Pineapple Guy

Well, capncrunch, since you apparently do have concerns that YOUR rep is being unduly influenced by Lee, why don't you get off the couch, convince your fellow pilots, and have that rep recalled??

Or you can just sit here and continue to whine about how life's not fair. It's up to you.

Carl Spackler

OH...I got it. It was local that hired the incompetent lawyers to write our scope language. It was local that hired lawyers that said we have no case and shouldn't even file a grievance.

Thank goodness. Because if they had been national lawyers, I would have had a point.

Carl

Check Essential

I hear you Denny, and I'm grateful to the NMB for bringing attention to the high degree of integration among the various units of RAH.
There's a misperception out there however about the NMB's role in our scope clause. Let me just tag on to your post to explain my understanding of that situation.

forgot to bid has been a tireless advocate for the strict enforcement of our scope but he often mentions in his posts how its the NMB that would need to take the next step here beyond declaring RAH a single transportation system for representation purposes.


Just trying to clarify for everyone -- the NMB does not make those kinds of rulings. They have nothing to do with the definition of "air carrier" which is at issue in our contract. The Railway Labor Act does not give them jurisdiction to do that. They only look at STS questions in the case of representation disputes and their determinations have no effect beyond that. Their investigation of RAH would certainly provide a wealth of data and arguments for us to use, but if we want to have RAH declared an air carrier for purposes of scope enforcement, it has to come from the System Board of Adjustment via a grievance procedure. The question of whether RAH is legally an "air carrier" is what's known as a "minor dispute" under the RLA. (sorry. more legal jargon) here's a couple links:

Major vs. Minor disputes = Railway Labor Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Railroad Labor Act Overview

IV. Grievance Disputes (So Called "Minor Disputes")
Definition of Minor Disputes. Disputes that arise out of the interpretation or application of existing contractual rights are considered minor disputes. Courts have ruled that a dispute is minor if the employer's action complained of by a contract employee is "arguably justified" by the collective bargaining agreement. Minor disputes initially are dealt with through the carrier's internal dispute resolution procedures. If a minor dispute is not settled through initial discussions, it may be referred for binding arbitration by either party to a grievance adjustment board composed of union and management representatives -- system adjustment boards in the case of airlines, and the National Railroad Adjustment Board or to special boards of adjustment in the case of railroads.

Sorry to be nitpicking. Just wanted to get that out there. If we want to move on the RAH issue, the MEC has to file a grievance and then the System Board takes over. Its not the NMB at all.

Carl Spackler

You ask false questions that demand the impossible. Do you not think others notice? DPA does not currently represent the pilots of Delta. Therefore, DPA can't prove ANYTHING to you through definitive action on behalf of Delta pilots. It's impossible.

Your other demand that DPA supporters work within ALPA to change ALPA fails to understand that we have no interest in wasting our energies. You believe in ALPA, so you don't understand how anyone could think of it as wasted energy. I understand that. We don't agree. Most DPA supporters are completely finished with ALPA and see it as totally broken, corrupt, and now guilty of selling out its own members. I want my energies totally devoted to decertifying ALPA.

Again, I don't know if you really want to understand or just ask your rhetorical questions. But I've given you the answer.

Carl

forgot to bid

I gotchya on the NMB vs System Board of Adjustment if we pursued STS for RAH which I think is a great... plan B. If you win that case so what, RAH is replaced by SuperJet or Sillyjet or Surlyjet or another DCI. That's a lot of effort for a one time shot across the bow that smart lawyers will just find a way around again.

Plan A would be the air carrier definition. And I thought the idea of going after the legal definition of air carrier would be something to take up with the DOT for government clarification similar to what was done with the Whitlow letter in 2000?

If we get the interpretation to be that a holdings company is STS then RAH, AMR/AE and anyone else is out.

Check Essential

More legal nitpicking ==> "STS" is a "term of art". Its really only used by the NMB for very narrow purposes in representation disputes. You're right on the money -- What we need is for RAH to be declared an "air carrier". That's the term used in the contract.

You're right about the DOT. Management and ALPA are relying on the DOT/FAA distinction of "certificate holder" to make their argument that the various units of RAH are separate air carriers. (its sad we have to fight mgmt and our union)

As far as the FAA is concerned, different certificates means different air carriers.
The problem is, that's not what the plain language of our contract says and its certainly not the intent of our contract. If all they have to do is keep separate certificates then that section of our contract is useless. Its a fundamental principle of contract law that people don't waste time writing clauses knowing they will be meaningless. Its assumed they intend for them to have effect.

I think we'd have a fighting chance with the 5 man Board. Unfortunately, the ALPA establishment have managed to convince our MEC not to pursue the case.

Jack Bauer

The dollars needed for legal action are spoken for...."connection".

Check Essential

The DOT would tell us to go away. "We don't do scope disputes".

They will say that the FAA regulates "certificate holders" and they don't care about "air carriers" because their focus is on safety and our little dispute is a perfect example of why they don't want to get tied up in knots over corporate shell games.

Our scope clause however, is precisely concerned with corporate shell games.

The DOT would say, "The Congress defined "air carrier" in the US Code, why don't you use that definition?"
(to which I would say ---> what a great idea! )

georgetg

It is a great idea.
That's why the PWA defines it that way:

This is what the CFRs say:

The CFR definition of domestic air carrier is well beyond the narrow definition of certificate holder.

If our contract language meant certificate holder, it would say certificate holder.
The definitions section of Section 1 of the PWA would then define the term certificate holder.
It's not in there because our PWA doesn't use the term certificate holder in Section 1.

And while the NMB ruled STS for representation purposes.
What really matters is the NMB findings that RAH is acting as one domestic air carrier*:

Cheers
George

*definition per CFR 49... in this context Delta is also a "domestic air carrier" because it is a US airline.

buzzpat

According to SD's lounge brief in LAX yesterday, 187 is the final number. The rest of the presentation was mostly very positive. I wasn't there, just passing through on my way out the door, but SD's message sounds really good.