b82rez

Our integration went to arbitration??? That's news to me!! I think you're either confused or blessedly ignorant.

By the way, it's almost ironic that you used the wrong word here, as the arbitrator in our other cases eluded a lot of facts.
(Hint: alluded and eluded are two different words)

Edit: I have no idea why I'm arguing with you. I guess being unemployed is just really boring...I guess I'm done

CHQ Pilot

[QUOTE=Great Santini;741331]

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHQ Pilot

"). Playing devil's adovcate, the CHQ CBA which covers the pilots of CHQ, Republic, and S5 is also binding upon RAH which happens to own Frontier, Lynx, and essentially the Midwest name. Whatever RAH chooses to do with regards to their other carriers (even though the employee groups have not been integrated) has to fall within the bounds of the CBA. quote]

I was aware of the Frontier CBA and after reading it (I admit I cannot verify it is the most current with changes that have been made), it seemed vague in Section H. Successorship. I could not find anything with regards to scope that prevents RAH diverting the Airbus to another certificate and using pilots from the Chautauqua Master List. The Frontier Merger section does not have any information on aircraft; but it does talk about creating a fence if another Entity purchases the operation.

The CHQ CBA does have excellent language in regard to acquiring another carrier, especially with language that is specific about operation of aircraft. I could not find that language in the Frontier CBA. I still have not found any specific language that talk about aircraft and their use during successorship. You know your contract better than I would, so it very well may be in there. The only thing close was in Scope that was only Company (Frontier) aircraft could be flown by pilots on the FAPA seniority list. It did not address aircraft during a merger or acquisition. If you had a reference that protects you, for my own education I would like to know.

I could not find anything in the Frontier CBA that "forbids" yet to be delivered Airbus aircraft from being put on another certificate or language that would gurantee those positions would be with pilots on the Frontier Seniority List. You are correct that if the aircraft are on the Frontier certificate then they must be Frontier pilots.

BB and crew are smart and know how to work around contracts and wording better than any group I've come across. They will say one thing and do another at the drop of a hat without regards to agreements and contracts. The amount of open grievances should tell you something about how they look at contracts. If the RAH management CAN do something because there are holes in a contract, they will exploit it. Watch everything you sign and agree to.

**these are questions I raise because the outcomes and how things are worded will be looked at for all future contracts. I think this is the first merger post McCaskill-Bond that are dissimilar unions and the ramifications on how management plays the situation may have a long lasting impact for the industry. Normally I would think this would be a "typical" merging of operations with ups and downs, but with the RAH management team you never know what they are going to do next**

Killer51883

I think the biggest thing protecting (if you will) the F9 guys and their airbus positions from being placed on the RW certificate is the added cost of having a new fleet type on a certificate. It would cost alot more to add 3-5 airplanes onto a certificate that doesnt already have that type on its ops specs. Although I am sure in the future Bedford would likely change things around which is why the SLI is a huge protection for all parties involved to help protect against an eventual whipsaw scenario.

fatespawn

McCaskill-Bond at the Top
Allegheny Mohawk on the Bottom.



McCaskill-Bond Amendment to 2764

BILL TEXT HR 2764
VERSION: ENROLLED (FINALLY PASSED BOTH HOUSES)
DIVISION K—TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION. (a) LABOR INTEGRATION.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—

(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and



(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.

(b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term “air carrier” means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.



(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER.—The term “covered air carrier” means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.



(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE.—The term “covered employee” means an employee who—



(A) is not a temporary employee; and



(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).



(4) COVERED TRANSACTION.—The term “covered transaction” means—



(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which



(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—



(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or



(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.

(c) APPLICATION.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION.—This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.

Civil Aeronautics Board Reports- Allegheny-Mohawk Merger



Section 3. Insofar as the merger affects the seniority rights of the carriers employees, provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the carriers and the representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in accordance with section 13.



Section 13. (a) In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settle by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time it is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.

(b.) The above condition shall not apply if the parties by mutual agreement determine that an alternative method for dispute settlement or an alternative procedure for selection of an arbitrator is appropriate in their particular dispute. No party shall be excused from complying with the above condition by reason of having suggested an alternative method or procedure unless and until that alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all parties.

fatespawn

I too wonder why the Midwest pilots weren't able to force arbitration. Not because I don't think the Midwest MEC isn't doing their job - only because I guess I don't understand the specifics of the transaction. Can anyone elaborate?

Weren't the requirements of "Covered Transaction" met?

YXnot

Maybe since the time frame between the announcements of purchase/intent to purchase was so short(1 Day), YX MEC decided it would be beneficial to include F9 in any integration in order to maximize the potential upside ie. to see if a arbitration will place the senior YX guys/gals into airbus CA slots out of MKE.

Noone from YX is interested in working under the RAH contract but some might accept that short term until they find something better, which, if you are open to getting out of aviation, should not be hard to do as the economy improves.

abc123

[quote=jsled;740690][quote=abc123;737696]

To my knowledge, there has never been an sli that did NOT go to arbitration. Having said that, I also believe there has never been a system bid/flush after an arbitrated sli. In other words, this will probably go to arbitration, but the result should not cost alot of money since only future vacancies will be filled by the resulting seniority list. quote]

That was my initial point. I assume YX and RAH would go to arbitration but BB has stated many times that he want to keep F9 separate. My guess is an IPO selling 51% of them within the next few months and thus avoiding the need for them to be integrated. Just what BB wants.

MaxQ

3X is correct in pointing out how critical time is/was in the integration. He pointed out earlier, and I am not sure many others understood how significant it is, that the longer the integration drags on, the less likely for a Midwest pilot getting any of the flying. To my knowlege all the E-190's will be online by the end of May..ergo, they will already have trained crews. The upshot of that is that even if awarded a high senority number from the integration process, there will still be no job due to no additional flying. It is considered unlikely that any arbitrater will flush a currently flying pilot (nor should he). 3X , you have mentioned this a couple times and it goes to the heart of the sense of urgency felt by many.
As an aside, I will add my repetitive position on it...due to the way the integration is looking to take place(from a time standpoint), we had best hope for great success from the new branded operation(or at least some more contract flying) for any of us to have enough expansion to fly for RAH.

ToiletDuck

That's not what I was getting at. Fill me in on what exactly went on when Midwest went to the arbitration. Wasn't it about flying the aircraft in midwest paint? I'm not arguing just trying to understand what's taken place more.

likeitis

That's my plan also. I have to take a leave from my current job but shouldn't be a problem. I'm looking into taking a short course type rating on whatever a/c I get put on after the training. I have a hard time leaving a company with my sick leave bank not at zero. I will be the safest pilot who ever lived.