MD80

Is this Scotty posting on APC?

ATCsaidDoWhat

Who's "Scotty?"

and...nope.

Zapata

I used to fly for both IBT and ALPA represented carriers. Other posts have said it, they're both necessary evils and are interested in self-preservation.....essentially the same. That said, one advantage the IBT has is that they're a real union. ALPA, IPA, USAPA, SWPA et al are all associations. Associations work independently. Unions work in solidarity with other unions and have more power to wield. i.e. an IBT carrier's strike can be supported by truck drivers that are transporting fuel. That's the way a strike should work.

Rightseat Ballast

Regarding the IBT and the RAH flight attendants:

The RAH flight attendants have zero connection to the RAH pilots' Local 747. Comparisons don't apply here.

As for the push for no integration:

The RAH F/A's wanted full integration with Midwest and Frontier. RAH flight attendants ended up in a court battle with the Frontier F/A's over "single carrier status". The RAH flight attendants claimed that since RAH (the hilding company) owned Frontier, they were technically a single carrier and thus integration was required. The RAH F/A's lost, and Frontier somehow found itself able to prevent integration with the RAH flight attendants. As you can tell, pilot and flight attendant scope and representation differ significantly. Now, with legal precedent stating that Frontier is separate from Republic/Shuttle/Chautauqua, the RW/S5/RP flight attendants are basically saying "screw everyone else, we are obviously on our own". This is also somewhat an act of retaliation in response to the AFA union drive. The AFA, former representatives of the YX F/A's, sent out cards to RAH F/A's in an attempt to get the RAH F/A's to drop IBT. The significance of that being DOH integration would be required, and essentially the RAH flight attendants would be stapled below YX'ers, a few exceptions aside.

The FA side of RAH IBT is a joke. However, quite a few of them are started to find themselves and a little self pride. Misguided or not, the RAH F/A's are standing up for themselves in the wake of a court judgment that took away their perceived right to integration among all parties. A smackdown from F9 and an assault by YX has left them a little bitter.

As anyone will tell you, a union is only as strong as its membership. IBT Local 1224 did a lot to represent its pilots. Local 747 was a waste thanks to GS and gang. The lack of faith an effort on behalf of the pilots at RAH stems from years of failure at the top of Local 747. That has changed, and the RAH/IBT is gaining steam. The flight attendants have generally been apathetic temporary help, spending far less time at the company than is required to really hold meaningful positions within the union. That, and who wants a 19 year calling the shots for a few thousand F/A's? The RAH F/A's are maturing overall now, and with an influx of other 121 FA's over the past year, their side of the IBT is finally growing up. Soon they may even have direction.

The IBT has a lot to prove to me, but I have finally seen that the weakness of the airlines division lay in the individuals leading it, and in a communication structure that supported truly local Locals. Airline Divisions members of the IBT don't share the same water cooler or the same bulletin board. We require more elaborate means of communication than other IBT work groups. We are finally getting that. We may actually have a chance.

AirbusMonitor

I don't think anyone is "arguing" about Flight Attendant contracts.

It seems to me the the letter from IBT indicates that they are as disrespectful (or just don't give a damn) of Labor, CBA's and the law as RAH corporate is.

Actually, the most interesting aspect of this is the IBT's attempt to circumvent McCaskill-Bond by claiming the amendment applies only to "Air Carriers" and not to holding companies.

Republic Airways Holdings acquired Midwest Air Group and Frontier Airlines Holdings.

The IBT states, "Further, the "Bond-McCaskill Amendment" has no application to the transaction between Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. and Midwest Air Group, Inc. That provision applies only to "covered transactions", defined as "a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier." No such transaction occurred here. Republic Airways Holdings, Inc. is not a carrier so its acquisition of Midwest Air Group, Inc. (likewise not a carrier) is not a covered transaction."

Years ago an American MD-80 damaged their nose gear assembly during push-back and had problems in retracting the nose wheel after takeoff. American tried to sell the FAA that they were not responsible as the push-back crew didn't work for American, they were contract workers. The FAA said (words to the effect), "Bullsh*t, if we buy that argument then you'll just contract out all your employees and have zero responsiblity for anything."

The IBT is doing their best to avoid the spirit and intent of McBond at any cost.

It is possible that somewhere between 3,100 to 3,450 pilots in the IBT (Republic), ALPA (MIdwest), FAPA (Frontier) and the UTU (Lynx) will be voting on a common representitive union.

The point of my posting their letter here is to raise the question, "Is this the group you want to represent you?"

I don't.

Additionally, the Frontier Flight Attendants are currently voting on a choice between the IBT and the AFA, it seems pertinent to their situation as well.

ATCsaidDoWhat

Sounds to me like you a brand new guy on APC who posts no info about himself and is taking something you don't really have any real backround about and posting it to start a flame about the IBT. Which seems apparent because you said nothing about how ALPA dropped the Midwest pilots like a hot rock. Or how Prater promised to "change his zip code" and move up there to support them...and then told their leadership it was too expensive.

So...which carrier do you fly for?

Truth be told, IBT seems to have negotiated one hell of a set of scope provisions for the RAH pilots. How have they been working at the ALPA carriers?

AirbusMonitor

Well, I've been working with the IBT, ALPA, UTU and FAPA guys for the past 4 to 5 months. ALPA is fully supporting the MEA guys and, in fact, paying them for the work they do.

The UTU has also supported Lynx in an admirable manner.

I won't speak to the perception of the IBT M&A committee, except to say, things seem to be improving which is surprising to see this late in the negotiation, mediation and arbitration process. Perhaps they have started to realize that their behavior today will affect the representation vote when or if it occurs.

I've been doing this work since 2005, so I have a bit of background. I'm not flaming the IBT, they seem to be doing that themselves.

The IBT 747 has a good scope clause, they ought to based on the rest of their contract. Like you can do anything you want as long as it incurs no training expense and can live on $37.50 an hour as a top paid FO.

All I'm asking is that the groups involved look at each union's history and current positions in making a decision on representation, if that need arises.

ATCsaidDoWhat

You've been working with them for 4-5 months...???

UTU has done a good job with Lynx.

You made a broad brush statement about IBT representation, yet you appear not to understand that each carrier has the responsibility for it's own representation; they are not directed by the International. You drew a correlation between a situation between the Flight Attendant's contract and the pilots contract and representation...two seperate groups with two seperate leaderships, negotiating committees and outcomes.

You also conveniently "forgot" to mention that the reason for the improvement in IBT representation has nothing to do with a " representation vote"...it has to do with the removal of the leadership of Local 747 last year, including the so called Business Agent he had assigned to RAH who had no airline experience. And the subsequent replacement of the leadership and installation of a Business Agent who does have years of airline experience.

How'd you manage to forget all that?

That's like saying, "ALPA got a concessionary contract at Mesa, so I don't want to have ALPA at Delta."

Now you draw in the current RAH contract. If you have been working with them as you claim, you would also know that it was a first contract; even ALPA says first contracts are either pay or work rules. It seems like they went for strong scope in round 1 and are now going for the pay.

ALPA should be paying their reps now. Question is why they didn't honor the committments made by Prater before. Why they refused to provide funds for a potential merger to Midwest, when they dumped a ton on money into DAL's coffers? Why Prater told the leadership he couldn't, because, "Then we'd have to do it for everybody."

What...was the dues money paid by a Midwest pilot of less value? They only get 50% (or less) return?

Sorry...your postulations don't wash...

T Dawg

I know a couple of RAH F/A's and asked them about this. Here's what the union sent out to them. It seems to me that this (the IBT) is exactly the union I would want representing me. They're focused on protecting the interests of their members. Which is exactly what a UNION is supposed to do. Not what we've been seeing at my present carrier...

AFA obviously knows this but they are trying to blame IBT for their failure to protect their members.



You will probably hear that the IBT has taken the position that no seniority integration process should occur among Republic Flight Attendants and former Midwest Airlines Flight Attendants.


Here are the facts you should know:

Fact: The Bond-McCaskill law does not apply to the Midwest situation. That law only applies to transactions that combine multiple air carriers into a single air carrier. That never happened with Midwest. It was not combined with any Republic air carrier (whether Republic, Shuttle America, Chautauqua, Frontier or Lynx). Midwest shut down operations without being merged with any other airline.

There also was no combination of the flight attendant groups among Midwest and Republic FA's. The vast majority of Midwest FA's remained unhired by Republic after Midwest shutdown. 


That's the law--Bond-McCaskill does not apply.

Fact: The IBT owes a duty to protect the members it represents.

The IBT represents Republic FAs. It does not represent Midwest FA's, who have not been hired by Republic. The Teamsters will protect our members and not sacrifice their careers to benefit people we do not represent. The Midwest FA's essentially want a job transfer from Republic FA's to them. The IBT will not expose its members to harm, but will, diligently protect their interests.
 


Those are the facts. The IBT complies with the law while ensuring our members are protected.

As Teamsters, our Union protects our interests and looks to grow in numbers and strength, but NOT at member's expense!

As soon as any additional information is available, we will post it here.


In Unity,

The Officers, Agents, Staff, Stewards, Activists and volunteers of Teamsters Local 135

ATCsaidDoWhat

Well this certainly puts a bit of a different face on the matter. Sounds like IBT was doing just what they were supposed to...protect their membership.

So it makes you wonder what AirbusMonitor was really trying to accomplish with the original post. Sure doesn't look like the card got dealt from the top of the deck.