Out of how many votes total? If there was nearly total participation in the vote then it would probably put it in the 3-4% range…close to where I had previously heard.

If it could be proven that they were doing it in an attempt solely to force amalgamation and lock us into another 5 year arbitrated contract that could be something to sue over…but, as we’ve seen, the courts side heavily with the company the vast majority of the time so it might be a waste of time.

There aren’t many airlines left in the IBT…even fewer that are cargo. I seriously doubt they would consider buying/merging a pax airline like Allegiant. As far as I know, the only cargo airlines that are still IBT are ABX and NAC/Aloha.

it wasn't a huge turnout, from what I heard

This is a misinterpretation of what the actual language says. There would be no "nullification". The language is what the language is, and that allows for three scenarios:

1. The acquired carrier is represented by the same bargaining agent (e.g. ALPA/ALPA or IBT/IBT). This was the case for both Atlas/Polar (ALPA/ALPA) and Atlas/Southern (IBT/IBT).

2. The acquired carrier is represented by a different bargaining agent (ALPA, SWAPA, APA, IPA like that would ever happen).

3. The acquired carrier has no representation.

Clearly, an in house union fits NONE OF THE ABOVE and therefore the company cannot enforce this clause of the contract.

I'm not a lawyer but even if that were something that were some sort of violation of the contract it sounds like that would be impossible to prove. JD has proven to be a master manipulator of the legal system.

Well, when his counterpart was the lazy dip$ ht Ed Gleason, there wasn’t much challenge. What a fkking joke that clown was.

Which leads back to the original point of this thread: the union was dietrich’s doormat and good ol’ Bobb Henderson was pretty much right all along.

No he’s not. He’s just the only one who wanted to execute the merger clause of the cba AS IT WAS WRITTEN. Those with your mindset wanted to act like they were exempt from contractual language, and now you’re all “wow dietrich’s good at this” and surprised that you’ve lost.

Pretty fkkin dumb.

If memory serves correct BH wanted to just amalgamate. If that's true you can look at Southern's old contract and average that with your old contract starting in 2018. Then you'd be up for "Section 6" (Amalgamation III) in 2023. BH is a nice guy... I had breakfast with him 6 moths before I left and we talked for several hours. I don't think most of his plans were good ideas. As prior leadership he should've done things over a decade ago to avoid that language that killed you this cycle. Going this way you ended up with rates well north of Amalgamation and didn't end up losing any work rules you had. You were going to lose a ton of them in Amalgamation. You even had some minor gains like a 2 hour increase in guarantee.

Ultimately last week had to be painful, but a better strategy forward for yall is now needed. I'd go in house if I were yall. Then get the leaders you want with the best plans for how to prepare for the next cycle. If anyone attached to BH were running I'd probably not consider them but it's your union. It consists of all of you and will succeed or fail based more on your unity out on the line than your leadership. It should be apparent that you won't get the gains you seek in Amalgamation. Your best shot at that is Section 6 which I think is what JD fears.

Thanks for this. FWIW I agree with your assessment here, but I am legally dumb. The question in my mind, and one I think we should ask isn't "What does the law, contract, etc. say?".

What's actually going to happen to our people in the field?. I'm asking "Can the company apply this the way they want to?". "Can a new organization without funding convince a judge of our interpretation here?". Although I am dumb, I have experienced litigation. I was amazed at how pliable law and enforcement really is. It worked out, but it let me appreciate my naivitee.

Litigation eventually comes to the mind of a judge. Judges are human and can be bent to read and enforce law in ways that are questionable or surprising. In theory and movies litigation occurs in a courtroom with arguments. Judges, in fact, are influenced in many, many ways.

I really think consulting with a tested, non-partisan expert (a litigator, specifically) who knows how to fight on this terrain would be a very wise investment. It's easy to start down a path, but it's hard to see what the end actually looks like.

Similar trend on the pax side. Management wants higher pay for noobs to ease their recruiting challenges. After you have a few years seniority, they figure you're staying anyway so they seek to minimize raises after that.

I think it was over 90 percent. Can't remember exactly.