Not really, it's about insecurity and egos.

Whose insecurity and egos are you referring to?

Sooo, you will withdraw the lawsuit if the Commercial Agreement excludes "pay and work rules"? LOA 67 is not illegal, it was ratified prior to the representation election. If LOA 67 is illegal, logic would dictate that LOA's 68, 69, and 70 are also illegal. You do know that we signed agreements AFTER LOA 67, don't you? There is nothing in LOA 67, or the later LOA's that infringed upon the IBT's right to "represent" the Frontier pilots. Unfortunately, you didn't like the content of LOA 67 and its potential ramifications that it could have on your windfall, so you sued under the guise of "legal right to represent". The Commercial Agreement says NOTHING about pay and work rules. The CA is a return on investment agreement. We made an investment, and established an agreement to recoup a return on our investment. Nothing more, and nothing less. I think everyone might be surprised by the Magistrates final decision, as it very likely will not touch LOA 67 while making a small change to the CA. We will see what happens.

The IBT is protecting jobs? Whose job, yours or mine?

Keep telling yourself that the lawsuit is about the law. You sound like a lot of folks during the SLI process. On one hand you wanted nothing to do with the demise of Midwest (because that acquisition turned out poorly) but you wanted all the credit in the world for "saving" Frontier (because that acquisition provided you with a better job opportunity than you currently have).

Predictable and pathetic.

Finally, if you do not succeed in destroying my career with your lawsuit, I am very much looking forward to proving you wrong about the "list will still remain and the craft and class will still remain."

Craft and classes are created by transactions, the same types of transactions that create new craft and classes. You guys act like a representation dispute has never occurred before the IBT prevailed at Frontier. This is going to be so much fun, if we survive.

No furloughs. Just announced by the VP Flt Ops. In other words, WGAF what the IBT does... Can you imagine the kind of contract you guys would have if the IBT put have as much effort into your negotiations as they do into trying to ****** over the F9 pilots? I can't believe I have to pay these ass clowns.

I hadn't noticed the red/green theme. merry merry!

Can you imagine what it would be like if the NMB did their job and not drag things out? how about the company not dragging things out and back-tracking? But alas, the IBT doesn't control either of those 2.

+ 1

So true.

It was more pilots than that, but the net effect was the equivalent of about 25 pilots taking a whole year off. I think there are more (myself included) who have told the VP of Flt Ops that we'd take a COLA too if we had some certainty about the future. I plan on taking 2 weeks off if I'm sure that I'll still have a job, and another 4 if I am sure that I'll keep my seat. For every 8 pilots that do that, it's one more furlough that doesn't need to happen.

I am glad to hear that..

Good to hear. Too bad RAH management drove things to this point.

On the 190 side we CNX quite a few F9 flights the last few days. I heard we've already CNX 4 this morning due to staffing.:rolleyes: