I think he meant 5.9 instead of 6.9

The entirety of that post was somewhat confusing

If I had time I'd like to find CASMex for F9. Everything I'm finding quickly has it all tied together with RJET at 9+

Spirit Airlines Reports June 2013 Traffic (NASDAQ:SAVE)

I am sorry I got them backwards.. the higher CASMs are for Frontier, lower ones are for Spirit.

RAH has contaminated or CASMs at Frontier. Lets give things time to simmer down and see how things play out.

I do agree that our costs have been way too high but I am certain they will be much lower once not affiliated with RAH. Unfortunately, our numbers will be not be readily accessible since Indigo is a privately held company.

Do you mean RASM?

Higher RASM= better.

Higher CASM= worse.

Good luck to the guys and gals at Frontier. I have always enjoyed your product and there is no reason you can't have a bright future!!

+1 for sure!

The fence makes it look like only the old, irrelevant, former F9 SL is what is being used for upgrades. There is only one list the IMSL. If anybody at F9 had mentioned wanting to fill an un-fenced vacancy they could have spoken up about it. Nobody wanted to it seems. Good luck with a FAPA card drive and getting half of the votes required from the entire IMSL.

I believe that is the whole point of filing a single carrier petition before throwing out IBT. This has already been debated several times; why stir the pot? Read the thread title again.

I reckon that answers that question.

No, those are casm numbers not rasm. I got them reversed in the oroginal post. The higher numbers are with frontier, lower numbers for spirit.

The ancillary revenue on frontier is much lower xompared to allegiant and spirit. On the other hand, the frontier product is much morr inline with a normal carrier than spirit. Thats why i think there is going to be a higher yield for frontier product than spirit. My two cents :)

The single carrier status ruling is going to get reversed since there is a change in ownership of Frontier. The IMSL will then mean absolutely nothing. We can then vote in our own union.

Franke isn't stupid, if he knew there would be issues with IBT and the IMSL, he wouldn't have touched us with a ten foot pole.

The IBT wouldn't have done anything for F9 pilots if we wanted E190 or Q400 seats.

While I think we have a very strong argument (seven year fence, vacancies being filled via F9 DOH, IMSL hasn't been used for any purpose at F9) I won't be celebrating until we have a decision from the NMB and FAPA receives dues via check off again.

+1
:):):)

Who will be filing a new single carrier petition? What is the craft/class of the people filing the petition?

38 NMB no. 42

This is the end of a response to an appeal filed by FAPA, seems like they were certainly able to petition and be heard even though they were no longer the representing body. There are more petitions on this website than I care to count in which the petitioner was the company


The facts and circumstances have certainly changed.

The following are some indicia of a single transportation system:

(1) published combined schedules or combined routes;
(2) standardized uniforms;
(3) common marketing, markings or insignia;
(4) integrated essential operations such as scheduling or dispatching;
(5) centralized labor and personnel operations;
(6) combined or common management, corporate officers, and board of directors;
(7) combined workforce; and,
(8) common or overlapping ownership.

Not sure why this would be denied a second time but you can keep on dreaming I guess.

The appeal you attached was filed before the representation election. Hence the NMB heard it.

Therein lies the problem. Now that IBT are the representatives they are the only party that can petition the NMB on behalf of the pilot group. As far as I can tell some random LLC cannot petition the NMB to reverse or reinvestigate single carrier status.

That's why it's going to take a long time to get this sorted out.

We may learn more about the sale on Tuesday when document 118 gets released in the LOA 67 lawsuit.

Good catch Ronaldo, My memory failed me on this one and I should have looked at the dates. I do not however see any thing in what I am finding that the carrier cannot file at least an appeal if not an outright petition to determine the existence of single carrier. Frontier did so in 1997. 25 NMB No 3

The only 50% rule I can find is for 1206.2 in determining representation dispute. I believe an argument can be made that this is not a representation dispute as of yet, this is a request for determining if we are still considered a single carrier under Republic Airways. I believe the NMB will hear this, but only time will tell.

§ 1206.2 Percentage of valid authorizations required to determine existence of a representation dispute.
(a) Upon receipt of an application requesting that an organization or individual be certified as the representative of any craft or class of employees, a showing of proved authorizations (checked and verified as to date, signature, and employment status) from at least fifty (50) percent of the craft or class must be made before the National Mediation Board will authorize an election or otherwise determine the representation desires of the employees under the provisions of section 2, Ninth, of the Railway Labor Act.
(b) Any intervening individual or organization must also produce proved authorizations (checked and verified as to date, signature, and employment status) from at least fifty (50) percent of the craft or class of employees involved to warrant placing the name of the intervenor on the ballot.
[77 FR 75549, Dec. 21, 2012]

Any links or text copies to rules you have supporting an opposite position would be very welcome.

What is Document 118?

I think that is one of the big problems with this fantasy.
Who is going to file this petition with the NMB? Bolo, Zooroopa and some of the boys would like the federal government to come in and bust up a union shop, a Teamster's shop?
This is going to be entertaining I would suggest putting the same legal experts on retainer that got you in to this mess....

A "craft and class" doesn't have to file. Anyone can petition the NMB. I realize the IBT has repeatedly claimed that only the IBT can petition, but this is simply not an accurate statement. I don't know if they are intentionally misleading you or if they just don't know but they are wrong. If zoooropa wanted to petition the NMB on Monday I could petition the NMB on monday.

Indigo did the "busting" and the holding company has fragmented. Frontier has absolutely no link to RAH. If you don't believe me maybe you will believe the IBT...

"According to press reports, the sale to Indigo is supposed to be finalized by the end of this month, November 2013. Indigo is a private equity firm, is not affiliated with RAH in any way, and intends to run Frontier as a stand alone carrier.

Given this recent significant change, the IBT ...asks the NMB to conduct an investigation of Frontier and Republic on the essential question of wether a single carrier still exists."

This is from a letter from the IBT to the NMB dated November 7th 2013. The IBT Airline Division was apparently trying to prevent the AFA from conducting an election prior to the closing of the sale of F9.

The F9 pilots will not be attempting to "bust up" a "union shop" any more than the IBT has just attempted to maintain their "union shop" with the RAH Flight Attendants. The IBT is trying to use the sale to insulate themselves from an election while the F9 pilots will use the sale to initiate an election. The fact that the IBT submitted this argument less than a month prior to FAPA petitioning the NMB with the same argument was an early Christmas present. Thank you very much IBT.

Finally, anyone can petition the IBT. The NMB Representation Manual states the following;

"Participants

Participants in a representation matter are: the carrier, any labor organization(s) or individual(s) seeking to represent a carrier’s employees or any incumbent representative of a carrier’s employees. The term “participant” includes parties defined below.

Parties are any labor organization(s) or individual(s) seeking to represent a carrier’s employees and any incumbent representative of the carrier’s employees.

One does not need to search too far back in history to find an example of an individual petitioning the NMB who is part of a class and craft that is already represented by a Union. These individuals were not "busting" a "Union shop", they were simply advocating for a different Union. In one well known case a Union member contacted the NMB asking how he could remove his current Union. The NMB sent the individual a representation manual and a template for Authorization Cards. The concept that "only a Union can petition the NMB" is ludicrous.

Thankfully we won't have to predict what the NMB will do for much longer. There are already three F9 craft and classes on the NMB's desk.

This is not an accurate statement.

Document 118 is third party document related to the LOA 67 negotiations. RAH and F9 requested that this document remain sealed due to the fact that RAH was trying to sell F9 and they wanted the highest price possible. The only thing you will learn as a result of the release of this document is the sale of F9 is final (which is why it is being released, the argument for keeping it sealed no longer exists).

Even if you got a slot over there would you want to take it? Its a small group and they seem pretty close for the most part. Doesn't sound like to much fun to be "that guy" at a pretty small airline. At least with them being setup with EFB B now you wouldn't have a kit bag for people to defecate in every week, so you've at least got that going for you.

That's the thing the IBT fools don't seem to realize. If hell were to somehow freeze over and some RJ punks were awarded Airbus seats, their lives would be a living hell. That's assuming they even made it through training. The IBT should just accept the FACT that F9 is no longer any of their concern and go back to that awesome JetBlue or better contract that's just around the corner.

"Living Hell". Kind of like flying with you? BTW, you must have made it through training somewhere. Unless your actually a manager at Home Depot ,( a distinct possibility I think). So thanks for giving hope to the lowest of the low!

I know what Santa is bringing you
http://www.planetchristmas.com/sitei...LumpOfCoal.png

If he made it through an interview maybe you could too.

There is no way he works at F9, everyone pretty much knows everyone and this guy would have been weeded out long ago.

Winner of the Best thread, and Early Christmass Gift Post Award.
Thank You ibt, your gift is most welcome.
:D:eek::D

Somewhere in the IBT bylaws or constitution, there is language that specifically says that members will be in big trouble if they try to organize a card drive for another union. No freedom of speech allowed!

IBT Constitution and Bylaws...


"SECTION 19: MEMBERSHIP

19.D.4

(4). No member shall engage in dual unionism or espouse dual unionism or disaffiliation, or be a party to any activity to secure the disestablishment of the Local Union as the collective bargaining agent for any employee.”

The operable word in the above sentence would be "member". Frontier employees almost 700 pilots, approximately 12 pilots have joined the IBT. The remaining 90% are free to do as they wish with regard to representation (and we are doing as we wish).

I am espousing. I am disaffiliating. I am a party of many activities to secure the disestablishment of the Local Union as the collective bargain agent. Proud of it, in fact.

But, but, but the IBT local 357 has thrown all it's resources behind the idea (dream, really) that these airbus seats belong to the legacy RAH (I guess now that we are no longer part of RAH, the word "legacy" is no longer required--AWESOME!) pilots by virtue of the (soon to be worthless) IMSL. Are you honestly suggesting the RAH pilots should have to interview and earn those seats? Stop it! You are making the IBT look bad--correction, worse... if that's even possible. Can you imagine the contract these poor RAH pilots would have if their union fought this hard and spent those resources toward that end?

Zoo, you are quoting the representation section. There is not representation dispute and you won't have one until an authorized party petitions the NMB to reinvestigate STS. After reversal of STS then you need to be found a separate craft and class, then you can have a representation election or do whatever you feel like.

The NMB has been enjoined in the past from allowing non-representative parties to petition for single carrier, I expect they might be hesitant to allow any random group of pilots to petition for STS reinvestigation. Don't get me wrong, I think it'll happen, it'll just take a long time I suspect.

Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n v. NMB, 29 F.3d 655 (D.C.
Cir. 1994), cert. denied sub nom. National Ry. Labor Conference v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 115 S. Ct. 1392 (1995). On remand the district court enjoined the NMB from investigating representation disputes sua sponte or at the request of a carrier and invalidated the Merger Procedures (Rail) insofar as they purported to authorize such investigations.

I think the burden for investigating the reversal of STS would naturally be higher than investigating for finding of STS. Again, I'm not sure so it would be nice to see your sources. Besides sections of the representation manual that don't deal with STS or reversal of STS.

Howdy Ronaldo. I am confused about the case you referenced as it could not possibly be less applicable to the situation at F9. Here is why it doesn't apply in any way F9...

Timing - the case to which you referred was originally submitted in 1991. Since that time, the NMB representation manual has been modified more than once. What was true regarding representation disputes in 1991 is no longer true in 2013.

Petitioner - even if we ignore the timing, the petitioner of the dispute was a railroad (or carrier). Carriers are NOT "parties under Section 2, Ninth" of the RLA. The one and only reason the referenced dispute was enjoined by the court was fact that a carrier submitted the dispute, not a labor organization or individual. Ironically, the NMB did in fact accept petitions from Carriers for several decades prior to the case you referenced. Regardless, F9 is not submitting the dispute. The dispute is being submitted by an authorized party in the eyes of the NMB, in accordance with the NMB Representation Manual, and most importantly in compliance with the RLA (Sec 2, Ninth).

You also have the sequence of events in the incorrect order.

[QUOTE=Ronaldo;1538253]
There is not representation dispute and you won't have one until an authorized party petitions the NMB to reinvestigate STS. After reversal of STS then you need to be found a separate craft and class, then you can have a representation election or do whatever you feel like./QUOTE]

Step 1. Authorized party petitions the NMB. This can be an individual and it will be an individual.
Step 2. NMB agrees that a dispute exists and conducts an investigation
Step 3. NMB determines a Single Transportion System exists amongst the Frontier pilots and only the Frontier pilots and orders an election.
Step 4. Showing of interest amongst the STS is required to participate on the ballot
Step 5. Election
Step 6. FAPA is determined to be Bargaining Agent for Frontier pilots.

"it is the duty of the National Mediation Board (NMB or Board) to investigate representation disputes among a carrier's employees as to who are the representatives of such employees and to certify to both parties, in writing the name or names of the individuals or organizations that have been designated and authorized to represent the employees involved in the dispute, and certify the same to the carrier."

But Zoo, once the election is scheduled, the Frontier pilots could vote for the IBT.

At that point Sizzlechest and Embraerpilot will probably say, "So what you're saying is, I still have a chance!!!".

;)

relevant
Dumb and Dumber 'There's a Chance' - YouTube

That is Perfect!!!
:D:D

In an attempt to revive this thread, I'm posting a post I read from another forum, thought it was a good one.

BP1 writes:

Why so much hate towards Bill Franke? Bill's company has done amazing things with other carriers. The team at Indigo is exceptionally professional and makes keen business decisions. Having worked with Indigo recently on a transaction, I can assure you Bill and his team know what they want, listen to the alternatives, give companies and products a chance to improve their economic impact and then Indigo executes with the best option in the marketplace.

I understand change being difficult, but in looking at Spirit, Wizz and Tiger you need not look far to see the strategy and success behind Indigo's leadership.

Did America West have issues a long time ago? Sure; what company has not? But that was a long time ago, people change, people learn and grow from their mistakes and this is not the 1980's or early 1990's. Indigo would not have the financing for this transaction if they did not know what they are doing. Comparing Lorenzo to Franke is beyond unreasonable and shows the readers of this forum how uneducated your comments really are.

I expect to see a clear and very brand oriented streamlined approach with significant investment and focus in geographically strategic regions of the country. Congratulations to the team at Frontier for a clearer future.

Reference,

Indigo Partners Fund Will Buy F9 — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net

Keep in mind that the Spirit pilots went on strike during Franke's time there....

I expect to see our pay cuts and crappy benefits to continue to 2016. I also see our CBA expiring for 5 years. Franke got a hell of a deal on pilot labor costs when he bought us.

No longer can the union who will represent Frontier pilots be Management friendly!!