Non of our pilots have expressed any interest in flying the 190's or the Q's.
I believe the IBT is charging ahead to try link us together(amalgamate) so we are connected to the hip. Fortunately, for you guys and gals getting ready to upgrade at RAH this is not going to happen.
Enjoy upgrading and your Christmas bonus!

 

Can you prove anyone will be out of work if LOA67 is overturned or are you just guessing at it? Concrete proof now... it appears that you may be a little fat on pilots as it is now with VLOAs being offered.

The Q and 190 are outside of the fence. What DFR suit could come from that? The vacancies are not "their upgrades" but open to everyone on the single seniority list from all companies. It is irrelevant whether a F9 pilot would bid it or not. It has to be made open to everyone on the single list.

 

It's a very simple formula: If I like it, it's fair; if I don't, it isn't. It get's complicated, however, when class warfare is thrown into the mix. Nothing helps the bourgeouisie more than keeping proletariat factions at each other's throats. Lucky for all the F9 and RAH guys that didn't happen.

I wear my Lenin Cat proudly on my lapel. Hopefully that will keep me out of the reeducation camps when the purges come.

 

Interesting premiss, but factually inaccurate.

We still have two CBA's, with conflicting vacancy bidding procedures.

I think some of the IBT folks need to re-read Eischen's gift that keeps on giving.

I wonder why this wasn't such a big deal to the IBT when dozens of Q positions were being awarded? Now we have three 190's based in no-mans land and the IBT is tripping all over themselves to "represent" the Frontier pilots. You guys need to work on being a little more subtle.

With regard to the DFR, it is not a matter of IF, just WHEN.

" A labor organization which has been accorded exclusive recognition is the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit it represents and is entitled to act for, and negotiate collective bargaining agreements covering, all employees in the unit. An exclusive representative is responsible for representing the interests of all employees in the unit it represents without discrimination and without regard to labor organization membership."

and

"Majority opposition does not defeat the duty of fair representation; the duty exists to restrain the majority."

I could cut and paste a few more but I will wait until the time comes. This claim isn't ripe yet, but the IBT is blatantly attempting to cause harm, and "harm" is the only piece missing at this point.

 

I was on the F9 jumpseat lat night we briefly talked about the LOA (Leave of absence) and furloughs etc. They said about 25 people took the LOA and that would prevent the furloughs. Can any other F9 pilots would comment on that?

Also I have to thank the CA working hard to get me on board because of weight restricted airplane. When you have people on both sides that know we are all in this together, it makes things much easier.

 

Ha! You used the words "IBT" and "subtle" in the same paragraph, not to mention you said, "a little more subtle."

To be "a little more subtle" one must begin with an/any/some amount of subtlety in the first place...

1. "With subtleness, in a subtle manner. With cleverness rather than brute force."

Test Question: Which of the word or words above best defines the IBT?


And in a double score, you used the words "represent" and "the Frontier pilots" in the same sentence in reference to the IBT.

You probably weren't shooting for humorous, but you knocked it out of the ballpark.

To be fair, you also said, "the IBT is tripping all over themselves", so there was an accurate statement in there with all the funny ones.

 

My post wasn't about specific procedures in any CBA. It was that a vacancy was created and it needed to be made open to everyone based on whatever CBA rules there are. Your assertion that the IBT is not operating properly where DFR is concerned is your opinion alone. the LOA67 lawsuit is about operating outside union ground and side deals. that is in the interest of the covered employees. Just because you do not like it doesn't mean it's not right. The IBT has been looking at both the 190 and Q vacancies, it's not like they came up with it last week.

 

Not sure how this constitutes an DFR lawsuit. IBT negotiating to fill vacancies (growth) not covered under the Eischen award, with bids from all pilots in the single class (and IMSL) seems to be fair representation.

But if IBT prevails in the LOA 67 lawsuit (like that nbecca?) then it still won't be "harm". The agreements will likely be invalidated so it'll be difficult to prove "harm" from an illegal agreement in the first place.

The company claiming that the owned entity was losing money does not magically allow it to treat with anyone other than the representative union. Could RP/S5/RW pilots sign agreement to carve out savings in exchange for equity in RAH or RP/S5 if they are eventually sold? No. Not without dealing with the IBT as the representative for ALL pilots in the class.

 

If there is "a vacancy that was created and it needed to be made open to everyone", exactly HOW would those vacancies be filled by a pilot operating under a separate CBA, when neither party's CBA addresses the issue?

How exactly does a pilot move from one Company to another?

There are NO "CBA rules" regarding this issue in either CBA.

Eischen stated, in writing, once that the IBT had the cart in front of the horse and later that the cart was getting even further ahead of the horse, based on IBT's actions.

What work rules would a Frontier pilot operate under if they flew the 190?
CHQ CBA or Frontier CBA?

What would be their bidding position, for monthly bids and for vacation?

Would there have to be a rerun of a monthly bid or of the vacation bid?

What would be their longevity and pay?

Are they seat locked?

May they return to Frontier when displaced or when there are vacancies at Frontier?

Into what seniority position would they return? IMSL or original Frontier seniority?

What would the IBT's grievance be based on? A CBA violation? Of which CBA?

You can't grieve the Eischen award and Eischen no longer has jurisdiction over the award.

Not so much really. It is many people's opinions, including well paid Attorneys at both Companies and within the Frontier pilot group.

More important, as previously mentioned, Frontier's FO's unemployment benefit is greater than a RAH FO's pay. What is their motivation to fly a shiny commuter?

Most of Frontier's FO's already have at least 1,000 turbine PIC (hiring mins and all that), so they don't need to step way back to get that time.

Surely, you jest. There is only one party that stands to gain in the litigation, the IBT - not the RAH pilots - just the IBT

I doubt that, but if they have been considering the issue for awhile, they are not pursuing the matter to benefit any Frontier pilot. The sole purpose is to muddy the waters on the SLI, IMSL, Separation and Representation issues.

Shouldn't the EBoard be focused on the 4 articles they've been attempting to negotiate for a couple of years and stop all the ancillary Bull****?

I mean, it took them a year to come up with the "never before heard of practice" of "linkage" in negotiations. That's the norm, it's not a new concept and yet the IBT had never thought of, or tried, that philosophy going back to 2003?

And that "linkage" epiphany took a year even with the assessment for a full time, "Highly experienced Attorney" and CM's vast experience "over the past 25 years" or so?

How long are the terms of the current EBoard?

Is everyone at RAH still happy with the IBT and all the support they are getting from National? Wasn't the battle cry from Las Vegas something like, "By all available means?"

UTU did a heck of a job for the Lynx pilots, even though they hadn't collected beans in dues. Food for thought, as long as the IBT doesn't disown you for treasonous behavior.

 

LOA 67 was negotiated between Frontier Airlines and the Frontier Airline Pilots Association when FAPA was the legal representative union.

LOA 67 was ratified by the members of the Frontier Airline Pilots Association when FAPA was the legal representative union.

LOA 67 was the primary stimulus in the process of obtaining concessions from RAH/Frontier stakeholders/vendors. The stakeholders/vendors followed the pilot's lead on concessions.

Without concessions from the pilots and other stakeholders/vendors, Frontier would, more than likely, have struggled to survive.

Those concessions, from the pilots and the stakeholders/vendors allowed Frontier to hold down their CASM, ex-fuel, until the little jets drove the CASM up.

If the IBT prevails, the Company loses XXMM in concessions from the pilots and possibly from some stakeholders/vendors, that would have a negative affect on the viability of Frontier.

So, spout off all you want about the IBT's desire to legally represent all parties to the SLI ("we are one?") and avoid a DFR suit.

The IBT's "stated" desire is to represent the Frontier pilots all the way down to bidding the 190's, but the truth of the matter is, the IBT is trying to overturn a legally ratified agreement between Frontier and their pilots.

If successful, it will cause harm to the Frontier pilot group.

The Frontier pilots wanted this LOA, the Company (Frontier) wanted this LOA and it was agreed to in a completely legal manner.

Who is the IBT to come in, after the fact, to "represent" the Frontier pilots (in the form of a lawsuit) against their wishes in a manner that will cause harm to the pilot group they are so "interested in representing?"

Remember, RAH had nowhere to place the 190's except at Frontier (they would have been parked or sold) and RAH would have parked many more 170's without being able to operate them in the service of Frontier.

The fact that they were able to place them at Frontier saved native RAH pilots from furlough.

You're welcome.