective. Here the Board investigates whether labor relations and personnel functions are handled by one carrier; whether there are a common management, common corporate officers and interlocking Boards of Directors; whether there is a combined workforce; and whether separate identities are maintained for corporate and other purposes. c. 14 NMB 218, 236 (1987). 2. The Board finds a single transportation system only when there is substantial integration of operations, financial control, and labor and personnel functions. a. Northwest Airlines, Inc./Delta Air Lines, Inc., 37 NMB 88 (2009); 3. 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. b. Florida N. R.R, 34 NMB 142 (2007); c. GoJet Airlines, LLC and Trans States Airlines, Inc., 33 NMB 24 (2005); d. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 32 NMB 163 (2005). a. 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). 4. The Board’s substantial integration of operations criteria does not, however, require total integration of operations. a. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. and Piedmont Airlines, Inc., 32 NMB 21, 28 (2004). 5. Labor relations are often indicia of single transportation systems. a. See Atlas Air, Inc./Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., 35 NMB 259, 269 (2008) (single system found in spite of separate operating certificates due in part to substantial overlap among Boards of Directors and senior managers). 6. …Consolidation of senior managers, personnel functions, and labor relations are often indicia of single transportation systems. (sort of repeat)a. See Atlas Air, Inc./Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., 35 NMB 259, 269 (2008) (single system found in spite of separate operating certificates due in part to substantial overlap among Boards of Directors and senior managers). 7. …the Board found a single transportation system to exist primarily because of the significant degree of “common control”: a. In Flagship Airlines, Inc., 22 NMB 331 (1995), a case with facts very similar to those present here, the Board found a single transportation system to exist primarily because of the significant degree of “common control” exercised by Eagle over its subsidiaries. Id. at 426. Eagle wholly-owned and centrally controlled the four subsidiaries; there existed interlocking boards of directors, common corporate officers, and common management; the carriers held themselves out to the public as a single carrier, and flight schedules and reservations were integrated; and while most employee groups were represented by separate organizations/CBAs, Eagle handled most other labor. Now look at what the NMB said about RAH: 1. Ownership a. All subsidiaries are wholly owned by RAH, but each holds its own FAA operating certificate.8 Management between the Carriers has already been integrated. 2. Managementa. The same Board of Directors and senior management team oversee all of the Carriers. 3. Controlb. Bryan Bedford is the Chairman and CEO for all of the Carriers. He is also the President of RA, Shuttle, Chautauqua, and Frontier.9 c. Robert H. (Hal) Cooper is the Executive Vice President, CFO, Treasurer and Secretary d. Wayne Heller is the Executive Vice President, COO for all the Carriers. e. Ron Henson is the Vice President, Labor Relations f. Kathy Wooldridge is the Vice President, Human Resources, for all the Carriers. a. RAH exercises control over the management, labor relations, and human resources functions of all of its subsidiaries including Pilot recruitment. 4. Marketinga. RAH holds out to the public that the Carriers are part of a consolidated entity as shown at its website, Republic Airways. 5. Schedulinga. While RAH’s business model is one that includes both “fixed-fee” and “branded” operations, its operations are consolidated and “branded” operations are commonly-scheduled under the Frontier brand. i. For example, the route map available at Frontier and RAH’s websites provides that: “Flights are operated by Frontier, Lynx, Republic Airways, or Chautauqua Airlines.” In addition, RAH’s subsidiaries are presented on a consolidated basis for both financial reporting and operating performance. See Quarterly Financial Statement, August 9, 2010; September 2010 Press Release “Republic Airways Reports September 2010 Traffic.” a. This type of consolidation of senior managers, personnel functions, and labor relations are often indicia of single transportation systems. See Atlas Air, Inc./Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., 35 NMB 259, 269 (2008) (single system found in spite of separate operating certificates due in part to substantial overlap among Boards of Directors and senior managers).
b. RAH exercises control over the management, labor relations, and human resources functions of all of its subsidiaries including Pilot recruitment. Further, RAH holds out to the public that the Carriers are part of a consolidated entity as shown at its website, Republic Airways. While RAH’s business model is one that includes both “fixed-fee” and “branded” operations, its operations are consolidated and “branded” operations are commonly-scheduled under the Frontier brand. For example, the route map available at Frontier and RAH’s websites provides that: “Flights are operated by Frontier, Lynx, Republic Airways, or Chautauqua Airlines.” In addition, RAH’s subsidiaries are presented on a consolidated basis for both financial reporting and operating performance. See Quarterly Financial Statement, August 9, 2010; September 2010 Press Release “Republic Airways Reports September 2010 Traffic.” |
Originally Posted by DeadHead
(Post 999863)
Good question, I would also like to know the exact "legal" answer to this.
The conspiracy-theorist side of me tends to think it has something to do with ALPA courting the Republic pilots. Though my mind isn't settled as far as the DALPA vs. ALPA thing goes, it angers me as a union member to see ALPA being less supportive to the pilots it is supposed to support in exchange for chasing new groups. I dont understand it either, but suspect the courting of RAH is only a tiny piece of the reason. In the game of hardball, if you really wanted to bring RAH into the ALPA fold, you would force the issue...by pushing against them. I think this due the relatively new ALPA policy manual requirement that both mainline and connection carriers get to make their input prior to any mainline scope changes. RAH isn't ALPA and is not afforded this benefit. Therefore, if ALPA was courting RAH, they would make every effort to marginalize them until they joined...just my opinion. In contrast, I think the issue isn't being forced for other reasons, none of which have to do with our actual scope language. To see it thru my eyes, you have to believe ALPA is not your watchdog...as an example, the increased gross weight issue of one of our DCI's about 1.5-2 years ago. The pushback from ALPA against enforcing this, or even investigating it, against the individual pilot who broke the story...if the rumors are true, was quite amazing. Income streams-cut out RAH, you cut out a hunk of feed, incur lawsuits and early contract termination fees. You cause angst in management to fill the gaps, you park airplanes which we basically funded thru the shell game and you breathe new life into Comair...in many ways...heaven forbid:eek:. Airline management collusion. On the sundrenched beaches somewhere, these guys plot their way forward. They devise elaborate plans which skirt ALPA contract language, use the minimum pilot required for insurance, and pay as little as possible for services in order to maintain control of the various workforces. It is such an elaborate web of shell games, I dont think a cray computer could tell you (if it ever happened) whether you were flying struck work or not. In other words which code is on which ticket and who owns the flying. Management doesnt want to lose control of their network and by not enforcing section 1 we are rewarding them. ALPA and the stockholm syndrome. In an effort not to kill the golden goose, we are forced to walk a tightrope. The more time spent walking the tightrope, the more our reps begin to see things thru managements eyes. This is why we are told things like "we can't..." "we will lose..." etc. It is human nature. Do you think management does not know it is human nature? When ALPA goes native, we do have the recall process, but that hasn't been invoked too often...in fact, the opposite is more true. Those that WONT go native are asked to leave. I am not even scratching the surface of what could be going on here, but I'm a slow typist who can ramble and lose my train of thought. Money and control are central to the scope issue. Everything else IMO is fluff. I am a Delta pilot. I want a successful company. I want a strong bargaining agent. I want a great contract that allows me to put away my second career. I want management to be successful. I think some constructive engagement is essential. I want to retire with dignity. I disagree completely with our stance on section 1. |
As to DALPA and RAH. What I hope, really hope, is that DALPA will actually try to kill two stones with one bird here.
Don't just go after RAH because you will only have to do it again when Skywest goes for this multi-certificate branded flying gig or TransStates/Compass does. So get a NMB ruling that makes multi-certificates automatically STS. Fall back, beat RAH down like Nick Fairley on a UGA QB: http://media.al.com/alphotos/photo/n...0202eee98c.jpg http://media.al.com/birmingham-news/...4-standard.jpg |
Originally Posted by scambo1
(Post 999880)
Airline management collusion. On the sundrenched beaches somewhere, these guys plot their way forward. They devise elaborate plans which skirt ALPA contract language, use the minimum pilot required for insurance, and pay as little as possible for services in order to maintain control of the various workforces..... AIR Conference - Airline Industrial Relations Conference Check out who the members are. (Everybody.) |
Originally Posted by Justdoinmyjob
(Post 999871)
Back when I got hired at DL, we used to get connecting gates throuh ACARS. We would give it to the FAs to read. Then they had the information sent directly to the monitors on the planes as we began the descent. Then they turned it all off, and instituted the "Check the monitors in the terminal and with a uniformed gate agent" fiasco. Now we're back to where we were apparently.
Back when I was at a commuter, 15 years ago, we put our landings in ACARS. DAL can't/wont spend the labor to have some dude in India hack the code for it. BTW: what's up with the North's 757-300 ACARS? I'm getting Corpus Tunnel from all the keystrokes required just to get ATIS and incoming messages. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:43 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands