erichartmann

That's your version of the truth. My mileage varies.

penguin22

Actually, our president has already gone over and spent a couple hours in your cafeteria talking with you guys. You musta missed it. We're still waiting on Earl's visit, but there may be a joint membership meeting in the works.

You know darn well when we complain about the "ALPA lawsuit", its your grievance that's being referred to. The one that claims all ABX flying. Quit using verbal doubletalk to claim we started it.

FlyByCable

Is ATI CAT II?

av8or

I don't think it's doubletalk to clarify the difference between a grievance that's filed between a union and the signer of it's contract and a lawsuit between two non-contractual parties, that goes through multiple layers and years of court hearings. The point is, you are correct, we don't agree on who started all this. The difference is, yall think we, the pilots of Astar started all this, and so you are pi$$ed at us. I understand that. We believe DHL started all this, and so we're mostly pi$$ed at DHL, but we're also pretty pi$$ed at ABX managment for intentionally throwing us into this legal hogwash so that we could never get a ruling on whether our claim was correct. Nice thing is, it's finally making it's way slowly through court, and then that'll be that.

Still no answer to my questions though in my previous post regarding whether or not we should pursue violations of our contract.

Here they are again.....

"if we truly believed our CBA was violated......A. Should we have just not filed the grievance for arbitration? B. What other parts of our contract that might offend the sensibilities of ABX and DHL should we not enforce? C. Is that the way 1224 handles grievances, or would handle a grievance, that potentially affects another work group?"


Here's another Q. nobody seems to want to answer. If Astar/ALPA's claim on our contract violation is so unbelievably baseless, while all the hubub? Why not just let the arbitrator decide it' merit like was called for in the grievance. For a bunch of entities that make the claim that we have no legitimate claim in our grievance, there has sure been an awful lot of time and money, spent by, DHL and ABXA management to ensure our claim never saw the light of day. Wonder why that is?

l8fr82hub

No, Cat 1 only

Stormy Knight

You are cloaking a very simple matter with a lot of BS. To simplify: if the pilots of ASTAR believe that all DHL freight in th US is theirs, then we have an adverserial situation, and you should not look to the ABX group for friendship at the same time you are trying to take the food off of our table. If you believe that both carriers belong in the DHL domestic system, then end the lawsuit. All else is just obfuscation.

brewster

What part of the CBA did DHL violate? And why would ABX care about your CBA?

av8or

"Friendship"......just to be honest here. Can't say for the rest, but I am not looking for that from ABX. I ride your JS, you ride ours, professionalism on both sides, that's really all I need.

I assume by "looking to the ABX group for friendship" you mean, strike support. I can understand your position. "What, you want to enforce your scope and potentially take my job, AND you want me to support a strike on your behalf? What are you, out of your mind?" I get it. It seems rediculous.

I also understand that the reason to some, it seems reasonable is because as unions, a strike is a cause that seems to affect the two adversaries only, (i.e. Astar V ALPA DHL017 or ABXA V 1224), whereas, a scope grievance, by definition, is going to potentially/probably have a negative affect on a third party, the group of employees that the scope seeks to exclude in the first place.

Understand this though. I'm not cloaking a very simple matter with BS. If anything what's been cloaked in BS is whether or not..A. AStar CBA falls under RLA or NLRA rules, and B. If covered under RLA rules, (which allow for scope clauses), is DHL obligated to honor the contract they signed, and go to arbitration for potentially violating scope in our CBA when they knowingly contracted to fly DHL freight on ABXA.

Yall really can only take one of two positions....A. Astar doesn't really have a claim to the freight because their CBA is invalid and falls under the NLRA, not RLA rules OR B. We do have a case but we shouldn't seek remedy, because it might negatively impact the pilots at ABXA. A. is ABXA management's position, B. Seems to be ABXA pilot's position, which is oh so hipocritical given the fact that if you thought your scope was breached, I assume you'd collectively file a grievance.

Brewster: Our claim is that DHL Express, signed our CBA agreeing that all DHL freight would be flown by pilots on the DHL Airways(AStar Air Cargo) seniority list, and that when they contracted with ABXA to fly DHL frieght, this was a violation of our scope. It was supposed to go to expidited arbitration, but DHL took ALPA to court, ABXA management enjoined the lawsuit and it's slowly making it's way back around to the end. ABXA cares, because they recognize the potential harm to their company and to the pilot group. What if any damages may have been awarded if we had gotten to go/get to go, to arbitration are unknown, but most think, in any event, ABXA would not have been shut down. But, the prospect is understandably contentious.

Still no takers on my questions huh? hmm

brewster

well that sounds like one messed up situation you guys have going on.

Seems clear that DHL is in violation of the DHL Airways CBA. My question would be if that CBA has any meaning now that DHL Airways does not exist any longer. And since DHL did not spin the boxes into Astar, the CBA cannot be held to the owners of Astar who purchase the CBA and who are responsible for its scope.

I can understand why ABX takes it hard when Astar has asked them to support Astar in the newspapers. I think I would to. I guess I am surprised I have not heard of fist fights between ABX and Astar pilots.

You guys have some real dirty laundry. Hope the gamble on the CBA comes out in your favor, if not don't expect ABX to just forget what they went through.

av8or

All excellent points Brewster. Two things.

When DHL Express signed our CBA, they didn't own us. They owned the max limit....49%. When they sold off their interest, it in know way invalidated our CBA. There's no provision in our contract that says if DHL changes ownership status in DHL Airways, our scope clause is invalid. Although that is DHL's claim in court. It would be nice if we could have had a judge rule on that issue, but the day closing arguments were made, ABX management showed up, (apparently not confident enough that we didn't have a case), and introduced a secondary claim against us, that our scope clause was entirely invalid due to the fact the apparently we are not covered by the RLA and since we, by there position fall under NLRA rules, and scope is illegal under NLRA rules, we can't have a scope clause that is valid.

Again, I understand the concern, animosity, whatever, but there are really only two positions....A. We don't have a case for scope because either our scope is invalid by the sale or we're not an RLA airline, or B. We do have a case, but we shouldn't have filed the grievance because of how it might affect ABX pilots, if we won. Course if that's the case maybe we should all do away with scope clauses, cause when they need to be grieved it might offend another group of pilots.