Dirty Tricks From Whipsaw City, part 1

[Safetycheck]

And I pay dues why? We just left 85 furloughed pilots on the street. I see a de-cert vote in the near future.

85 furloughed pilots? Really? Or were they terminated due to performance issues?

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...27/flight-options-downsizes-terminates-pilots

Those who do not learn from the past are : _______________________

 

[jetwash]

M-B does not apply if the aircraft are either returned to the leasing company (if any) or sold. Good luck, but hanging on to a listing ship is never a good idea, particularly when its keel is starting to show.

Bob

I will have to go with what our lawyers say and trust their opinion in this matter. I think they have my interst in mind more then the company lawyers or other posters on Flightinfo.

As for the sinking ship, I am on the boat where the others are trying to swim to.
My only concern is that when the Flex guys come on board and if any CA guys make it, that we don't over load it and sink it all together.

 

[Sparse]

How long have the FO guys been on furlough? No one has asked the question if they will even want to come back to a low paying job swinging the gear? If they have decent employment why would they leave for this goat rope that could go sour anyway? And "Family"? Give me a break. Its the prodigal parent not the child.

 

[dime line]

And I pay dues why? We just left 85 furloughed pilots on the street. I see a de-cert vote in the near future.

All you can see is your own little world. Your probably a good pilot but you have no clue about how the real world works. And no Kenn Ricci left 85 people on the street.

 

[BobbyBiplane]

I will have to go with what our lawyers say and trust their opinion in this matter. I think they have my interst in mind more then the company lawyers or other posters on Flightinfo.

I recommend that you research things for yourself. I do not trust attorneys. I don't. (I am one but chose not to practice)

McCaskill-Bond statute (49 U.S.C. ? 42112) applies when two or more air carriers are involved in a "covered transaction." This is defined in the statute as:

1. A transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
2. Involves the transfer of ownership or control of?
3. 1. 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
   2. 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier. 49 U.S.C. ? 42112 (b)(4).

Purchasing less than 50% of the assets (if the aircraft are assets, which I doubt, as the vast majority of aircraft and ALL Frax (which by definition) are not assets of the company) makes M-B moot.

Finally, you are incorrect. Your lawyers are in the debate because it makes them money and for no other reason.

Bob

 

[jetwash]

I will have to go with what our lawyers say and trust their opinion in this matter. I think they have my interst in mind more then the company lawyers or other posters on Flightinfo.

I recommend that you research things for yourself. I do not trust attorneys. I don't. (I am one but chose not to practice)

McCaskill-Bond statute (49 U.S.C. ? 42112) applies when two or more air carriers are involved in a "covered transaction." This is defined in the statute as:

1. A transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
2. Involves the transfer of ownership or control of?
3. 1. 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
   2. 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier. 49 U.S.C. ? 42112 (b)(4).

Purchasing less than 50% of the assets (if the aircraft are assets, which I doubt, as the vast majority of aircraft and ALL Frax (which by definition) are not assets of the company) makes M-B moot.

Finally, you are incorrect. Your lawyers are in the debate because it makes them money and for no other reason.

Bob

Here is the explanation that the lawyers presented as to why they think M-B applied.



To begin, there is no doubt that based on the proposed terms of the acquisition, as described to us in our recent meeting with Flight Options, the purchase of CitationAir would qualify as a ?covered transaction? under McCaskill-Bond. This is because 1) Flight Options and CitationAir are air carriers, 2) the transaction would involve the transfer of ownership or control of 100% of the assets of CitationAir to Flight Options, and 3) the purpose of the transaction would be to combine Flight Options and CitationAir into a ?single air carrier? with Flight Options being that single remaining air carrier and CitationAir ceasing to exist. Hence, McCaskill-Bond?s requirement that a covered transaction occur before the statute applies would be satisfied.



I was not in the room when the union lawyers were questioning the company lawyers as to how the deal was set up. From what they were told by the company about the transaction they feel that it was covered. So I have to trust that they were correct.

 

[ProFracPilot]

Finally, you are incorrect. Your lawyers are in the debate because it makes them money and for no other reason.

DING DING DING We have a winner!

When the dust settles from the CA transaction (or non-transaction, as appropriate) there is a bigger looming issue: How can the 1108 fairly represent two competing pilot groups?

I don't see how they can. They might be able to hide behind MB this time. But if the EB of 1108 vigorously represents the interests of any other pilot group to the detriment of Flight Options furloughed pilots, they will succeed at dividing their largest constituency.

 

[BE40Driver]

Ibt 1108

Now serving union koolaid to one and all! It's FO fault for not bring back the 85 family members. Popcorn please.

 

[OHGOON]

How can the 1108 fairly represent two competing pilot groups?

I don't see how they can. They might be able to hide behind MB this time. But if the EB of 1108 vigorously represents the interests of any other pilot group to the detriment of Flight Options furloughed pilots, they will succeed at dividing their largest constituency.

Let's see...I wonder how ALPA handled that when Continental and United combined just recently?

MB is a law & Duty of Fair Representation is a law. Laws tend to obligate people to act in accordance to what is stated in them if they want to avoid lawsuits and or jail time.

In other words: No one is hiding behind anything, everyone involved on your Union's side is doing what they must.

BTW: If you are so concerned with the FLOPS family atmosphere, you might consider giving up your job to help out at least one of the 85.

 

[Praetorian]

DING DING DING We have a winner!

When the dust settles from the CA transaction (or non-transaction, as appropriate) there is a bigger looming issue: How can the 1108 fairly represent two competing pilot groups?

I don't see how they can. They might be able to hide behind MB this time. But if the EB of 1108 vigorously represents the interests of any other pilot group to the detriment of Flight Options furloughed pilots, they will succeed at dividing their largest constituency.

Go read Pete Best's post from today. Maybe this will clue you in to how an attack on one group of pilots is an attack on us all.

We all - every one of us - have to stop letting them divide us like this.

Stop falling for it.

 

[ProFracPilot]

Let's see...I wonder how ALPA handled that when Continental and United combined just recently?

MB is a law & Duty of Fair Representation is a law. Laws tend to obligate people to act in accordance to what is stated in them if they want to avoid lawsuits and or jail time.

In other words: No one is hiding behind anything, everyone involved on your Union's side is doing what they must.

BTW: If you are so concerned with the FLOPS family atmosphere, you might consider giving up your job to help out at least one of the 85.

Thank you for making my point.

Do you truly believe that the CO and UA pilots are happy with their seniority integration? Are you convinced that each group was represented equitably and fairly?

How about US and AWA? That certainly hasn't come together well.

I have supported my union to represent me and the pilot group that is employed by the company I work for. I don't remember voting to add other pilot group(s) to our local. That said, I have no moral objection to doing just that. But as far as I'm concerned, Flight Options pilots - again, including ALL furloughees - should be at the forefront of 1108's representation. Union leadership has placed the local in a position where they are unable to do just that.

 

[shanes123]

Well KR did it again..He is well on his way to busting the union and there is no doubt that he will succeed There are alot of really really stupid pilots at options..(Thats right I said it!! no political correctness just the facts) and this is not by accident. KR hired them years ago he doesnt want smart people working for him. he wants people he can intimidate, fool and scare easily and will just buy into any nonsense he throws at them as long as he tells them he values there loyalty. He runs a CULT like atmosphere just like most Cults that are filled with stupid weak people looking for a sense of belonging and need someone else to tell them how they should act. But when he busts the union watch how fast things change when you try to refuse working over 14hrs or flying over 10hrs or try calling fatigue. watch how fast your job will be threatened and the stuoid ones will do whats asked of them as they smash planes together on the ramp, run off numerous runways, leave engine plugs in and suck them thru a engine, have numerous altitude deviations.all because KR wants to see the GITTER DUN attitude, or being a GOOD SOLDIER, he has made this union look like stooges and im sure KR will get the decertification vote he has been working very hard for.. But when its gone watch all hell set loose..And all you Flex Jet pilots you guys HOLD ON the fun has just begin for you guys. you have ZERO protections or rules in place you too will soon learn the CULT of KR..

 

[shanes123]

Oh and one more thing..If KR wanted to Buy CA he would have. He never asked anyones permission buying FLEX Jet..And releasing that email when he was under a confidentiality agreement..Hello CA executives where are you? you need to sue KRs pants off cause he violated it

 

[Newkem]

Oh and one more thing..If KR wanted to Buy CA he would have. He never asked anyones permission buying FLEX Jet..And releasing that email when he was under a confidentiality agreement..Hello CA executives where are you? you need to sue KRs pants off cause he violated it

Cant wait for monday morning to see the next episode of this soap opera -
As the tricky dick muses.

Wonder if Ricci goes to temple seeking reconciliation for his sins against his "family?" Or, is he the one to whom others go asking for forgiveness?

 

[OHGOON]

Thank you for making my point.

Do you truly believe that the CO and UA pilots are happy with their seniority integration? Are you convinced that each group was represented equitably and fairly?

How about US and AWA? That certainly hasn't come together well.

I have supported my union to represent me and the pilot group that is employed by the company I work for. I don't remember voting to add other pilot group(s) to our local. That said, I have no moral objection to doing just that. But as far as I'm concerned, Flight Options pilots - again, including ALL furloughees - should be at the forefront of 1108's representation. Union leadership has placed the local in a position where they are unable to do just that.

Happy with their integration? Are you serious? I can't believe you are this naive. It's about following the law and not whether or not anyone is happy.

You did notice that it is IBT 1108 and not FLOPS 1108, it's not your personal local. The IBT is obligated by law to represent both pilot groups equally which includes furloughed pilots at both companies.

You are willing to throw fellow Union pilots under the bus because you think you will benefit from flying their airplanes. At the same time, you feign solidarity with your furloughed pilots while actively undermining the only organization that has proven to be capable of protecting and improving your working conditions.

You really are a special kind of dumb. Ricci is playing you like a cheap plastic fiddle. The next time you bitch about the state of our profession and who is responsible, I hope you have access to a mirror.

 

[hammer2]

Happy with their integration? Are you serious? I can't believe you are this naive. It's about following the law and not whether or not anyone is happy.

You did notice that it is IBT 1108 and not FLOPS 1108, it's not your personal local. The IBT is obligated by law to represent both pilot groups equally which includes furloughed pilots at both companies.

You are willing to throw fellow Union pilots under the bus because you think you will benefit from flying their airplanes. At the same time, you feign solidarity with your furloughed pilots while actively undermining the only organization that has proven to be capable of protecting and improving your working conditions.

You really are a special kind of dumb. Ricci is playing you like a cheap plastic fiddle. The next time you bitch about the state of our profession and who is responsible, I hope you have access to a mirror.

I'm not understanding your point. Should Options pilots refuse to fly any airplane or contract that Ricci bought from CA? They have no say in this transaction and it sounds like you're trying to start a list of sorts that calls any Option Pilot that does a scab.

 

[jetwash]

You are willing to throw fellow Union pilots under the bus because you think you will benefit from flying their airplanes. At the same time, you feign solidarity with your furloughed pilots while actively undermining the only organization that has proven to be capable of protecting and improving your working conditions.

You really are a special kind of dumb. Ricci is playing you like a cheap plastic fiddle. The next time you bitch about the state of our profession and who is responsible, I hope you have access to a mirror.

Sure there were some pilots at Flight Options that were not thinking long term or maybe were pissed that there were pilots at Citation Air who wanted to decertify the union in hopes of getting a better seniority number in case of a merger.

Ask yourself who was played more those who wanted their friends back and were willing to throw others under the bus or those who were willing to throw themselves under the bus? I think there is enough special kind of dumb to go around.

In the end the the correct legal decision was taken that we all signed up for.

 

[outerfix]

For the record, there was only one CitationAir pilot that was advocating decertifying the Teamsters if the Teamster's merger policy was not changed. My beef was that the CitationAir pilots got the Teamsters on property to help make this a career job and the old/unwritten/not ratified merger policy would have guaranteed that our careers would have been effectively over in the event of a merger with FLOPS. We should get a BETTER quality of life because we are Teamsters not worse. So if you want to be pi$$ed at someone, fine, but don't blame the whole pilot group. If you listen to to OGHOON, we will get DOH anyway so I wouldn't worry.
For those of you that are mad at the 1108, even if they wanted to sign the agreement with Ricci, there is no way that National would have let them. First off, one pilot group can't sing away the rights of another group. Second, Ricci's excuse for M-B not being valid in this instance is beyond absurd. Even if the Teamsters had a ratified merger policy, when M-B refers to merger policy it means the unions national merger policy not the local airlines merger policy. Third, the 1108 would have breached their fiduciary duty to represent the CitationAir pilots and National would have been facing a lawsuit from the CitationAir pilots, which they would have lost.
Ricci must have known this so i'm not sure what his game is. Maybe his lawyers suck, maybe he's trying to jack the Teamsters, maybe he's trying to get more concessions from Cessna, Maybe all three.

 

[Fresh Air]

For the record, there was only one CitationAir pilot that was advocating decertifying the Teamsters if the Teamster's merger policy was not changed. My beef was that the CitationAir pilots got the Teamsters on property to help make this a career job and the old/unwritten/not ratified merger policy would have guaranteed that our careers would have been effectively over in the event of a merger with FLOPS. We should get a BETTER quality of life because we are Teamsters not worse. So if you want to be pi$$ed at someone, fine, but don't blame the whole pilot group. If you listen to to OGHOON, we will get DOH anyway so I wouldn't worry.
For those of you that are mad at the 1108, even if they wanted to sign the agreement with Ricci, there is no way that National would have let them. First off, one pilot group can't sing away the rights of another group. Second, Ricci's excuse for M-B not being valid in this instance is beyond absurd. Even if the Teamsters had a ratified merger policy, when M-B refers to merger policy it means the unions national merger policy not the local airlines merger policy. Third, the 1108 would have breached their fiduciary duty to represent the CitationAir pilots and National would have been facing a lawsuit from the CitationAir pilots, which they would have lost.
Ricci must have known this so i'm not sure what his game is. Maybe his lawyers suck, maybe he's trying to jack the Teamsters, maybe he's trying to get more concessions from Cessna, Maybe all three.

If that's your way of thanking the 1108 for resisting tremendous pressure and not throwing you CA crews under the bus, you're welcome.

 

[Praetorian]

For the record, there was only one CitationAir pilot that was advocating decertifying the Teamsters if the Teamster's merger policy was not changed. My beef was that the CitationAir pilots got the Teamsters on property to help make this a career job and the old/unwritten/not ratified merger policy would have guaranteed that our careers would have been effectively over in the event of a merger with FLOPS. We should get a BETTER quality of life because we are Teamsters not worse. So if you want to be pi$$ed at someone, fine, but don't blame the whole pilot group. If you listen to to OGHOON, we will get DOH anyway so I wouldn't worry.
For those of you that are mad at the 1108, even if they wanted to sign the agreement with Ricci, there is no way that National would have let them. First off, one pilot group can't sing away the rights of another group. Second, Ricci's excuse for M-B not being valid in this instance is beyond absurd. Even if the Teamsters had a ratified merger policy, when M-B refers to merger policy it means the unions national merger policy not the local airlines merger policy. Third, the 1108 would have breached their fiduciary duty to represent the CitationAir pilots and National would have been facing a lawsuit from the CitationAir pilots, which they would have lost.
Ricci must have known this so i'm not sure what his game is. Maybe his lawyers suck, maybe he's trying to jack the Teamsters, maybe he's trying to get more concessions from Cessna, Maybe all three.

Why don't you get your buddy Sal to come on here and admit he was wrong. Because, as it turns out and like we've been trying to tell you, our union leaders had your back on this one. Probably because they are pilots themselves.

It's always really that simple.