Dirty Tricks From Whipsaw City, part 1

[Newkem]

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.

That is rrright up to that awkward moment when SLI like UNICAL is initiated then it will be ........ More WHIPSAW action.

 

[Praetorian]

That is rrright up to that awkward moment when SLI like UNICAL is initiated then it will be ........ More WHIPSAW action.

Yes, management groups have always exploited that "awkward moment" haven't they? After all it's the nature of the beast that an acquisition/merger will always generate a seniority list intergration and management teams know that these circumstances are fraught with opportunities to devide the pilots. And to be fair, we as pilots have almost always fallen for it.

But, the landscape has changed, due to McCaskill Bond. Now it's harder to blame the union and devide the pilots because what happens with the seniority lists is governed by the law not by internal union policy.

 

[ProFracPilot]

But, the landscape has changed, due to McCaskill Bond. Now it's harder to blame the union and devide the pilots because what happens with the seniority lists is governed by the law not by internal union policy.

Does MB further define "air carrier"? By that I mean, do they specifically include Part 135 air carriers? Typically, we're so far below the radar of Congress that they have no idea any other type of air carrier exists outside of "major", Part 121 air carriers. If it isn't defined I can see it being challenged in a courtroom (soon).

 

[outerfix]

Praetorian, just to be clear, there are two scenarios that are covered under M-B. If two carriers have the same union they are merged under that unions merger policy. If the carriers have different unions or no union they are merged under Allegany-Mohawk. Since the Teamsters merger policy was never ratified, the Teamsters have no official merger policy for the purposes of M-B and the integration (if there is one ) would be covered under Alleganny-Mohawk.

Sal is my buddy as are most of the members of this pilot group. We all have different ideas of how things should be handled and sometimes we agree and sometimes we disagree on an issue. If you want Sal to comment, I think you need to ask him yourself.

My goal was to raise awareness on the issue of integration and hopefully affect change. In the span of one week, Teamsters merger policy changed and any integration will now be fair and equitable. I doubt that my posts on FI had anything to do with it but I will take a win whenever I can. It's not lost on me that we very well may lose the war so i'm not celebrating quite yet. I'll declare victory when we get sold, get a fair integration, get back to 7&7 and get a raise.

 

[outerfix]

proFrac,

Here is a link and you can read for yourself. A 135 Air Carrier is an Air Carrier. We are covered under the Railway labor act and no distinction is made in M-B. Nice try though.

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...ity+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute

 

[doh]

"...That are subject to the Railway Labor Act". Are 91k general aviation companies subject to the RLB? I don't know, but everything I have read leads me to believe we are not. Anyone?

 

[outerfix]

No i don't believe 91k is subject to the RLB. I think where you may run into trouble is that even though you don't own a 135 certificate, you operate under one. I'm speculating and it could go either way but it might be to your advantage to be classified as an Air Carrier so as to be covered by M-B.

 

[ProFracPilot]

No i don't believe 91k is subject to the RLB. I think where you may run into trouble is that even though you don't own a 135 certificate, you operate under one. I'm speculating and it could go either way but it might be to your advantage to be classified as an Air Carrier so as to be covered by M-B.

I'm not trying anything. I asked a specific question. You're the one drawing some fairly gross assumptions, OF.

Look, the law is the law. But as we all know applying any law is always subject to further test in a court of law. Perhaps all fractional operations get lumped under MB. Because there is substantial disagreement over the applicability of MB, I think the law (along with the assumptions you've made about 91K) will get tested in court.

 

[outerfix]

If I misunderstood your intent I apologize. M-B states Air Carriers and we are Air Carriers. I think that you would have to prove in court that the law was meant to specifically EXCLUDE 135 Air Carriers. If the law was only meant to mean 121 Air Carriers why didn't M-B just say that? I'm not saying you wouldn't win in court but i think it's a major long shot. What would be your rational? Pilots of 121 carriers deserve protection while 135 pilots don't?

 

[ProFracPilot]

What would be your rational? Pilots of 121 carriers deserve protection while 135 pilots don't?

No, I'm not saying 135 pilots don't deserve protection. I'm just not convinced that MB was intended as the mechanism for that protection.

If you lump all 135 pilots into this equation, how does MB affect smaller operators that want to merge or combine operations? They're all air carriers. Should all 135 air carriers be required to have a formal seniority list? Must they use date of hire? Is this codified somewhere?

I don't see any way congress was at all considering all FAR Part 135 operations when they wrote this law. I'm telling you congress can't spell Part 135, let alone know what it is or what we do as Part 135/91K pilots. What happens in our world isn't even a blip to the air transportation system as they know it. And as long as FAR Part 135 doesn't have the potential to inconvenience or kill large numbers of their constituents, they couldn't care less about what goes on in our world.

Along with the passage of any major legislation comes the law of unintended consequences. We're going to get see these unintended consequences play themselves out in how MB is applied to Part 135 air carriers. Mark my words, this is far from settled.

 

[outerfix]

M-B has pretty plain language so yes, in my opinion it would apply to all Air Carriers regardless of size. The mechanism for integration is Allegany -Mohawk not DOH. I don't think a 135 company is required to have a seniority list but they would probably end up with one in the event of an integration. The only way around this is to call your Senator and get the law changed or challenge it in court. If you don't think M-B should protect 135 pilots, what should replace it? Don't forget there would also be unintended consequences if the law got changed.

 

[gret]

Are there any Part 135 operators that have unions?

From FlexJet's websire-

FAQ

What is an air carrier?

The term "air carrier" is defined in the Federal Aviation Act in 49 U.S.C. ? 40102. In general, under federal aviation law, an air carrier means an entity that undertakes ? either directly or indirectly ? to provide interstate transportation for compensation as a common carrier. To be an "air carrier," an entity must have two separate government approvals: economic authority from the U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") and safety/operational authority from the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA"). Air carriers must also be U.S. citizens.

Fractional programs are regulated by the FAA, and may be operated by air carriers or non-air carriers, like Flexjet.​

 

[outerfix]

CitationAir and FLOPS are 135 Air Carriers and they both have Unions.

 

[gret]

OK...the parties in question....any others?

 

[outerfix]

Netjets has an independent union and Great Lakes has a union although they may have switched to 121.

 

[gret]

The question concerns the definition of an air carrier and how it may apply to a frac provider. I don't know and doubt that it has come up before as few 135 operators are unionized. It doesn't appear operating 91k puts you in an air carrier situation.

Don' know the answer and how it would be applied from a labor perspective.

 

[gunfyter]

Fracs are air carriers ... thats why they are unionized subject to the RLA....

But if someone wants to get us out from under RLA ... I am for it

 

[outerfix]

Frac's are Air Carriers because they are 135 Air Carriers. Flex is different because if they owned a 135 certificate they would violate the 49% foreign ownership rule. For that reason, they operate under someone else's 135 Certificate. I think a judge could rule either way on FLEX but my gut tells me he would offer the protection that M-B provides to the FLEX pilots. I know that some of the FLEX pilots feel that if they are not an Air Carrier that they won't be party to a single carrier suit, and that's true but Ricci could lose a lawsuit from the FLOPs pilots and be forced to integrate and FLEX would not have the protection of either a single carrier suit to stop it or M-B protections for integration.

 

[doh]

From the DOT website:

Anyone who wants to provide air transportation service as an air carrier must first obtain two separate authorizations from the Department of Transportation:

Economic Authority from the Office of the Secretary of Transportation (the Department) in the form of a certificate for interstate or foreign passenger and/or cargo authority
Safety Authority in the form of an Air Carrier Certificate and Operations Specifications from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

As noted above, the economic authority issued to air carriers by the Department is separate from the safety authority (commonly referred to as Part 135 or Part 121 Operations Specifications) granted to them by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). For safety authority application procedures and related questions, air carriers should contact the appropriate FAA flight standard district office based upon the geographical location of the air carrier.

Flexjet is not an Air Carrier. We do not have Ops Specs. If your lawyers successfully argue that Air Carrier (your contract term, I believe) status applies to us, then Mckaskill Bond would apply to us as well. The court would have ruled we are an Air Carrier for purposes of this merger.

 

[outerfix]

DOH, I get what you are saying but FLOPS has in their contract that all fractional flying will be done by them. If FLOPS takes Directional to court and wins and you are not an Air Carrier you probably will be merged without a single carrier suit and without the protections of M-B. How would an integration go? Who Knows because there would be no guidelines. If you are an Air Carrier you would be subject to a single carrier suit but you have the right to argue that there should be no single carrier and if you lose you would have the protections of M-B. While you are not technically an Air Carrier, you operate as one under someone else's certificate so a judge could rule either way. Looking at the FLOPS contract, I think you run a bigger risk NOT being an Air Carrier.