FAPA has a long relationship with the folks at ALPA. A number of ALPA leaders spent some time in Denver with FAPA when the IBT raided the property back in 2010/2011. There was consistent communication with ALPA during the separation process last year. The fact of the matter is ALPA doesn't want us today, too messy. Both sides have left the door open for future possibilities but ALPA doesn't want the cost of rebuilding this at Frontier.

I am confident in FAPA's ability dealing with Franke et al. The few folks that I have personally heard mention ALPA at F9 either have a personal issue with one or two of the FAPA guys that have been busting their arse for several years in a row or they don't like to volunteer for anything and they think ALPA will do more work on their behalf. That is one of the tough realities of independent labor unions, you actually have to show up and work if you want it to prosper.

Is it possible to have a reference concerning this NMB decision? I can't seem to find any information about it. Thanks.

FAPA's application was CR-7107. Now that the NMB has decided a new system does in fact exist they have converted it to case number R-7381.

Here are some gems from the NMB's findings...

"Here, the IBT argues that Frontier violated Section 2, Ninth, by refusing to bargain over terms covered by the commercial agreement it had entered into with FAPA prior to the representation election. IBT filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against Frontier, RAH, and FAPAInvest, LLC, on the issue of whether there was a violation of Section 2, Ninth. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., et al, Case No. 11-cv-2007 (D. Colo.). The Court has not issued a final decision in the matter.
The Board does not have jurisdiction to “evaluate” whether Frontier treated with the IBT as the certified representative as required under Section 2, Ninth. See Section 2, Ninth; Virgin Atlantic Airways, 21 NMB 183, 196 (1994).
That is a matter currently being adjudicated in federal court. As there has been no “definitive finding” of the federal court, the Board cannot appropriately apply the certification bar. Id.
Further, the language of the certification bar specifically states that it bars applications covering “the same craft or class of employees on the same carrier.” 29 C.F.R. § 1206.4. Here, the application is covering the Pilots on Frontier, rather than the Pilots on Republic Airlines, et al./Frontier."

and...

"The IBT argues that FAPA’s application must be dismissed because it has not provided a majority showing of interest among all the Pilots at RA, Shuttle, Chautauqua, and Frontier. The IBT is incorrect in its interpretation of Section 2, Twelfth, which now requires a showing of interest from not less than 50 percent of the employees in the applied-for craft or class for all applications. 45 U.S.C. § 152, Twelfth."

and the best part...

"The Board finds that Frontier is operating as a single transportation system for the craft or class of Pilots for representation purposes under the RLA."