SSlow

Ok, but for context where are you based and where do you want to live?

B200 Hawk

and for some it would. Not saying otherwise.

TOGALOCK

Wouldn't be the first time he’s dressed up as a fruit!

rickair7777

https://www.flclaw.net/is-poaching-e...al-california/

Item #3, at least in CA.

This has occured in the Tech world numerous times, which may be why CA has a law.

FTC probably also has language they can apply... they have some discretionary authority to address anti-competitive behavior without the law needing to specify every little detail in advance. Similar to FAA authority... there may not be a federal law that says you can't bust approach minumums but the FAA can still violate you.

FriendlyPilot

Wrong.

First of all, neither United, Delta, American, Southwest nor Spirit are incorporated in California. The state of California can't take action against airlines just because they fly into those states.

Secondly, those "FTC rules" were all just wiped out by the Supreme Court when it ruled on the "Chevron Doctrine" which was the doctrine that government agencies could set rules that are tantamount to laws without actual congressional approval. So the FTC doesn't have this magical ability to just start regulating airlines or making decisions about antitrust all on its own. Even before the Chevron doctrine was wiped out, the FTC does not have the power to solely judge and impose penalties on airlines for Sherman Antitrust violations.

Those tech companies you spoke about are completely different. Most of them were incorporated in California, so that law is applicable to them. Also many of those tech companies had "no poach" agreements it had signed with each other after Steve Jobs famouly told the Oracle CEO that Applke had a "non-poaching policy against Oracle" and if Oracle was going to try and hire away Apple employees that Apple would have to look at hiring employees from Oracle. Also much of those antitust cases were about things like bundling products etc and hiring employees was only a footnote in the cases, (like Microsoft and Netscape) but not the actual case.

It Captains at Spirit apply at United, Delta, American and Southwest and those airlines decide to hire them there is going to be almost NOTHING anticompetitve about that. Those airlines can hire anyone they want and there is no federal regulation that says they have to hire precisely in the same ratio as before. If anything, all those airlines can argue that they believe Spirit will not last and that hiring those Captains is an opportunity to hire experienced pilots that have chosen to work elsewhere. Unless someone can prove that the big 4 airlines colluded to hire away all those pilots, and that the Spirit pilots didn't just "on their own" apply at other airlines, then there is going to be no way its antitrust, especially since recent news has made it clear Spirit might not survive and is currently furloughing pilots anyway.

BKbigfish

What is the point spending time arguing about this? If we’re ever in a situation where the legacies can even attempt to hire NK pilots at a rate that puts them out of business it means NK is growing again. At the moment any minimal hiring the legacies are doing is just helping to offset potential furloughs.

NotTHATJoker

state law in California would apply to any person or business acting illegally in California

BUT..."raiding" requires a showing of intentional conduct that is specifically designed to hurt a competitor's business and prevent it from competing - an example would be hiring a senior executive who serves as a "roadmap" then soliciting key employees specifically in a position to hurt their now-former company because of trade secret or other intimate knowledge (strategic plan, cost information, key supplier or customer relationships or data)

such conduct is anti-competitive and would break the law in many states, not just California

even if such acts occurred, actually PROVING intent would be very hard without some very direct evidence and testimony (like memos or admissions from a ringleader)

pilots are fungible and replaceable ... and in California we are free to go wherever we want because of state laws striking down anticompetitive employee agreements cannot lock up employees like they can in other states

recent Supreme Court rulings attacking federal regulatory deference have nothing to do with the ability of a private company (spirit) to go after another private company (united) for anticompetitive conduct under whatever state law would apply - but spirit would not have a case

if spirit wants to retain pilots (or anyone), provide a better value proposition for its employees...who are free to go wherever they find a better job

it's called capitalism

rickair7777

Yes, I did say it's hard to prove in general. But it would be easier to make the case with pilot hiring as opposed to some other skills, since we are pretty discrete widgets and easy to quantify by baseline education and flight experience.

Although all of the legacies do have A320 so I guess they could make the case that bus typed pilots are better than RJ typed pilots, and the majority of bus typed pilots with apps out right now are probably NK.

rickair7777

I didn't say the CA law would apply to any specific airline, it was just an example that such laws exist, that I happened to be familiar with. Other states may have similar.

I was also discussing somebody else's comment about a hypothetical attempt to intentionally harm NK by raiding their pilot pool. I was not talking about "business as usual" hiring. I did not imply that anyone was "raiding" NK, only discussed why that might be illegal.

But you are wrong about Loper, it does not even remotely delete all regulatory authority and it does not even remotely require that congress specify every little detail of regulatory authority. It only covers grey areas where the statutory intent isn't very clear. Per Chevron, the courts were required to simply defer to the agency if in doubt so there was no due process on that.

With Chevron overturned, if you think a regulator is over-reaching it's authority you can take it to the courts and let them decide. So due process. You might still lose in court but at least you get heard.

Loper in no way removed all of the routine regulatory authority which a court would find reasonably within the intent of congressional statute.

I'm a big fan of the Loper ruling, but it doesn't delete the bureaucratic state.

NotTHATJoker

i ve not researched (and am too lazy to) but would suggest arguing typed pilots have some special value would not be persuasive, since every new pilot joining spirit gets the same spirit-specific, FAA-approved training - so they could replace departing pilots with pilots from the regionals or other sources and have to train them, just like every other carrier

no hiring carrier gets to save training costs and has to run nk bus pilots thru their programs too...it isn't like the hiring company saves $

doubt very much just the fact of hiring pilots (like or not we are more like a commodity in this context than a key employee like a c-level exec or someone with inside proprietary knowledge)

so the whole "hiring pilots away" as a claim idea is not viable imho

of course really really bad conduct by a competitor might be enough to state a claim but no one has alleged any such intent much less identified some