Republic update
05-04-2012, 01:26 PM
#171
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: A-320 Asst. Pilot
Posts: 423
Since we are sharing internal MB banter I thought I would share this beauty:
I have never before read about a "bribe" that was signed by the Director of HR, the President and CEO, and the Manager of an LLC, and then subsequently filed as an Exhibit with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
05-04-2012, 01:58 PM
#173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: A-320 Asst. Pilot
Posts: 423
The Court ruled to dismiss Counts I, II, IV and V, but left III & VI to progress through the legal process. You seem to have the impression that, by not dismissing those 2 counts, the IBT has some how won a victory. The Judge did nothing more than allow for further consideration of the involved parties arguments.
I keep feeling like I need to reduce things to the lowest common denominator here. So hows this?
- IBT brings 6 counts before the Court
- Judge says I'll allow 2 of them to proceed, dismissing the other 4
- pretrial Discovery period begins
05-04-2012, 05:13 PM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: A-320 Asst. Pilot
Posts: 423
United States District Court for the District of Colorado
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix presided over this one. Give her a shout and see what is "inaccurate and incomplete."
U.S. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix presided over this one. Give her a shout and see what is "inaccurate and incomplete."
The merits of the Motion to Seal and the confidential designation of the two Amendments aside, Defendants now raise the specter of the Teamsters Union’s unfettered disclosure of confidential materials as a basis for Defendants’ refusal to produce documents responsive to the Teamsters Union’s written discovery requests. The Court finds Defendants’ concern justified.
The Stipulation and Protective Order was entered as an Order of the Court. [## 41, 43]. Paragraph Five of the Stipulation and Protective Order prescribes that “Individuals authorized to review Confidential Information pursuant to the Protective Order shall hold Confidential Information in confidence and shall not divulge the Confidential Information, either verbally or in writing, to any other person, entity or government agency unless authorized to do so by court order.” [#41] at 3. The Teamsters Union violated this directive by lodging the Amendments designated as confidential on the docket, without permission from Defendants and in the absence of a court order.
The Teamsters Union’s conduct clearly violated the plain language, as well as the spirit and purpose, of the Stipulation and Protective Order. This violation is sanctionable conduct.
See ya'll next week. Enough of me on this board today. My fingers are freaking killing me from typing all of those facts.
05-04-2012, 05:30 PM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 641
Stinky are we hitting a nerve of yours over there?
FACT: The Teamsters violated the directive. SPIN: The F9 pilots are ruining are chances of getting a good contract!
Six plus years of your union demanding and not negotiating is pretty lame. What is worse is that the IBT and your local 357 President is now blaming it on FAPA going forward.
Your pilot group deserves way more than this debacle. The head sheep(IBT) leading the rest of your group (RAH Pilots) off a cliff. I really feel sorry for your group.
Good luck to you all.
FACT: The Teamsters violated the directive. SPIN: The F9 pilots are ruining are chances of getting a good contract!
Six plus years of your union demanding and not negotiating is pretty lame. What is worse is that the IBT and your local 357 President is now blaming it on FAPA going forward.
Your pilot group deserves way more than this debacle. The head sheep(IBT) leading the rest of your group (RAH Pilots) off a cliff. I really feel sorry for your group.
Good luck to you all.
05-04-2012, 07:15 PM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Captain 121
Posts: 103
"The Teamsters Union’s single act of filing disputed confidential documents on the record has indeed multiplied the efforts of this Court in efficiently handling discovery disputes.
All parties, and Interested Party FAPA, are fairly warned that any party which, in the future, violates the Stipulation and Protective Order shall be subject to sanctions.
That said, the Court is cognizant that Paragraphs Nine and Ten of the Stipulation and Protective Order could be construed as inconsistent. Therefore, the Court reforms 3 “As long as a protective order remains in effect, the court that entered the order retains the power to modify it . . . .” United Nuclear Corp., 905 F.2d at 1427 (citations omitted).
The district court retains discretion as to the modification of a protective order. Id.5 Paragraphs Nine and Ten of the Stipulation and Protective Order as follows..."
All parties, and Interested Party FAPA, are fairly warned that any party which, in the future, violates the Stipulation and Protective Order shall be subject to sanctions.
That said, the Court is cognizant that Paragraphs Nine and Ten of the Stipulation and Protective Order could be construed as inconsistent. Therefore, the Court reforms 3 “As long as a protective order remains in effect, the court that entered the order retains the power to modify it . . . .” United Nuclear Corp., 905 F.2d at 1427 (citations omitted).
The district court retains discretion as to the modification of a protective order. Id.5 Paragraphs Nine and Ten of the Stipulation and Protective Order as follows..."
Hand slap. The rest, if it would have been tossed out by Judge Mix, such a ruling would be a huge win for RAH/FAPAInvest. Unfortunately, it was not, and the rest will play out in court.
05-05-2012, 07:40 AM
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: ERJ 170
Posts: 737
This FroBro© is totally down with it. FAPAInvest, THE corporate entity whose sole responsibility it to manage the "investment" made by Frontier Airline pilots at a result of LOA67. The investment is contingent on the Company meeting a number of non-collectively bargained conditions associated with it (new COO, Airbus order, separation, etc.). Many with specific dates associated with meeting the condition.
The Company missed one and needed to remedy the breach. I guess the 3 guys running FAPAInvestLLC could have rolled over and just freely give the company more time to remedy. Instead, that they are, they attached a financial value in exchange for additional time for the Company.
Savy professionals? How can an investment firm make an extension on an LOA that they do not administer? More like shady professionals. Shouldn't the company gone to the IBT when it could not meet it's contractual obligations?
Kind of like when you refinance a house and have a 60 day lock on the interest rate. What happens when you haven't closed by day 61? You generally pay a fee to extend the rate lock period, right?
In all reality, there is a HUGE difference between FAPA and FAPAInvest. In order to support their case, IBT refuses to accept this fact.
Not a huge difference when the "invest" is nogotiating new terms to a LOA that the company failed to meet.
Every one of the following items are FACTS:
FAPA is the former bargaining representative for F9 pilots. True
FAPA negotiated LOA67 with the Company. True, but unwise.
LOA67 was not just a "give" (as in concessions). It was an "investment" by F9 pilots in Frontier Airlines. How is that return on your investment? Wait, still losing money. I got news for you, pilot compensation is not the reason F9 is losing money.
LOA67 = Collectively bargained agreement. Shady bargaining.
Commercial Agreement = Non-Collectively Bargained conditions Your commercial agreement is needed because LOA 67 was violated. You see, you don't get it. The company screws up and you think a $100k bribe is the answer? When will you learn about RAH management?
FAPAInvest is an entirely separate corporate entity than FAPA (comprised of 3 LLC members).
FAPA Invest has 2 duties:
(1) Determine how Company is to distribute investment returns (profit sharing, etc.) to individual Frontier pilots
(2) Ensure the Company is meeting it's obligations per the Commercial Agreement/LOA.
Let's say, as part of the industry leading contract IBT357 will soon get for you, the Company agrees to pay out 10% of all quarterly profits into a Fidelity account set up for each RAH pilot. The Company agreed to do so via the collective bargaining process. So who is managing the investment? IBT? RAH? Fidelity? Is Fidelity an "alter-ego" of IBT?
You all want this to be so much more than it is. Mystery evidence? No. Smart business? Yes.
The Company missed one and needed to remedy the breach. I guess the 3 guys running FAPAInvestLLC could have rolled over and just freely give the company more time to remedy. Instead, that they are, they attached a financial value in exchange for additional time for the Company.
Savy professionals? How can an investment firm make an extension on an LOA that they do not administer? More like shady professionals. Shouldn't the company gone to the IBT when it could not meet it's contractual obligations?
Kind of like when you refinance a house and have a 60 day lock on the interest rate. What happens when you haven't closed by day 61? You generally pay a fee to extend the rate lock period, right?
In all reality, there is a HUGE difference between FAPA and FAPAInvest. In order to support their case, IBT refuses to accept this fact.
Not a huge difference when the "invest" is nogotiating new terms to a LOA that the company failed to meet.
Every one of the following items are FACTS:
FAPA is the former bargaining representative for F9 pilots. True
FAPA negotiated LOA67 with the Company. True, but unwise.
LOA67 was not just a "give" (as in concessions). It was an "investment" by F9 pilots in Frontier Airlines. How is that return on your investment? Wait, still losing money. I got news for you, pilot compensation is not the reason F9 is losing money.
LOA67 = Collectively bargained agreement. Shady bargaining.
Commercial Agreement = Non-Collectively Bargained conditions Your commercial agreement is needed because LOA 67 was violated. You see, you don't get it. The company screws up and you think a $100k bribe is the answer? When will you learn about RAH management?
FAPAInvest is an entirely separate corporate entity than FAPA (comprised of 3 LLC members).
FAPA Invest has 2 duties:
(1) Determine how Company is to distribute investment returns (profit sharing, etc.) to individual Frontier pilots
(2) Ensure the Company is meeting it's obligations per the Commercial Agreement/LOA.
Let's say, as part of the industry leading contract IBT357 will soon get for you, the Company agrees to pay out 10% of all quarterly profits into a Fidelity account set up for each RAH pilot. The Company agreed to do so via the collective bargaining process. So who is managing the investment? IBT? RAH? Fidelity? Is Fidelity an "alter-ego" of IBT?
You all want this to be so much more than it is. Mystery evidence? No. Smart business? Yes.
Any of you clowns take IBT up on the offer to "see for yourself" what Bedford did? Wasn't the ammended document provided as part of your blast this AM?
For those less motivated, I went ahead and took a peek myself. Here is what I found:
From the doc published today by IBT (Amendment No. 2 to Commercial Agreement)
Consider this: the Frontier pilot group has made an investment in Frontier Airlines that can be monetized somewhere in the ballpark of $850K/month benefit to RAH. In exchange, the Company is contractually bound to meet certain targets. They could not and requested relief. They got one extra month of relief to get their affairs in order so as not to be in breach of the contract. This relief cost them $100K in monetary compensation (should have been $850K if you ask me).
Oh yeah, anyone curious what C.5.a of the Commercial Agreement actually says? It required the Company to (at a minimum): (1) appoint a separate COO for Frontier, (2) have all FltOps positions report to this new COO and (3) appoint an independent Director of Labor Relations. All to be completed no later than December 31, 2011.
The Company did not meet the date and needed more time. HowTF is this a "bribe?" You guys are nuts. What would the IBT have done? Just give the Company relief for nothing in return? Go on strike? Nahhh, they probably would have simply refused under the guise that you "should never do anything to help the Company (or yourselves), especially when there is money in it for you."If the IBT was allow to adminster that LOA, they would have told the company to pound sand and allowed the language of the LOA to cancel itself. Oh yeah, it did say that there was a time limit to get things done. Did they get done? No. $100k for your troubles? You would have made more in the long run if you would have thrown out the LOA like you should have and got your wages back. Wait. I'm sorry, your investment is making your airline money.
Once again, I am so ****ing happy not to be a Teamster.
For those less motivated, I went ahead and took a peek myself. Here is what I found:
From the doc published today by IBT (Amendment No. 2 to Commercial Agreement)
Consider this: the Frontier pilot group has made an investment in Frontier Airlines that can be monetized somewhere in the ballpark of $850K/month benefit to RAH. In exchange, the Company is contractually bound to meet certain targets. They could not and requested relief. They got one extra month of relief to get their affairs in order so as not to be in breach of the contract. This relief cost them $100K in monetary compensation (should have been $850K if you ask me).
Oh yeah, anyone curious what C.5.a of the Commercial Agreement actually says? It required the Company to (at a minimum): (1) appoint a separate COO for Frontier, (2) have all FltOps positions report to this new COO and (3) appoint an independent Director of Labor Relations. All to be completed no later than December 31, 2011.
The Company did not meet the date and needed more time. HowTF is this a "bribe?" You guys are nuts. What would the IBT have done? Just give the Company relief for nothing in return? Go on strike? Nahhh, they probably would have simply refused under the guise that you "should never do anything to help the Company (or yourselves), especially when there is money in it for you."If the IBT was allow to adminster that LOA, they would have told the company to pound sand and allowed the language of the LOA to cancel itself. Oh yeah, it did say that there was a time limit to get things done. Did they get done? No. $100k for your troubles? You would have made more in the long run if you would have thrown out the LOA like you should have and got your wages back. Wait. I'm sorry, your investment is making your airline money.
Once again, I am so ****ing happy not to be a Teamster.
05-05-2012, 08:30 AM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Position: A-320 Asst. Pilot
Posts: 423
G-Dog,
Congratulations on managing me to cave and post this weekend.
Next time, do us all a favor and read the actual documents (LOA67 and Commercial Agreement) so that you will actually have a clue what you are talking about. I'm sure Natalie can provide you with copies of both.
LOA67 and the Commercial Agreement are 2 entirely different documents. The extension applied only to one specific item within the CD, LOA67 remained untouched.
Shouldn't the company gone to the IBT when it could not meet it's contractual obligations?[/QUOTE]
Contrary to your incorrect assumptions, as I mentioned above, LOA67 remains unchanged. IBT357 is the bargaining representative for Frontier pilots now. Only IBT can negotiate changes to the CBA with the Company. Not FAPA and certainly not an entirely separate and independent 3 member LLC tasked with managing the the Frontier pilot's investment.
WRONG. LOA67 was not violated. Read LOA67, figure out what it actually says, and then come back on here and report in exactly what in the LOA was violated.
IBT357 became the Administrator of the Frontier pilots CBA last June. They can pick up the phone right now and call the Company and tell them they want to renegotiate the LOA or strike it completely from the CBA.
The Commercial Agreement, not the LOA, dictates the timeframe of restructuring obligations. Once again, contrary to your incorrect assumptions, the Company meet nearly every one of those targets except one, the appointment of a Frontier COO. That got done, but not until March. So the answer to your question is YES, they did get done.
I could probably overburden you all with many more facts and insights here, but frankly, it's a beautiful day here in Colorado and someone else from the F9 side can pick it up from here if they want. The key is that you and many of your comrades have absolutely NO clue what you are talking about. Your IBT is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill on this.
And before I go, no need to provide insight or advice on my choice of investments. If I were to go out and buy a single share of RJET stock right now then I would have every right to deal directly with the Company and make my voice heard if I felt the Company were screwing up. I would write letters, call Investor Relations and go to Shareholder meetings. One thing missing from that list is talking to the IBT. IBT represents employees only, not investors. Currently, I am both an employee and an investor. There is a huge distinction there and the IBT has no business interfering with my investments even if I gained those investments through the collective bargaining process.
You have a 401K, right? Company match? How did that come about? Through collective bargaining, right? So you may have investment opportunities due to the efforts of the IBT in negotiations with the Company. Good for you, but does that mean the IBT has the right to interfere with how you manage your 401K? **** no!
Congratulations on managing me to cave and post this weekend.
Next time, do us all a favor and read the actual documents (LOA67 and Commercial Agreement) so that you will actually have a clue what you are talking about. I'm sure Natalie can provide you with copies of both.
Shouldn't the company gone to the IBT when it could not meet it's contractual obligations?[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, it did say that there was a time limit to get things done. Did they get done? No. $100k for your troubles? You would have made more in the long run if you would have thrown out the LOA like you should have and got your wages back. Wait. I'm sorry, your investment is making your airline money.
I could probably overburden you all with many more facts and insights here, but frankly, it's a beautiful day here in Colorado and someone else from the F9 side can pick it up from here if they want. The key is that you and many of your comrades have absolutely NO clue what you are talking about. Your IBT is attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill on this.
And before I go, no need to provide insight or advice on my choice of investments. If I were to go out and buy a single share of RJET stock right now then I would have every right to deal directly with the Company and make my voice heard if I felt the Company were screwing up. I would write letters, call Investor Relations and go to Shareholder meetings. One thing missing from that list is talking to the IBT. IBT represents employees only, not investors. Currently, I am both an employee and an investor. There is a huge distinction there and the IBT has no business interfering with my investments even if I gained those investments through the collective bargaining process.
You have a 401K, right? Company match? How did that come about? Through collective bargaining, right? So you may have investment opportunities due to the efforts of the IBT in negotiations with the Company. Good for you, but does that mean the IBT has the right to interfere with how you manage your 401K? **** no!
05-05-2012, 08:54 AM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Position: Captain 121
Posts: 103
The April 24th Order, in a nutshell, chastises the IBT for violating portions of the previous gag order, while recognizing that said order wasn't clear.
It then grants the IBT's requests for disclosures, documents, and finances that RAH/FAPAInvest doesn't want made public.
The Court also chastizes FAPA/Invest for "their attempt to negate the conferral process by pointing fingers" and call their actions "juvenile and counterproductive."
The results may lead to nothing. The Court may side with FAPAInvest and find the disclosed documents and finances legitimate. It may not, and if ruling in favor of the IBT, may set off some very interesting legal precedent.
It then grants the IBT's requests for disclosures, documents, and finances that RAH/FAPAInvest doesn't want made public.
The Court also chastizes FAPA/Invest for "their attempt to negate the conferral process by pointing fingers" and call their actions "juvenile and counterproductive."
The results may lead to nothing. The Court may side with FAPAInvest and find the disclosed documents and finances legitimate. It may not, and if ruling in favor of the IBT, may set off some very interesting legal precedent.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
