hou757 & calmwinds
09-27-2018, 06:36 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 511
Originally Posted by Nevjets
XJT, or any regional airline currently in existence, does not meet the definition of an alter ego airline, does not meet the definition of a commercial flight operation of the type historically performed by United flight attendants, and does not meet the definition of a commuter airline (primary 135 carrier). And even if it did meet any of those three things, it still does not prevent United from buying a regional. It simply needs to recognize the AFA as the union, and add them to the seniority list. Or it can come to an agreement with the AFA to get around anything they deem problematic.
AFA Wins Lawsuit over United Scope Violation
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport
After 10 years of litigation, a federal arbitrator awarded United Airlines flight attendants $8.89 million in connection with a claim by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) that United’s 1992 purchase of the original Air Wisconsin violated a so-called scope side letter in its collective-bargaining agreement. The scope clause, included in a flight-attendant contract signed by AFA and United in 1986, required the airline to use flight attendants from the mainline seniority list for all its wholly owned subsidiaries. When United bought Air Wisconsin in 1992, it chose to ignore the provision, sparking a protracted court battle that finally ended April 27.
When AFA issued its grievance, United initially refused to submit to arbitration, sending the issue to court. After United lost the case, the violation went before United’s grievance hearing board, which in 1998 issued a finding that the airline had, in fact, violated the contract.
09-27-2018, 08:47 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,145
Originally Posted by queso
Can we get back on topic to these two guys fighting on the internet?
So, you voted in a decent contract (much better than Mesa’s) but the exciting promises are not in writing....
I am hoping the come soon.....
09-27-2018, 09:07 PM
#24
Banned
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Oct 2017
Posts: 848
Originally Posted by calmwinds
Can you help me understand the new contract? The clause to get the new EJets, or reopening the contract, isn’t in there. The clause to have a new majority owner, or reopening the contract, isn’t in there.
So, you voted in a decent contract (much better than Mesa’s) but the exciting promises are not in writing....
I am hoping the come soon.....
So, you voted in a decent contract (much better than Mesa’s) but the exciting promises are not in writing....
I am hoping the come soon.....
09-28-2018, 05:24 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,145
Originally Posted by PhantomHawk
The clause for the new E-Jets is still in there. Section 28. The majority owner clause isn’t there anymore.
My concern with how it is written is that SkyWest can simply shift 20 of its UAX Ejets from their current CPA’s to ExpressJet and fulfill Section 28 of the contract as it is written.
09-28-2018, 08:33 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2016
Posts: 846
hou757 & calmwinds
Originally Posted by jacburn
Is history going to repeat itself?
AFA Wins Lawsuit over United Scope Violation
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport
After 10 years of litigation, a federal arbitrator awarded United Airlines flight attendants $8.89 million in connection with a claim by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) that United’s 1992 purchase of the original Air Wisconsin violated a so-called scope side letter in its collective-bargaining agreement. The scope clause, included in a flight-attendant contract signed by AFA and United in 1986, required the airline to use flight attendants from the mainline seniority list for all its wholly owned subsidiaries. When United bought Air Wisconsin in 1992, it chose to ignore the provision, sparking a protracted court battle that finally ended April 27.
When AFA issued its grievance, United initially refused to submit to arbitration, sending the issue to court. After United lost the case, the violation went before United’s grievance hearing board, which in 1998 issued a finding that the airline had, in fact, violated the contract.
AFA Wins Lawsuit over United Scope Violation
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport
After 10 years of litigation, a federal arbitrator awarded United Airlines flight attendants $8.89 million in connection with a claim by the Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) that United’s 1992 purchase of the original Air Wisconsin violated a so-called scope side letter in its collective-bargaining agreement. The scope clause, included in a flight-attendant contract signed by AFA and United in 1986, required the airline to use flight attendants from the mainline seniority list for all its wholly owned subsidiaries. When United bought Air Wisconsin in 1992, it chose to ignore the provision, sparking a protracted court battle that finally ended April 27.
When AFA issued its grievance, United initially refused to submit to arbitration, sending the issue to court. After United lost the case, the violation went before United’s grievance hearing board, which in 1998 issued a finding that the airline had, in fact, violated the contract.
Been through all this before. Air Wisconsin, in 1992, is not the same AWAC of today. In fact, AWAC back then, was a part 135 air carrier flying 19-30 seat turboprops, like practically all commuter airlines were back then. That very fact goes to the three points of the FA Scope LOA. It is specifically written in there for this very purpose. But today, xjt, nor any regional airline today, is not a part 135 air carrier. And AWAC and all other regionals don’t do flying that has historically been done by UAL FAs, not even in 1992. And xjt or AWAC are not and we’re not alter ego airlines. Lastly, nothing legally, prevented UAL from instead of divesting itself of AWAC, to keeping AWAC and use UAL seniority list FAs to operate it.
The three points of the LOA still stand:
A) xjt (or any existing regional airline) do not do flying historically performed by UAL FAs; B) xjt (or any existing regional airline) are not a part 135 air carrier; and C) xjt (or any existing regional) do not fit the definition of an alter ego airline. So nothing prevents UAL from buying xjt (or any existing regional) and operating it with UAL seniority list FAs, IF they believe A or B or C applies or if they want to simply avoid litigation. Or they can also avoid litigation by mutually agreeing to something that allows UAL to buy a regional and also satisfy the FAs concerns, whatever they may be.
Last edited by Nevjets; 09-28-2018 at 08:46 AM.
09-28-2018, 10:25 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,145
Originally Posted by Nevjets
Been through all this before. Air Wisconsin, in 1992, is not the same AWAC of today. In fact, AWAC back then, was a part 135 air carrier flying 19-30 seat turboprops, like practically all commuter airlines were back then. That very fact goes to the three points of the FA Scope LOA. It is specifically written in there for this very purpose. But today, xjt, nor any regional airline today, is not a part 135 air carrier. And AWAC and all other regionals don’t do flying that has historically been done by UAL FAs, not even in 1992. And xjt or AWAC are not and we’re not alter ego airlines. Lastly, nothing legally, prevented UAL from instead of divesting itself of AWAC, to keeping AWAC and use UAL seniority list FAs to operate it.
The three points of the LOA still stand:
A) xjt (or any existing regional airline) do not do flying historically performed by UAL FAs; B) xjt (or any existing regional airline) are not a part 135 air carrier; and C) xjt (or any existing regional) do not fit the definition of an alter ego airline. So nothing prevents UAL from buying xjt (or any existing regional) and operating it with UAL seniority list FAs, IF they believe A or B or C applies or if they want to simply avoid litigation. Or they can also avoid litigation by mutually agreeing to something that allows UAL to buy a regional and also satisfy the FAs concerns, whatever they may be.
The three points of the LOA still stand:
A) xjt (or any existing regional airline) do not do flying historically performed by UAL FAs; B) xjt (or any existing regional airline) are not a part 135 air carrier; and C) xjt (or any existing regional) do not fit the definition of an alter ego airline. So nothing prevents UAL from buying xjt (or any existing regional) and operating it with UAL seniority list FAs, IF they believe A or B or C applies or if they want to simply avoid litigation. Or they can also avoid litigation by mutually agreeing to something that allows UAL to buy a regional and also satisfy the FAs concerns, whatever they may be.
09-28-2018, 10:43 AM
#29
Line Holder
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 94
Originally Posted by calmwinds
The current United AFA contract does have clauses regarding acquisitions. It doesn’t look like an insurmountable obstacle to United purchasing ExpressJet though. The most severe clauses of the AFA contract come into effect if United decides to furlough it’s Flight Attendants and it was still operating ExpressJet as a separate entity.
XJT and C5 merger for lols; maybe TSA too.
09-28-2018, 11:22 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2017
Posts: 2,145
Originally Posted by Swagship
If United could, why didn’t they purchase a larger stake of C5?
XJT and C5 merger for lols; maybe TSA too.
XJT and C5 merger for lols; maybe TSA too.
United has to worry about their labor agreements and it is clear the current United AFA agreement has stipulations regarding acquisitions. Maybe, they just didn’t want to get entangled with those clauses in the case of a downturn in the economy.
For some reason, TSA is on the outs with United. No CPP program over there even though two of their regionals fly for United out of unique bases.
