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.