I'd much prefer a more American system of government than your "democracy" (i.e. mob rule). We had that at FAPA - the minority didn't get shafted for the benefit of the majority.


From http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm

DEMOCRACY:

A government of the masses.
Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
Results in mobocracy.
Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.


REPUBLIC:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

 

Nevermind.

 

By the way, that link led to an interesting article. Thanks.

 

This is true.

Yes...the Local357 is brand new, split off from the Local747

I had to appoint them? Seems to me from what I read in the election information that it was a voluntary position and one had to be nominated AND you could refuse nomination by a third party. True?

Perhaps it is you who should work on getting your stories straight???

 

Misty, you have some good observations but then demean your entire thread with your contempt for pilots. To hold employees in contempt for the actions of their management is pathetic. You're right that this could have been a good marriage. I'm no lanyard wearing fan of the teamsters.

 

Do tell...

 

Misty, you should remember that FAPA agreed to binding arbitration. As for zooropa, you can take a look at all the lawsuit documents on PACER or on the IBT website. You'll find FAPAInvest LLC as a party named, not the FAPA pilots. Last time I checked, a few weeks ago, the LLC was limited to a few of your old FAPA leaders.

To me, it seems pretty clear. A day before the election closed, RAH signed a deal involving representation issues, that carried over into the period after the election. Thereby FAPAInvest and RAH colluded to remove negotiating/representation power from IBT after the election. Funny how FAPAInvest was only formed a day or two before the election closed, and RAH realized the NMB wasn't going to reverse its single carrier ruling based on future conditions at the company.

 

You're misinformed or lying. The LOA said nothing about representation. It had less to do with representation than the scope language in any contract. By your argument, your scope language violates the same laws, because it removes FAPA's "negotiating/representation power", but I don't see you crying foul on that one.

Which leaves my question: Who did LOA67 influence, who did it influence them into voting for, and who was doing the influencing? If you can't answer those questions, you have no case. The law in question is written to prevent companies from influencing employees to vote in a certain direction, whether it's for a certain union, or for no union at all. Please explain how RAH has coerced any pilots into voting in a certain fashion? Are you saying that Frontier pilots would have voted for IBT if it weren't for LOA 67?

(...sitting patiently, expecting no answer. Again.)

 

I'm the voice of the silent majority. You pukes sit idle and say nothing which is just as bad as pulling the trigger yourself.

 

For your first point, that the commercial agreement says nothing about representation, thats not true. Paragraph E of the agreement states: "FAPAInvest or its designee(s), successor(s) or assigns have the sole authority to represent the interest of the Participating Pilots in any matter related to this Agreement."

With respect to your new BOD the agreement states that "FAPAInvest or another entity formed for the benefit of the Participating Pilots in connection with the Equity Participation will be allowed to designate a representative (with voting authority) on the Board of Directors of the Company" . While a good idea, this usurps representation by IBT or any union without approval of FAPAInvest or the pilots who are now represented by IBT. So your deal, carried over the threshold of the election, delineates power to FAPAInvest to bargain and negotiate for things pertaining to the LOA. That power should have gone to whoever won the election.

As far as influence, you'll find I never said anything about it, but it could be argued that LOA 67 influenced FAPA pilots to vote for RPC as RPC claimed they would enforce LOA 67 if I remember correctly. I think that was stated on this board, but maybe it was on the RPC board. If this issue were as simple as you like to distill it, the case would have been summarily dismissed by the judge when you petitioned, but it wasn't. So maybe your confidence in your position is misplaced. As for my position on this lawsuit. I think every other purchased pilot group would sign a "commercial agreement" with management days prior to a representation election, securing their negotiating rights for things contained in the LOA, if the approach was effective.

But in either case, I'll be back on here next year and in yearly intervals thereafter to see if BB and co have divested 51% equity to FAPAInvest, but I doubt it will happen.