NMB Rules Frontier is separate from RAH
 

"The current investigation establishes that Frontier is operating as a
single transportation system for the craft or class of Pilots."

The only pilots allowed to vote in the upcoming representation election (if the NMB decides one is required) will be those pilots on Frontier property on December 15 2013, or 673 Frontier pilots.

The NMB has opened a 30 day window for an intervenor to obtain 51% showing of interest. Considering the fact that we applied to the NMB with approximately 95% of the Frontier pilots signing a FAPA card there will not be an intervenor.

Today is a GREAT day for F9 pilots. I sincerely wish everyone at RAH the best of luck. I hope the IBT eventually figures out how to bargain and represent pilots. Ive said it before and will say it one final time, you guys deserve better.

As for the Eischen new hire arbitration, the IBT litigation in Colorado District Court, and of course the IMSL..those issues will be solved in the near future.

I had Matthew F tell me that we were effed and we should have taken the IBT's offer. I laughed in his face then and laugh now. The pilots got the short end of the stick and had to pay for it.

Sorry line pilots at RAH. You picked the wrong horse and tried to rub our face in it.

Sincerely,
The Turtle

This is most excellent news! I would like to wish the RAH pilots luck with their negotiations and careers. I hope no hard feelings are harbored on either side, and we can all move on with our careers.

MistyFAC

Misty were you a FAC in 'nam?

Great news! Best of luck in the future F9!

Outstanding!!! Thanks for the good news Zoo. Unfortunately, I sent an Objector Fee check in to the criminals (IBT) yesterday, #*&@.
Anyway, good luck to the pilots that choose to remain in the Republic family. You deserve better than the IBT. Also, good luck to those of you who can get the he!! out of there...in all sincerity.

F9 guys, any thoughts of joining ALPA? The Frontier of old is gone since Franke is pulling the strings now. You may need a union with a bigger checkbook to go up against him.

I, for one, would be quite happy to have ALPA, and I know I'm not alone by any means.

After the IBT, probably even without the IBT experience, I will continue to support our in-house union - FAPA.

Fortunately, Turner and Bourne, at the IBT Airline Division, were not successful in stealing our money, though they gave it their best try, so we have a decent amount of money in our accounts.

To be fair, both Turner and Bourne said (directly to me), "We don't want your money, you get to keep your money, we will just be the ones signing all the checks."

Like me saying to someone (someone I don't like and they don't like me), "I need your check book, I'll decide what bills I pay for you, but we'll let you keep your money in your account..."

It will be sweet to get our 1,200 hours a year of Flight Pay Loss back. Not only did IBT take control of that AND use none of it, they also included an assessment in our dues for their Flight Pay Loss.

Every RAH pilot has substantial grounds for a DFR suit over the way IBT handled the SLI, the Implementation Agreement (or lack thereof) and Contract negotiations. The IBT could not have mismanaged that entire process in a more detrimental manner for the Native RAH pilots if they intentionally trying to harm those pilots.

I'll go into detail over all of that some day...

Good luck RAH pilots, you deserve so much better than Bedford, Heller and the IBT. I hope for your sake you have a 95% turnout and a 80+% "No" vote on your TA on April 4.

I'll never understand why the same guy who Chaired negotiations on Contract 2003 was Chair on this Negotiation Committee or why he ultimately supported the Negotiation "Team's" TA.

And, for God's sake - Dubinsky??? I have never heard a Union Rep talk so poorly about their members. (I know that wasn't the Local's fault or choice)

I hope you can one day decert the IBT, they've earned it with you guys.

I'm sure that's all true. I'm not a fan of the IBT Airline Division either. And I don't work for RAH in any way shape or form. But the crux of what I'm asking is: is FAPA financially and logistically ready to handle the new boss - Bill Franke? Do you guys understand what you will be dealing with?

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."