AirbusMonitor

From The AFA:

Attached is a letter from the Teamster's attorney to Ed Gilmartin, AFA's General Counsel. It is in response to Ed's email yesterday (which we sent out in eline last night).

Your union (as of yesterday) has decided that the Midwest flight attendants are not entitled to seniority integration.

So this is what it is like to be a Teamster! Wow, I'm speechless.

Fortunately, your former union, AFA, is honorable and is not abandoning you. You have the right to seniority integration per the McCaskill-Bond Amendment and AFA is going to represent you in the legal fight ahead.

It does seem as if everyone is against us. First Hoeksema, then TPG, Bryan Bedford and now your own union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. It is truly disheartening. But we are not giving up.

Please continue to check your email for updates and call or email if you have any questions.

Thank you for your continued support.

In Solidarity,

Cat Reed
MEC President
414-445-5333
414-460-6820
[email protected]

Joey Krajewski
MEC Secretary/Treasurer
414-745-5644
[email protected]






BAPTISTE & WILDER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1150 CONNECTIClIT AVENUE, N.W., SUITE 500 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
(202) 223-0723
FACSIMllE (202) 223-9677

WllLIAM R. WllDER
E-MAIL: [email protected]


April 7, 2010


Edward J. Gilmartin General Counsel
Association of Flight Attendants - CWA 501 Third Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001


Dear Mr. Gilmartin:

I am writing on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division in response to your electronic mail dated April 6, 2010 in which the Association of Flight Attendants, purportedly on behalf of "former Midwest flight attendants", demanded the Airline Division initiate a seniority integration process between the flight attendants employed by Republic Airlines, represented by the IBT, and "former Midwest flight attendants."

The AFA has no standing to assert a claim on behalf of flight attendants employed by Midwest Airlines. The National Mediation Board extinguished the certification of the AFA for the craft or class of flight attendants of Midwest Airlines on April 6, 2010. Accordingly, the IBT will not deal with the AFA concerning an alleged right of seniority integration held by Midwest flight attendants.

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. Midwest Airlines was not combined with any other carrier owned by Republic Airways Holdings. Rather, Midwest Airlines permanently ceased operation in November 2009 and later surrendered its operating certificate to the relevant regulatory bodies.


BAPTISTE & WILDER, P .C.
Mr. Gilmartin April 7, 2010
Page 2of 2


There also was no combination of crafts or classes as required under the Bond-McCaskill amendment as none of the carrier subsidiaries of RAH employed the Midwest Airlines flight attendants as a craft or class. In fact, nearly all the members of that craft or class remained unhired after Midwest Airlines ceased operations.

Accordingly, the law does not require a seniority integration process between the "former Midwest flight attendants" and flight attendants employed by Republic. The IBT will not initiate nor participate in such process.

Very truly yours,
BAPTISTE & WILDER, P.C.

William R. Wilder
cc: E.J. Gleason
B. Schimmel

b82rez

Wow. If this holds up then this will be the end game of scope evasion.

Hey....we didn't merge two airlines...we merged two holding companies. You can all suck it.

MD80

No need for name calling. Just wait it out.

Killer51883

the flight attendant contract is differnt from the pilot contract two very distinct different unions. i honestly have no idea what sort of scope is in the flight attendant contract. it has a tendancy to vary from the pilot contract on many issues

b82rez

Name calling?

TurnAndBurn

I think he took your summary of the response...literally.

jtf560

The IBT provides some organization and resources, but when it comes time to defend an aviation group and really support them- the stuff that costs money for lawyers and such- they seam to end the support quite fast. They are more interested in collecting your dues than really providing service. That is why NetJets started their own union- the money that was sent to the IBT wasn't ever going to come back to be used when needed and the union could only be as strong as the local could be without much help from the overall body- most of the times help was asked it was denied. I'm not saying they have no use and that every group should make their own union, but I don't believe they provide the service they should.

MD80

ALPA is no better.

Driven by the Legacy carriers and the interests for the ALPA National headquarters... it's all about the dues.

ATCsaidDoWhat

No one can argue your perspective. And as a great scholar once said, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts."

The fact is under Don Treichler, you were horribly represented. So was everyone in Local 747. The truth is that unless you voted to pay more in dues, only .22% of the 1.56% you paid in dues went to the International. The rest was kept by you at your Local to use as you saw fit.

Treichler and Sowell were removed. New leadership was put in and cleaned house. You guys were in the process of leaving when that happened. In fact, the new leadership told you that they understood your reasons and would not fight you. They kept their word.

Your sister carrier at Local 1108 just ratified their contract. Perhaps it would be good to ask their leadership about the support, both financial and staff, in getting that contract. 88% of the membership voted and ratified it with a 95% margin.

Again, you are correct that under the old leadership, service was poor. Your post infers that is still the case...which I honestly don't believe you intended.

crazy pills

Are we really arguing about flight attendant contracts? How bored are you?