I see no advantage to your group paying dues to an organization and not joining it. It makes a statement that you don't like them, but still gives them your dues while leaving you powerless to affect change. Kinda Occupy IBTish.

That would be a good first step. Get over the "we don't want to be a part of IBT." Like it or not, for now, you're in. Join up, get involved, and make it better.

If there was a mass movement to get on board with IBT, I would personally seek a means to vacate the current EBoard and have a new election where all parties could run and have a board blended with all certificates.

FAPA still exists and you are entitled to contribute your personal funds to have it continue to seek a way to separate. But in the mean time, paying dues and not joining leaves you only hearing one side of the story, unable to get involved in issues that directly affect you, and basically cutting off your nose to spite your face.

@F9,

Thanks for the detailed reply. I wish the best for all of you involved in this mess. Along with many outsiders, I hoped that your forced marriage could result in a successful carrier with a career path starting at 37-seat jet FO (or 72-seat Dash) and leading all the way to 320 captain. Although it was a completely different regulatory environment, far too many people forget that in the 1960s several mainline carriers operated equipment ranging from the dc-3 through 707...

Obviously there are many obstacles to that hope; the economy, the management or mis-management of the brand from leaders applying FFD experience to a stand-alone operation, and conflicting career expectations/desires of the various pilot groups. I'm not sure that hope is completely dead, but it certainly is on life support.

I am by no means a fan of the IBT in general; when I worked there we had a completely ineffective local hamstrung by official corruption and general lassitude from National. This lead to arbitration losses, greivances being poorly pursued or not at all, and generally a complete lack of any effective representation. I think what you see now vis a vis the relationship between RAH and the IBT is management which became too used to steamrolling the pilots, and representation which is now determined to reverse that trend. Thus, the conflict. I would certainly argue from a labor standpoint that RAH management began taking advantage of us long before the pilot group became militant. It's entirely reasonable to approach your relationship with new management from a non-confrontational perspective; just realize the native RAH guys used to do the same, and keep your eyes open.

Finally, a brief apology; I felt your comment about the 190 arbitration was heavy-handed, but your posts on this subject have been overall fair and well-thought. I hope for all of you involved there are more people on both of the sides that can take such a reasoned approach. Best of luck to all of you.

So you want a cut of what WE gave up? How is that right? You can negotiate your own concessions to get your own piece of the pie. Don't try to take ours.


Would you guys be on board with going back to 1 year longevity when you come to the Airbus, or perhaps when you get to the E190? If not, how would you guys be willing to structure a pay and benefits structure that could compete with other airlines hiring people at 1 year longevity (perhaps pay cuts across the board to rates less than other airlines with similar equipment)?

I’ve been pondering your post, as I wanted to respond in a reasonable, unemotional manner in response to your well thought out positions, thoughts and suggestions. I respect what you have to say and want to respond accordingly We'll see how I do.....

We don’t want to be IBT. Yes, we lost the election our legal representative body is the IBT, but we disagree with so much of what the IBT represents, the foundation of their strategy, philosophy and goals and the way IBT International deals with employers and management.

The best example of that are the videos from the February 8, 2011 meeting with IBT International. From Jimmy Hoffa, to the International Affairs Rep, to David Bourne, to Scott Hegland and Doug Turner – none of these people display the traits the Frontier pilots have grown accustom to in their Representation and Representatives, previously of FAPA.

Our sincere desire to separate from the RAH FFD side of the business and operate our airline as in once was. Obviously, we need a better Management team, as the last group made so many poor decisions that we ended up in BK.

In our opinion, be it right or wrong, anything we do with the IBT reduces our chances of separating from the RAH FFD side and regaining the type of relationship and representation, that FAPA provided.

A side effect of the whole affair is that I have gained some great friends at RAH, Midwest and Lynx, I have a better understanding of the FFD business and how poorly RAH Management has treated your pilot group.

This is not personal between the F9 pilots and the RAH pilots, it’s professional between our group and the IBT. I don’t hold anything against the “Native” RAH line pilots who won the arbitration and are only doing what any other group would have done had they won the arbitration.

We recently lost, yet another round, with Eischen regarding 8 former MEA pilots that were hired as new hires. They argued, successfully, that they deserved their IMSL. They went from #292 on the F9 FO list to #15 (that’s the most senior MEA pilot, the rest went in somewhere below that). That’s upset a lot of FO’s and some Captains, I personally feel that the situation was handled correctly, that’s a quite unpopular position.

Local 357 has done nothing to indicate that they are willing to form such a group, so by first joining the IBT, then HOPING for some sort of accommodation would require a huge leap of faith by the F9 pilot group with nothing upon which to base that leap.

Remember, we attempted to work with IBT National and 357, to no avail.

Again, to dissolve FAPAInvest, with absolutely no guarantees from the IBT is at best a leap of faith and in the worst case scenario, would put FAPA and FAPAInvest in a position that THEY could be sued by our membership for supporting and recommending that LOA 67 be ratified - then walking away from it.

We want out of this mess. We willingly, with open eyes, overwhelmingly ratified LOA 67, which included pay concessions and modifications to some benefits, to work with RAH Management. Those concessions, which occurred before the representation vote, were a result of negotiations and compromise between FAPA and RAH.

I can’t quite get my arms around the proposal that, in lieu of FAPAInvest dissolving, we should include the RAH pilots in on the deal. FAPA and the Frontier pilots gave up something in exchange for gaining something, RAH pilots have given nothing, so what would entitle them to gain anything?

I fully appreciate that the RAH pilots (especially the FO’s) don’t have much to give as your current pay, work rules, benefits and QOL life issues absolutely have no room to give up ANYTHING. Please don’t construe that to be flame bait, I’m trying to show that I empathize with your situation

I’ll wear whatever lanyard my leadership recommends (be that IBT or FAPA), it’s a very small part of the complex problems we all face. I believe the majority of Frontier pilots recognize that the RAH pilots need a better contract, but we’re not remotely involved, or quite frankly affected, by the Section 6 negotiations/mediation currently underway in addressing the 4 open sections of your contract. I don’t know what a show of solidarity would look like in this situation or what effect, if any, it would have on your negotiations/mediation.

Again, we don’t want one contact. Our operations (FFD vs Branded) are so dissimilar that there’s no way that one contract will fit all of our disparate needs and desires. One contact will make separation more difficult.

Additionally, rightly or wrongly, the Frontier pilots are convinced that a negotiation for “one contract” will result in the IBT taking from the Frontier pilots and giving our cuts to the “Native” RAH pilots. RAH pilots have told me personally that, given a chance, the IBT will take from us to gain advances in their portion of our “one” contract.”

I continue to disagree strongly that F9 is the only group perpetuating “the fight.” Objectively, I think you would have to agree that the IBT is doing everything in their power to derail any positive outcome for the F9 pilot group. In some cases, it seems as though they are fighting just because they can and it comes off as vindictive and just plain mean.

We have another LOA, LOA 69, which specifies that certain Committees will be comprised solely of Frontier pilots. Those Committees are, Scheduling, Hotel and System Board of Adjustment. The IBT tells us that they have “an unwritten policy” that requires all Committee members to be members of the IBT. It’s not contractual, it’s not in your Constitution and Bylaws, there is no legal requirement for the IBT’s position. It’s jusy because they say so.

If the IBT would climb off their high horse on this position and put Agency Fee payers or even Objectors on the Committees that our contract specifies, they might start a campaign of winning “the hearts and minds” of the Frontier group. By excluding them, the IBT is violating our contract, not utilizing the most qualified personnel and is taking the opportunity to use an “unwritten” policy to slap every Frontier pilot in the face.

It is all about making a statement, for the reasons I’ve enumerated above.

Again, as previously mentioned, the IBT COULD allow us to be involved as things stand now. They are making a conscious decision to exclude us until we fully capitulate. They don’t have to exclude us, they could take the first step and get Frontier pilots involved, that has the potential to open the door, allow Frontier pilots to see how the IBT operates from the inside and allow us to make an informed decision instead of only seeing the negative, litigious side of the operation.

I truly appreciate your personal willingness to involve F9 pilots, if they joined in mass. However, once again, that would require a huge leap of faith by the F9 group. IF we join then we MAY get the chance to be involved, but there are no guarantees. I’d hazard a guess that not everyone on the FFD side or within the IBT feel the same way you do.

I guess the best analogy I can think of is, we feel the same level of trust (or lack thereof) towards the IBT that the “Native” RAH pilots and the IBT feel towards your RAH Management. Take every negative experience and situation your group has encountered with Management and try to imagine that that’s how the F9 group feels towards the IBT.

I maintain that the ball is in the IBT’s court. They HAVE to do something to show us that there is an advantage to joining the IBT, that if we were to buy into the IBT that we would be welcome and allowed to influence our destiny.

I’m sorry we see the same situation from such opposite points of view, but I appreciate you taking the time to explain your position and thoughts in a non-confrontational, reasoned manner.

Your post is fascinating. You claim to not "like" Hoffa, Bourne, et. al., yet it's obvious from your post that you have no concept of how Bourne worked as a leader for the pilots of Atlas. He must have been at least a marginally good leader; he got elected to three consecutive terms as their MEC Chairman. He also got them through a bankruptcy without losing one penny in their contract and GOT them back their profit sharing and stock options, along with other things.

No givebacks...no concessions. And they have averaged over 11% profit sharing annually since then. He must have had a lousy relationship with management as well. They got a seat on the secured creditors committee and had a hand in selecting the new management team. He was also successful in convincing their management to close an alter ego subsidiary in the U.K. that had siphoned off flying and brought the jobs back to the U.S.

Now I will agree with you on one thing. They don't seem inclined to give you everything you have demanded. Your post is filled with "if they just gave us this," and "we want that" and "we don't care about the rules, we want..." It doesn't seem to matter that you got bought out of bankruptcy a few steps away from not having a job, or that you lost the representation election. You want what you want when you want it.

Even though you have lost at every turn, you demand your way or else.

Perhaps they are not being as "nice" to you as you feel entitled to. Or not as "respected" as you feel you are entitled to.

Perhaps...had you not left them and the neutral waiting 4 hours for you to decide to show up for the meeting...perhaps...well, you made your intentions clear.

And so far, you've done nothing to indicate otherwise. You seem intent on holding your breath until everyone else turns blue and you get your way.

It sure looks like no sees a need to stop you.

You didn't read my post. There's too many things you slanted to meet your personal perceptions. There's nothing anyone can say, no matter how detailed, reasonable or neutral that will affect your off kilter view of the world.

You're not worth the time or effort to respond too. I appreciate you consistency. Sadly, I have to respond to a couple of your most outrageous statements. I'll follow it with a more reasoned and complete response.

Just one tiny example - I didn't say I didn't like Jimmy, Int'l dude, David Bourne, the MEA traitor or Turner, I said I and FAPA don't like their way of doing business, confusing I know. I've had a ton of people in Management I didn't agree with and fought hard with, but still liked and respected, it's called being professional and recognizing everyone has their job to do. You leave it at the table.

If you're invited to sit at the adult's table, try to act like one for just a little while. Then you can go back to being a petulant child.

You seem to wake up in the middle of a conversation and honor us with your extremely helpful, positive, half @**ed opinion. Read a little more, spout off a little less (just a suggestion - I know it won't affect your behavior)

We were talking about how we all might one day work together, you bring nothing to the conversation. Enjoy your steady income while you put pilots on the street to bolster the image of your union.

Your attitude is the one that the IBT goons promote, in spite of their member's willingness to work towards a positive outcome.

The point, that you will never get, is that for any two groups or individuals to reach an agreement or establish a healthy relationship, both groups have to give a bit, show each other the benefits of that relationship and LISTEN. I've never seen a successful relationship, professionally or personally, work when one entity says, "my way or the highway."

Crawl back into your confrontational, adversarial and hateful hole. BTW, how many times have you been married or in a committed domestic relationship?

And for the reasonable, interested RAH IBT members, is this really one of the people you want representing your interests?

You're still struggling with that quote thingy aren't you or are you just too lazy or you don't respect anyone enough to break down your responses so that they address actual issues in a readable fashion?

I'm pretty sure I know the answer, but did you ever read LOA 67? Really guys this is the type of person you want to lead (he doesn't lead but represents poorly) your union?

Um, sorry. I just noticed that I quoted parts of STR8NLVL's post and attributed them to slumav505. As excruciating as it is to admit, I seem to share a singular trait with ATC. I guess I'm still working on the quoting thingy as well, at least I'm trying.....

I was encouraged to read that you've settled 21 of your 25 articles. :) Too bad the press didn't even attempt to do any research and talk to someone that knows what's going on so they could have prevented embarrassing themselves by not knowing there were only 4 open articles ever and there's been no progress.

Are the 4 open items, pay, scheduling, scope and seniority? Or something else?

Not to take pleasure in their mistake with your mediation, but it makes me happier that the press got such a simple thing wrong when I compare it to the national press all saying Frontier is being "disposed of", "Frontier is excess baggage", etc.

I used to fear and respect Lawyers, then I met a lot of them. Some of us are smarter than some of them.

I used to, at least sorta, trust the press, I've been disabused of that fantasy in the past month.

As far as Mediation goes, you don't have any additional dates scheduled, do you? Not asking to inflict pain or cause anger, just wondering if what I've heard is true.

Will the Mediator wait to schedule additional meetings until Wayne is back? Or, do you think, when your strike vote is tallied tomorrow and you have some sort of a 95 to 98% turn out in favor, that Bryan will become involved? Didn't he do that in 2003, after that strike vote?

Will 357 suspend the assessment paying for Bill Wilder's part in the Mediation, at least until Mediation begins again?

Do you know if the new EBoard and ExCo will retain Doug Turner as Trustee or in some other capacity? Does the membership get a say or is it an ExCo decision?

What, if anything, does IBT National charge 357 for Doug's participation and "contribution?" Sorry I'm getting a little snide with that comment - I think Doug has hurt relations between FAPA and 357 more than he's helped and I think Pat and his group would have been far better off without him.

Best of luck on reaching an agreement on the 4 open items! (Really)

When Bourne was an ALPA rep he didn't do so well at Atlas. When IBT came to town (and the company was making money hand over fist) all of a sudden he was the hero?

Atlas And Polar Air Cargo Pilots To Receive Groundbreaking Contract

“One thing that became readily apparent as we proceeded was the tremendous disadvantage our previous Atlas Air union leadership and negotiating team were under from the first contract. They inherited a flawed document that had been rejected by the members and were given very little opportunity by the NMB and our previous national union to do anything but make just enough structural changes to get it ratified,” Ulrich said.
“In the years that followed, they tried everything they could to make more changes and they deserve credit for their tireless efforts. Our crewmembers stood strong throughout this long, drawn out process and the leadership and support from our TEC, and Local 1224 Present Joe Muckle has been excellent. In the end however, the one person who was always there for us in the background was Division Director Dave Bourne.


What neutral and when?

The only waiting I know of was when the 357 NC showed up a day late for mediation in Sarasota (they agreed on the travel date 2/14 and then one of the IBT NC decided that Valentine's day was sacred. Maybe even his anniversary?), refused to participate once they got there (except for 7 minutes or so while issuing their proposal), and only ventured out only for fine dining on the membership's dime. And yes, this is mostly the same group who is representing 357 in negotiations with RAH today. The same group who the mediator described as "being on another planet."

Whatever the case may be, F9 A319 tried to bring the conversation back to a fact-based adult conversation between the RJET EMPLOYEES affected. Your pro IBT revisionist union shill rhetoric doesn't add to the conversation.

LOL - ya think? If F9 is sold completely, you won't have a say in the STS...

Dang, I missed it by 1.25%. I could be a flip-flopper and say I meant a 98% participation, which would mean I missed it by only .86%, but that wasn't my bet. Congrats on the turnout and the vote.

Does anyone recall what the "turnout" and "yes" vote percentages were in 2003? I guess the "no" vote percentage in 2003 would be interesting as well.