Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

3 Frontier Airbuses parked in MCI

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Can you elaborate on just what LOA39 entails?

Unlimited scope below 120,000lbs.

Force Majeur if a duck farts in a pond.


LOA39 alone is enough for me to stick with the IBT.


When we are all combined you'll get to read the arbitrator's decision on the 100th seat. It's mind boggling beyond your wildest ideas of what boggling can be.
 
Popeye = "IDIOT". :laugh::D

CYA
 
Unlimited scope below 120,000lbs.

Force Majeur if a duck farts in a pond.


LOA39 alone is enough for me to stick with the IBT.


When we are all combined you'll get to read the arbitrator's decision on the 100th seat. It's mind boggling beyond your wildest ideas of what boggling can be.

Then you, and apparently a large number of IBT members, including your new EXCO, do not understand LOA 39.

I am not taking a shot at you here, but I was surprised to hear that the Force Majeur language was paraded around during a recent IBT membership meeting. When I heard it from two IBT pilots I thought that it might be true. Now I have heard the following sentence from three different IBT pilots;

"You have force majeure language that allows RAH to reduce your pay if the price of oil increases".

I am sorry to inform you that LOA 39 does not say anything of the sort.

There is FM language, but it only affects ONE paragraph of the CBA. LOA 39 establishes a minimum staffing number of FAPA in paragraph F.3. The FM language allows them to reduce staffing below the minimum staffing detailed in F.3. That is the extent of the FM language. There are 332 pages in the CBA, and Force Majeure is mentioned 3 times. Once in the definitions and twice with regard to the staffing in F.3 of LOA 39. That is it. I am not sure how or why FM is so important to the IBT, especially considering the fact that it only refers to FAPA pilot staffing. Someone doesn't have a firm grasp of the facts.

I am equally surprised that Scope is being brought up, again, especially considering the parties involved. After the successful "YX - Scope/Codeshare" debacle it was obvious to everyone involved (or apparently not "everyone") that Scope was useless as it was currently written. FAPA did not have "for the benefit of the company" in the original Scope language (nor does 99% of the airline industry, including RAH). Therefor Bedford could exploit the Codeshare that was ALREADY in place between RAH, YX, and F9 without any Scope relief. If we kept our original scope he could have done anything he wanted. So we negotiated away something that was already gone and established minimum staffing limits and the definition of narrow body aircraft. The latter I suspect is what has your EXCO so bothered.

We also wrote language that defined specific aircraft for pay purposes, and if the company acquired any other aircraft type it would automatically open Section 4 Compensation of the CBA. That language would have probably helped you guys out, considering the fate of the EMB 190 pay.

The following concerns me greatly:

A. The new IBT EXCO is more concerned with one sentence within our CBA than the entire IBT CBA. I think you need to focus on the ball in your court gents, your CBA is an abomination.

B. The new IBT EXCO does not possess a high level of sophistication, or attention to detail. Someone told them that LOA 39 was bad, and they either believed that person without reading the document or they are intentionally trying to mislead the IBT membership.

I have heard more from the IBT regarding LOA 39 than any other CBA subject combined. I don't get the myopia. LOA 39 is a fantastic example of successful negotiations.

The true value of LOA 39 will present itself clearly, or not, with the Arbitrator's SLI ruling.

Maybe the IBT's misguided vilification of LOA 39 is more about the negative impact it may have on them and not about the merits of the language itself.

In the end it was written by FAPA, for FAPA pilots. It was simply a Union's best effort to protect its membership. If anyone is keeping score, FAPA managed to exit BK with full pay snap back, pay raises going forward, full retirement benefits, expanded scope protections, and not one work rule touched.

I will comfortably and loudly vote for any independent union on the ballot, regardless of what it is named.
 
IBT saying someone else's scope language is too weak, that's hilarious.

LOA 39 is the lemonade that was made of all the lemons that came out of the bankruptcy. We ensured a minimum number of active pilots , we protected our current airplanes and growth within the category, snapped up pay and retirement to original levels. Pretty darn successful from the perspective of FAPA members.

I hate to sound like a Midwest guy but,....What would you have had FAPA do last summer? "Um, excuse me, Bryan, um, we'd like to fly those E190s. And the 170s. Oh, and if it's not too much bother, the 145-135s as well." I venture to say we didn't have the negotiating power to accomplish that, and with an integration looming, what would've been the point?

I've given blood, sweat, and tears to successfully overthrow IBT747 at one carrier. I'll do it again here.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top