Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So can DAC buy the CA airplanes/contracts and give them to Flexjet instead? Not saying I want this to happen just wondering if that's going to be the next move by KR.
Looks like CA will be Avantair part 2 now.
It looks like the IBT 1108 said NO to the proposal from Flight Options management to the deal offered to take the aircraft from CS and leave the pilots behind.
And I pay dues why? We just left 85 furloughed pilots on the street. I see a de-cert vote in the near future.
And I pay dues why? We just left 85 furloughed pilots on the street. I see a de-cert vote in the near future.
And I pay dues why? We just left 85 furloughed pilots on the street. I see a de-cert vote in the near future.
IBT 1108 Union lawyers say that that McCaskill-Bond would apply so no deal without pilot integration.
Now FO management has to decide to do the deal with Citation and take the pilots as well as the aircraft.
And I pay dues why? We just left 85 furloughed pilots on the street. I see a de-cert vote in the near future.
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
And I pay dues why? We just left 85 furloughed pilots on the street. I see a de-cert vote in the near future.
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:
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.
- A transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
- Involves the transfer of ownership or control of?
- 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
- 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier. 49 U.S.C. ? 42112 (b)(4).
Finally, you are incorrect. Your lawyers are in the debate because it makes them money and for no other reason.
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.
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:
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.
- A transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
- Involves the transfer of ownership or control of?
- 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
- 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier. 49 U.S.C. ? 42112 (b)(4).
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.
Finally, you are incorrect. Your lawyers are in the debate because it makes them money and for no other reason.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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$$ed at someone, fine, but don't blame the whole pilot group. If you listen to to OGHOON, we will get DOH anyway so I wouldn't worry.
For those of you that are mad at the 1108, even if they wanted to sign the agreement with Ricci, there is no way that National would have let them. First off, one pilot group can't sing away the rights of another group. Second, Ricci's excuse for M-B not being valid in this instance is beyond absurd. Even if the Teamsters had a ratified merger policy, when M-B refers to merger policy it means the unions national merger policy not the local airlines merger policy. Third, the 1108 would have breached their fiduciary duty to represent the CitationAir pilots and National would have been facing a lawsuit from the CitationAir pilots, which they would have lost.
Ricci must have known this so i'm not sure what his game is. Maybe his lawyers suck, maybe he's trying to jack the Teamsters, maybe he's trying to get more concessions from Cessna, Maybe all three.
For the record, there was only one CitationAir pilot that was advocating decertifying the Teamsters if the Teamster's merger policy was not changed. My beef was that the CitationAir pilots got the Teamsters on property to help make this a career job and the old/unwritten/not ratified merger policy would have guaranteed that our careers would have been effectively over in the event of a merger with FLOPS. We should get a BETTER quality of life because we are Teamsters not worse. So if you want to be pi$$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.