RAH Representation Election - Write in "RPC"!
#121
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 227
Actually, Eischen stated that an "implementation agreement" should be in place by the 60th day.
This is not the same as implementation.
This is also the subject of a lawsuit, as Eischen overreached his authority by adding a time limit where one currently does not exist.
Contrary to what the IBT is stating, even if the 60 limit remains, the 61st day will merely require an agreement on how we implement, not full implementation. Bedford has made it painfully clear that he wants the ops to remain separate. It will be interesting to see what the implementation agreement will look like.
This is not the same as implementation.
This is also the subject of a lawsuit, as Eischen overreached his authority by adding a time limit where one currently does not exist.
Contrary to what the IBT is stating, even if the 60 limit remains, the 61st day will merely require an agreement on how we implement, not full implementation. Bedford has made it painfully clear that he wants the ops to remain separate. It will be interesting to see what the implementation agreement will look like.
Go re-read item "C" on the last page of the award. As well as the last paragraphs of pages 41, 44, 46..... An agreement is not required because he doesn't want it dragged out indefinitely a la USAPA.
#122
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 646
Unfortunately (or fortunately), Eichen waxes poetic just a bit much on page 46...
"I hold that it is prudent, fair, equitable and consistent with
the manifest intent of the DRA to provide for period of up to sixty (60) days for bargaining following the specified NMB rulings. In my judgment, that is a reasonably defined period of time sufficient to allow knowledgeable, informed and properly motivated labor-management
bargainers to consummate at least an implementing agreement, if not the consolidated CBA(s)."Consolidate CBA's in 60 days? This paragraph alone will prevail in the FAPA lawsuit to vacate.
He granted himself authority to resolve disputes for 120 days, therefor he had to restrict every other method of dispute or he wouldn't have the ability to pad is retirement plan any furthur.
Fortunately, the RLA and Eichen's own words in the "RLA at fifty" will help eliminate "c" in the award.
You simply can't mandate a timeframe on a CBA that doesn't expire.
#123
We all know what "c" states on the final page.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), Eichen waxes poetic just a bit much on page 46...
"I hold that it is prudent, fair, equitable and consistent with
Consolidate CBA's in 60 days? This paragraph alone will prevail in the FAPA lawsuit to vacate.
He granted himself authority to resolve disputes for 120 days, therefor he had to restrict every other method of dispute or he wouldn't have the ability to pad is retirement plan any furthur.
Fortunately, the RLA and Eichen's own words in the "RLA at fifty" will help eliminate "c" in the award.
You simply can't mandate a timeframe on a CBA that doesn't expire.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), Eichen waxes poetic just a bit much on page 46...
"I hold that it is prudent, fair, equitable and consistent with
the manifest intent of the DRA to provide for period of up to sixty (60) days for bargaining following the specified NMB rulings. In my judgment, that is a reasonably defined period of time sufficient to allow knowledgeable, informed and properly motivated labor-management
bargainers to consummate at least an implementing agreement, if not the consolidated CBA(s)."Consolidate CBA's in 60 days? This paragraph alone will prevail in the FAPA lawsuit to vacate.
He granted himself authority to resolve disputes for 120 days, therefor he had to restrict every other method of dispute or he wouldn't have the ability to pad is retirement plan any furthur.
Fortunately, the RLA and Eichen's own words in the "RLA at fifty" will help eliminate "c" in the award.
You simply can't mandate a timeframe on a CBA that doesn't expire.
CBA's.. not list. Still joining together as one disfunctional family. So far RAH/IBT pilots have all but owned FAPA in playing the game, maybe you should listen to us rather than those who've been wrong on everything so far.
#124
May I ask how the fence is going to screw me? The way I see it I am definitely screwed without the fence and am screwed in seven years with the fence. I would like your opinion on why I am screwed more with the fence? Do you not believe that the 190's and a bunch of the 135-145's will go away with the demise of Frontier? Along with those planes goes your pilots. But that is a sacrifice you are willing to take. I bet you are not one of those pilots at the bottom of your list.
For better or worse you are tied into your precious airbus for 7 years. At least if you are on our list you aren't violating our scope and aiding the company in violating our scope. If you continue to desire to stay separate the whipsaw will be on. I couldn't care any less about the kind of aircraft I'm flying. I care about the future of this industry and where I can move for better pay and QOL. You guys are lowering the bar for EVERYONE right now by rolling over for BB. Don't do it, if you tits up in 6-12 months from now your concessions will have merely a small effect on that.
#125
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 646
actually I am on the bottom of our list, I've been on the bottom of our list for the better part of 3 years now and have just recently had a slight touch of moment. 300 pilots would mean I'm out the door again. At this point worse things have happened.
For better or worse you are tied into your precious airbus for 7 years. At least if you are on our list you aren't violating our scope and aiding the company in violating our scope. If you continue to desire to stay separate the whipsaw will be on. I couldn't care any less about the kind of aircraft I'm flying. I care about the future of this industry and where I can move for better pay and QOL. You guys are lowering the bar for EVERYONE right now by rolling over for BB. Don't do it, if you tits up in 6-12 months from now your concessions will have merely a small effect on that.
For better or worse you are tied into your precious airbus for 7 years. At least if you are on our list you aren't violating our scope and aiding the company in violating our scope. If you continue to desire to stay separate the whipsaw will be on. I couldn't care any less about the kind of aircraft I'm flying. I care about the future of this industry and where I can move for better pay and QOL. You guys are lowering the bar for EVERYONE right now by rolling over for BB. Don't do it, if you tits up in 6-12 months from now your concessions will have merely a small effect on that.
I hear "whipsaw" over and over again from the RAH guys.
Explain it to me.
The only whipsaw that can possibly occur is if YOU guys agree to lower rates on the airbus.
Apparently this will not happen, considering how worried you are about "the future of this industry."
FAPA was offered rates on the 190, they were higher than yours, and we still said no.
FAPA can't fly the 175-135. So there is no chance of a whipsaw with those aircraft.
So, 190-135 can't be whipsawed.
The only aircraft that remains is the bus.
There is NO whipsaw unless you guys decide to lower airbus rates.
#127
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 227
We all know what "c" states on the final page.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), Eichen waxes poetic just a bit much on page 46...
"I hold that it is prudent, fair, equitable and consistent with
Consolidate CBA's in 60 days? This paragraph alone will prevail in the FAPA lawsuit to vacate.
He granted himself authority to resolve disputes for 120 days, therefor he had to restrict every other method of dispute or he wouldn't have the ability to pad is retirement plan any furthur.
Fortunately, the RLA and Eichen's own words in the "RLA at fifty" will help eliminate "c" in the award.
You simply can't mandate a timeframe on a CBA that doesn't expire.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), Eichen waxes poetic just a bit much on page 46...
"I hold that it is prudent, fair, equitable and consistent with
the manifest intent of the DRA to provide for period of up to sixty (60) days for bargaining following the specified NMB rulings. In my judgment, that is a reasonably defined period of time sufficient to allow knowledgeable, informed and properly motivated labor-management
bargainers to consummate at least an implementing agreement, if not the consolidated CBA(s)."Consolidate CBA's in 60 days? This paragraph alone will prevail in the FAPA lawsuit to vacate.
He granted himself authority to resolve disputes for 120 days, therefor he had to restrict every other method of dispute or he wouldn't have the ability to pad is retirement plan any furthur.
Fortunately, the RLA and Eichen's own words in the "RLA at fifty" will help eliminate "c" in the award.
You simply can't mandate a timeframe on a CBA that doesn't expire.
He did not the say the CBA had to be done, just that it could be if things went great. He does say on the SUMMARY:
The seniority integration Award is made effective and applicable on the basis of a
schedule which affords the single system labor-management representatives ample time and
opportunity to negotiate the ways and means of implementation; while ensuring that fairness and
equity are not forfeited should they be unable to do so by the mandated deadline.
schedule which affords the single system labor-management representatives ample time and
opportunity to negotiate the ways and means of implementation; while ensuring that fairness and
He also makes many statements that seem ironic in light of the POS LOA FAPA is voting in. Along with the rest of the industry, he would be sad to see what FAPA is doing.
The record evidence establishes that each of the four groups faced separate significant problems that threatened pilots’ careers and job security. However, there is clear symbiosis of the pilot groups in the new hybrid carrier, which makes the whole greater and stronger than the sum of its parts.
That having been said, however, if the FFD and branded service pilots support one another, they all have the potential not only to survive that voyage but also to thrive.
Last edited by sizzlechest; 06-15-2011 at 08:40 PM. Reason: formatting
#128
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 646
So now you are saying that LOA 67 is going to have an adverse effect on your negotiations?
Are you that out of touch with reallity? Do your releases show the price of fuel?
Do you know what a barrel of oil cost when RAH provided Dip 1/group dip in 2009?$110
Do you know what a barrel of oil cost when RAH provided exit financing/ prevailed in BK auction? $69
How about the unrestricted cash level of RJET in 2009? 2010? 2011?
This isn't some conspiracy to undermine your already fruitless section 6 negotiations. You haven't TA'd one section since your CBA became amendable over FOUR YEARS ago, and you want to blame us for your problems?
You should already have an entirely new CBA by this point in time. Your IBT reps should have focused all of their energy and resources on your Section 6 negotiations while the FFD side was churning out 12% margins and times were good.
Now you are stuck in mediation, with 30 FFD aircraft without a home and dozens more on their way to be homeless. Every time a 50 seat RJ is dropped from a CPA, RJET loses money and you guys lose leverage.
I hate to break this to you because it should have been obvious to everyone for a couple years now.
2011 is about restructuring the branded side.
2012 will be about restructuring the FFD side.
I am honestly sorry that your IBT leadership completely stopped CBA negotiations for over two years in 2008 and 2009. That delay is unfortunately going to have huge consequences on the level of improvements you will achieve.
If it makes you feel better to blame us, fine. What you really should be doing is look in the mirror and ask why you are no closer to a CBA today than you were in Oct. 2007.
#129
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,075
OK. A week after. I concede the point. Same effect, though. FAPA agreeing to concessions while 357 is trying to negotiate improvements to that dreadful contract:
a) Doesn't help
b) Sorta belies the assertion that RPC can effectively represent the interests of separate bargaining units due to the fact that sometimes those interests will diverge and that one of the bargaining units is willing to act unilaterally
c) Is, in fact, a whipsaw
I do not blame F9 for the miserable contract at RAH. The responsibility for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the pilots who voted to ratify it.
I do not blame F9 for the fact that the RAH pilots have been in Section Six since April '07. The sole reason there was no substantial negotiation between '07 and '09 is an individual who is right now looking at the possibility of several years in a federal prison for his alleged actions (and/or lack thereof) while president of Local 747, the former RAH pilot union. The IBT was holding hearings to throw this person out right about the same time BB & co went on their shopping spree. The individual who was primarily responsible for backstopping him and thereby enabling his actions, while not looking at time, has left the IBT.
The EXCO who were in place during this time terms ended in 2010 when they were replaced by the current EXCO.
The comparison of the now defunct Local 747 to the current Local 357 is invalid.
Had FAPA agreed to allow DB to address the recent meeting in DEN, the history lesson might have shed some light on what actually happened which led to the current 357 leadership assuming their duties less than a year ago. The history is completely relevant to the current situation. It is unfortunate that the FAPA leadership declined to listen to it.
You guys are in a tough spot and I am not without sympathy for the condition in which you find yourselves. I truly hope you can somehow get it to succeed. However, advocating a divided bargaining unit is not going to do the trick.
a) Doesn't help
b) Sorta belies the assertion that RPC can effectively represent the interests of separate bargaining units due to the fact that sometimes those interests will diverge and that one of the bargaining units is willing to act unilaterally
c) Is, in fact, a whipsaw
I do not blame F9 for the miserable contract at RAH. The responsibility for that rests squarely on the shoulders of the pilots who voted to ratify it.
I do not blame F9 for the fact that the RAH pilots have been in Section Six since April '07. The sole reason there was no substantial negotiation between '07 and '09 is an individual who is right now looking at the possibility of several years in a federal prison for his alleged actions (and/or lack thereof) while president of Local 747, the former RAH pilot union. The IBT was holding hearings to throw this person out right about the same time BB & co went on their shopping spree. The individual who was primarily responsible for backstopping him and thereby enabling his actions, while not looking at time, has left the IBT.
The EXCO who were in place during this time terms ended in 2010 when they were replaced by the current EXCO.
The comparison of the now defunct Local 747 to the current Local 357 is invalid.
Had FAPA agreed to allow DB to address the recent meeting in DEN, the history lesson might have shed some light on what actually happened which led to the current 357 leadership assuming their duties less than a year ago. The history is completely relevant to the current situation. It is unfortunate that the FAPA leadership declined to listen to it.
You guys are in a tough spot and I am not without sympathy for the condition in which you find yourselves. I truly hope you can somehow get it to succeed. However, advocating a divided bargaining unit is not going to do the trick.
Last edited by Hetman; 06-20-2011 at 06:56 AM.
#130
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2011
Posts: 115
it really isn't going to matter about "section c, a, l, zzz, or whatever... when the republic holdings bod gets the "frontier brand" marketable, sub 5cent casm it will be sold off. sli meaningless ibt/fapa/rpc/utu/alpa meaningless, frontier guys will have to deal with new ownership republic guys will stick with the FFD that their mgmt team knows how to run. the 30ish ac in branded colors go away/along with their crews until the next FFD contract is found. and the world keeps going round and round
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Splanky
Atlas/Polar
4
10-30-2008 07:53 AM