More legal nitpicking ==> "STS" is a "term of art". Its really only used by the NMB for very narrow purposes in representation disputes. You're right on the money -- What we need is for RAH to be declared an "air carrier". That's the term used in the contract.

You're right about the DOT. Management and ALPA are relying on the DOT/FAA distinction of "certificate holder" to make their argument that the various units of RAH are separate air carriers. (its sad we have to fight mgmt and our union)

As far as the FAA is concerned, different certificates means different air carriers.
The problem is, that's not what the plain language of our contract says and its certainly not the intent of our contract. If all they have to do is keep separate certificates then that section of our contract is useless. Its a fundamental principle of contract law that people don't waste time writing clauses knowing they will be meaningless. Its assumed they intend for them to have effect.

I think we'd have a fighting chance with the 5 man Board. Unfortunately, the ALPA establishment have managed to convince our MEC not to pursue the case.

 

The dollars needed for legal action are spoken for...."connection".

 

The DOT would tell us to go away. "We don't do scope disputes".

They will say that the FAA regulates "certificate holders" and they don't care about "air carriers" because their focus is on safety and our little dispute is a perfect example of why they don't want to get tied up in knots over corporate shell games.

Our scope clause however, is precisely concerned with corporate shell games.

The DOT would say, "The Congress defined "air carrier" in the US Code, why don't you use that definition?"
(to which I would say ---> what a great idea! )

 

It is a great idea.
That's why the PWA defines it that way:

This is what the CFRs say:

The CFR definition of domestic air carrier is well beyond the narrow definition of certificate holder.

If our contract language meant certificate holder, it would say certificate holder.
The definitions section of Section 1 of the PWA would then define the term certificate holder.
It's not in there because our PWA doesn't use the term certificate holder in Section 1.

And while the NMB ruled STS for representation purposes.
What really matters is the NMB findings that RAH is acting as one domestic air carrier*:

Cheers
George

*definition per CFR 49... in this context Delta is also a "domestic air carrier" because it is a US airline.

 

According to SD's lounge brief in LAX yesterday, 187 is the final number. The rest of the presentation was mostly very positive. I wasn't there, just passing through on my way out the door, but SD's message sounds really good.

 

Are you saying he's a good public speaker or that when you get an opportunity you will share what he said?

 

I never said life was not fair nor did I say that Lee had unduly influence on my specific rep.. I simply pointed out that your argument that Lee had no influence at DALPA because he is at National seemed faulty.

 

There was a history and explanation of this put out from ALPA. The key point is the RAH is not the first time this situation has come up. It is allowed within our contract and that was the intent of the contract. Its what we were able to negotiate. If we took this to arbitration we would not have a chance. There was never a intent to block this situation and we said nothing as a union when several other identical situations came up. American Eagle is one such situation.
Section 6 openers are exchanged in 9 months. If we want this changed then let it be know loud and clear in your contract survey.

 

Sailing;

What you state is not true and dont get me wrong, I am not calling you a liar. However, as evidence wrt to RAH, all you have to do is look at what they are doing as a corporation to un-fug themselves in this regard.

If all you ever want to see is the curtain, you will never see the wizard of oz. Words are all well and good. Actions dictate reality.

 

Can someone explain why we are all spun up over Republic Air Lines Holdings? If they did not perform the flying some other third party vendor would fill the breach. The flying would not come back to us. We dorked that up when we divested Compass.

If it were up to me, I'd rather change the agreement that is making Alaska the fastest growing Air Carrier on our Continent.

The most important next step is to get our MEC on board with the idea that Delta pilots can operate the E-Jet TYPE, to get our group on board with Delta pilots performing Delta flying (not just the flying that requires 767's or larger).

Unless we "own" the flying, what is the point?

This is a sincere question, maybe one of you can 'splain it.