80ktsClamp

For some reading in between the lines on the text about the RAH grievance in the MEC email... I don't think it's dead. We've known all along that the fact that RAH got declared an STS is not a violation of our section one, however it is the findings and the other intricacies that make it a violation... and a blatant one. On the surface though, it is not a violation and that email said a whole lot of nothing. Remember it's an email written by lawyers.

What can be pulled from this? There's more to come, and the entrenched types have got to be pushed (pushed out of the way if it becomes necessary) so they keep after it.



I'm looking forward to being able to bid the G550, personally.

forgot to bid

Again, imho, IBT isn't stupid. They applied to the NMB to find RAH as STS for representation reasons only knowing if RAH declared STS they could be forced out of CPA's and be truly on their own. They wouldn't be looking out for their pilots to give up guaranteed income from the likes of us that are supporting the Frontier operation.

The NMB found them to be STS for representation reasons but wrote in all of this precedence that screams that airlines have been declared STS for far less than what RAH is doing.

We need to go back and ask the NMB to declare STS and I think the NMB is not pitching a hanging curveball for us but rather put the ball on the T and told the team to take a knee. They seem to just be waiting to be asked.

forgot to bid

Not so much as holding on to the card, but rather, I want the DPA to surge from 2000 to... 6001 in a quick amount of time the second ALPA says they're not pursuing this.

In politics they call it a money bomb, here you can have a card bomb.

As far as a shot across the bow, the DPA is that. As far as the DPA, still trying to figure that one out but there is another thread dedicated to just that and its not like sending the card in guarantees the DPA is in, the discussion will just be amplified. But like I said, if the IBT comes in, I'm not opposed.

I do not like ALPA National.

forgot to bid

I talked to a guy who was former RAH, hired with 80 here, he was shocked the union wasn't filing a grievance. I don't think RAH guys believe they're separate airlines, they know all roads lead to the same place and it's blatant and obvious from the moment this system was created was to do an end around scope clauses.

It has to be stopped and if anyone pushes back then they should be pushed out.

Give me a plane with no FA. I've done the corporate FA thing... so give me a plane that has none.

Dirty

Cut and pasted from Frontier's website in regards to their new non-stop service from MSP- MCI.

Flights are operated by Frontier Airlines, Republic Airlines, or Chautauqua Airlines. Fares and schedules are subject to change without notice. Other restrictions may apply.

forgot to bid

Thats one of the things the NMB gave for the reason for finding RAH STS... for class or craff of pilot... but seriously, this thing is sitting on a T waiting to be hit...

DAL 88 Driver

Meanwhile, DALPA's in the outfield picking daisies and chasing butterflies. And DPA's chomping at the bit (along with a whole bunch of our pilot group) to hit that ball... but they're locked out of the ballpark right now.

forgot to bid

And the fans are left pulling their hair out. It's tantamount to watching a fumbled ball flop around on the field and nobody notices except the fans.

Will ALPA come through? In May will they state the obvious that RAH is STS and that an application needs to be filed with the NMB and there is a scope violation that needs to be grieved?

If the NMB put in its ruling "please just ask us if their STS because the answer will be a definitive YES" would ALPA National allow it to be pursued?

I'm going to say NO, NO and NO, but man I hope I'm wrong and if I am, yeah.

newKnow

If there is anyone who wants to understand where we are with the RAH / DALPA situation, Bar's opening is the place to start.

In the world of contract, the most important thing is the intent of the parties when the contract was made. The language of the contract itself is only an indicator of what the intent was.

Example:

If you enter into an agreement with Mc Donalds that states that you will give them $365 if they give you a cheeseburger everyday for a year when you show up to the counter, you have a contract.

Now, when you go to the counter for the first six months, if they give you a quarter pound of beef, with cheese, and onions, and the bun with sesame seeds on it (a Quarter Pounder w/ Cheese), it would appear to you, Mc Donalds, and the courts that a cheeseburger was a "Quarter Pounder/ w Cheese."

But, let's say that after six months, they give you that shabby, slim piece of beef, with the crappy cheese, and no onions, and plain bun. Your first reaction would be, "Hey! This is not a cheeseburger!!" And, if Mc Donalds protests and says it is, you would be ****ed, get into an argument with them, and then take them to court, and demand that they force Mc Donalds to start giving you -- from what your understanding of Mc Donalds past conduct -- what a cheeseburger was.

But, let's take a look at what we have with RAH. When RAH merged with Frontier, our union was not surprised. They were not angry. They didn't go to court.

When the NMB later told them that as far as cheeseburgers go, the thin cheeseburger wasn't the same as the Quarter Pounder for hamburger negotiating purposes, instead of using that as evidence of a breach of contract by Mc Donalds, our union sends us an email telling us that it is NOT a breach, and they even give us examples of how Mc Donalds has screwed us in the past, substituting hash browns for french fries, and coffee for chocolate shakes, as if it makes the crappy cheeseburger ok.

If you intend to leave the door open for a subsequent legal challenge, you don't send an email to 12,000 people stating that the NMB ruling does not give rise to a breach of our agreement, you keep that ruling in your pocket for use later on, if necessary.

That email pretty much says all that needs to be said. Most informative is what is in between the lines.

As I said, intent of the parties is the most important thing in contract law, and our union is showing that they intended for the occurrence of an RAH type of situation by their inaction and rationalization of what, in my opinion, is inexcusable.

I guess my next question is, what are we showing our union leaders when we continue to allow them to do this?


New K Now

Maybe K should = Leadership.

Is anyone hungry after that?

Bucking Bar

Let me be among the first to give credit where credit is due. The initial after action report of the 19 April Special MEC Meeting looks positive, with our Association taking reasonable proactive steps to enforce our agreement.

Glad to see us tackling the protection of our charter flying. Also, they are looking hard at this RAH situation.

Captain O’Malley also reports the f-NWA Trip Rig Grievance should be advanced to a System Board, which was a big gripe for some here.

Tip of the hat in the direction of our MEC Chairman, the Reps and those who make this stuff happen.