FlexJet / Flight Options / SkyJet

[gret]

Your informational research with the Mesa debacle should be noted. However, is not the same situation. Closer research of that litigation compared to this situation will indicate that significant difference arise.

Close, but no prize.

The significance is in the scope language of Flight Options CBA. The parties (holdings and parents) are not publically denying the application of the scope portion of the Flight Options CBA. Why? They can't.

So, read carefully. You need not be an attorney and this is not a "gray" area.

"Except as otherwise provided in this Section, all present and future revenue flying performed in and for the service of the Company, its Affiliates, or the Company's Parent, including present and future flying performed on behalf of the Company, its Affiliates, or Parent pursuant to any agreement or arrangement to [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman][FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]which the Company, any of its Affiliates, or Parent holds a majority interest, shall be performed by Pilots named on the Flight Options Pilots Seniority List in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and any other applicable agreement between the Company and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division." [/FONT][/FONT]

Again, Flight Options advertises the sale of fractions, membership and jetcard (service) for the Challenger 300 (check their website). The flying performed (persons employed as pilots flying aircraft) on behalf of the Company (Flight Options), any of its Affiliates, or PARENT (DAC and ALL Holding Companies)...SHALL be performed by pilots named on the Flight Options Pilot Seniority List.

One can make the argument that Jet Solutions is doing the work with Flexjet pilots. Again. Close, but no prize!

Read the language.

On a side note. Notice that "the Challenger 300 will be available beginning Fall 2014."

Now, the Flexjet Pilot group may in fact crew the Challenger 300's in Fall 2014. However, it won't occur, not even begin, without fence agreements negotiated between the parites.

They's always a gray area.

Too lazy to look it up, but I believe on another thread there is a discussion of the ownership chain and the fact that the normal rules of attribution don't apply for one of the companies that was involved in the acquisition. Hence, the statements that have been underlined above may be moot. If I remember correctly, the ownership is not the same for both companies.

A lot of tilting at windmills going on and it's clear most posting don't know jack about anything...management probably doesn't either as they are working thru the options from a business and operational standpoint....and cheating pilots isn't even on their list so the naysayers may want to quit flattering themselves...there are bigger issues to work on.

Find it interesting that some like to say "it isn't Flexjet anymore"...you'r right, and it isn't FLOPS anymore either. A whole new beginning and one should embrace the opportunities that present themselves.

 

[The Architect]

On Point. Bravo!

They's always a gray area.

Too lazy to look it up, but I believe on another thread there is a discussion of the ownership chain and the fact that the normal rules of attribution don't apply for one of the companies that was involved in the acquisition. Hence, the statements that have been underlined above may be moot. If I remember correctly, the ownership is not the same for both companies.

A lot of tilting at windmills going on and it's clear most posting don't know jack about anything...management probably doesn't either as they are working thru the options from a business and operational standpoint....and cheating pilots isn't even on their list so the naysayers may want to quit flattering themselves...there are bigger issues to work on.

Find it interesting that some like to say "it isn't Flexjet anymore"...you'r right, and it isn't FLOPS anymore either. A whole new beginning and one should embrace the opportunities that present themselves.

Very much on point. Bravo!

However, the CBA DOES apply to ALL parties involved. Not statements, but provisions from a COLLECTIVE bargaining agreement. (The successor transaction language hasn't even been discussed in detail here yet.) Meaning ALL signatories agreed to the contract. Including all of the parties bound by the associated letters of agreement.

Same parent. Parent letter at the top of the umbrella. Same umbrella down to the sister-companies which are, for the time being, separate with regard to the pilot groups and their seniority lists.

The two worlds will collide. Not a matter of if, but when. Union or not.

 

[Praetorian]

I agree that there is no "gray" area.

The point is if KR is as bad as noted here than he could choose to discard the CBA and do what he wants to. His actions will be challenged in court by the IBT and the IBT WILL win but at what price? KR will decide if he wants to pay the price? It could be a ploy to tie up contract negotiations? Who knows what he will do.

Our last contract took 6 years to negotiate and we started 1 year before it was due. The company would violate the contract and then it would be grieved and as all of you know very grievance must be resolved before a new contract. I guess my point is watch for him to drag and drag his feet and to slow negotiations down for as long as he can.

2018 is my bet on a new contact for you guys $100 any takers? According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics the time line for negotiations vary from 16.5 to 72.1 months (Airlines).

With all respect. You've suggested that KR will essentially do a legal end run around our CBA, drag things out in court and buy his way out from underneath our union and his contractural obligations. Sums it up right?

So if this is true, what does it say about your future as a Flex pilot under DAC. If you truly believe, as you've implied that even with a union and all of its lawyers, political influence and power the FO pilots will end up being screwed, what does this say for your continued employment under your "employment agreement" without a union?

 

[gret]

Very much on point. Bravo!

However, the CBA DOES apply to ALL parties involved. Not statements, but provisions from a COLLECTIVE bargaining agreement. (The successor transaction language hasn't even been discussed in detail here yet.) Meaning ALL signatories agreed to the contract. Including all of the parties bound by the associated letters of agreement.

Same parent. Parent letter at the top of the umbrella. Same umbrella down to the sister-companies which are, for the time being, separate with regard to the pilot groups and their seniority lists.

The two worlds will collide. Not a matter of if, but when. Union or not.

Would agree in substance over form...but I think there are two different "parents" involved...look closely as it is very subtle. Not saying it would hold up in litigation, but they are different.

At the end of the day, it is doubtful that management is trying to do something with the objective of hurting pilots, or any employee. Acquisitions are always dramatic and the process of combining the moving parts is difficult enough without having hidden agendas.

Give 'em a chance and if it doesn't work out...the employees always have the opportunity to express their feelings one way or another. Chasing make believe demons and dealing with "what ifs" is useless...spend the time with family, play golf, or do something more productive...why be miserable about something that you "think...worse case" will happen? Makes no sense...

 

[The Architect]

Parents?

Would agree in substance over form...but I think there are two different "parents" involved...look closely as it is very subtle. Not saying it would hold up in litigation, but they are different.

At the end of the day, it is doubtful that management is trying to do something with the objective of hurting pilots, or any employee. Acquisitions are always dramatic and the process of combining the moving parts is difficult enough without having hidden agendas.

Give 'em a chance and if it doesn't work out...the employees always have the opportunity to express their feelings one way or another. Chasing make believe demons and dealing with "what ifs" is useless...spend the time with family, play golf, or do something more productive...why be miserable about something that you "think...worse case" will happen? Makes no sense...

Ok. Name the two parents.

 

[gret]

Ok. Name the two parents.

Sure...ruin a perfectly good Saturday morning of watching the Valium taking hosts on the Golf Channel talking about Bubba Watson.

Here you go-

On the thread "Flex Jet read file"-

Post#34

1.10(i) "Parent" means an Entity that controls another Entity. The Flight Options LLC parent company is Flight Options Holdings II, Inc, and "Parent" does not include any entity that controls Flight Options Holdings II, Inc.

Post #35

Provides (per a letter agreement) that if Directional Capital LLC establishes an "air carrier" to conduct operations similar to FLOPS, then they must use FLOPS pilots?unless, Directional owns less than 50% of the entity.

As Jet Solutions is the "air carrier", and my understanding is that questions remain as to whether Dennis Keith would retain ownership, Directional has not acquired an air carrier. Flexjet is not an air carrier.​

The 50% hurdle probably comes into play as Directional formed Flexjet LLC to acquire the operations and the shareholder mix of this company is likely significantly different than that of Flight Options Holdings II, Inc.

The reason being Directional Capital LLC is a private equity fund and uses investors to fund acquisitions. The investors do not invest in Directional Capital LLC, but in separate arrangements (i.e. partnership or LLC) which owns the operating company. Private equity funds are management vehicles and do not hold significant ownership in the companies acquired.

When someone says the company is owned by Directional, they are mistaken, the funds and investors retain the ownership and Directional is probably a holder of a small percentage of the company.​

As stated, the issues are still being resolved and while the door is open for devious acts and the spirit of the agreement could be broken, most likely the literal language would give the shareholders the advantage if they wish to use it. They will not and all of this is much ado about nothing.

 

[chief9404]

I think there are far fewer supports at flex than the 1108 realizes. It's a big risk to put it to a vote. Personally I was hoping they'd just agree to some fences and let us stay separate.

Travel Air wanted it separate as well, because they had all the new planes while Flops had a mismatch fleet of junk. Well, we know how that went.

 

[The Architect]

Back to the Umbrella.

Sure...ruin a perfectly good Saturday morning of watching the Valium taking hosts on the Golf Channel talking about Bubba Watson.

Here you go-

On the thread "Flex Jet read file"-

Post#34

1.10(i) "Parent" means an Entity that controls another Entity. The Flight Options LLC parent company is Flight Options Holdings II, Inc, and "Parent" does not include any entity that controls Flight Options Holdings II, Inc.

Post #35

Provides (per a letter agreement) that if Directional Capital LLC establishes an "air carrier" to conduct operations similar to FLOPS, then they must use FLOPS pilots?unless, Directional owns less than 50% of the entity.

As Jet Solutions is the "air carrier", and my understanding is that questions remain as to whether Dennis Keith would retain ownership, Directional has not acquired an air carrier. Flexjet is not an air carrier.
​

The 50% hurdle probably comes into play as Directional formed Flexjet LLC to acquire the operations and the shareholder mix of this company is likely significantly different than that of Flight Options Holdings II, Inc.

The reason being Directional Capital LLC is a private equity fund and uses investors to fund acquisitions. The investors do not invest in Directional Capital LLC, but in separate arrangements (i.e. partnership or LLC) which owns the operating company. Private equity funds are management vehicles and do not hold significant ownership in the companies acquired.

When someone says the company is owned by Directional, they are mistaken, the funds and investors retain the ownership and Directional is probably a holder of a small percentage of the company.
​

As stated, the issues are still being resolved and while the door is open for devious acts and the spirit of the agreement could be broken, most likely the literal language would give the shareholders the advantage if they wish to use it. They will not and all of this is much ado about nothing.

So, the assumption is that DAC acquired Flexjet, creating Flexjet LLC. So, where is Flight Options Holdings II? Where did Epic Aero Holding come from?

No 50% hurdle here folks.

Now, with regard to "air carrier." Step lightly. An "air carrier" is defined differently when used by the DOT, FAA and NMB.

A little food for thought:
RLA Section 181. Application of subchapter I to carriers by air

All of the provisions of subchapter I of this chapter except section 153 of this title are extended to and shall cover every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government, and every air pilot or other person who performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such carrier or carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service.

Remember the "agent" agreement every Flexjet pilot has with Jet Solutions?

As to Jet Solutions. Let's see. Flexjet, LLC owns the airplanes. Leases them to Jet Solutions to operate as Part 135. Provides pilots employed by Flexjet, LLC, as agents, to fly the trips originally sold by Flexjet, LLC. Does anyone really believe that an arbitrator or judge is going to buy into Flexjet, LLC not being less than an arms-length in that transaction? Or rather, the NMB?

And lastly, the beginning of the Flight Options agreement starts with "Pursuant to the certification by the National Mediation Board in Case No. R-7072 dated March 3, 2006, this Agreement is entered into by and between...pursuant to the terms of the Railway Labor Act..."

 

[gret]

So, the assumption is that DAC acquired Flexjet, creating Flexjet LLC. So, where is Flight Options Holdings II? Where did Epic Aero Holding come from?

No 50% hurdle here folks.

Now, with regard to "air carrier." Step lightly. An "air carrier" is defined differently when used by the DOT, FAA and NMB.

A little food for thought:
RLA ?181. Application of subchapter I to carriers by air

All of the provisions of subchapter I of this chapter except section 153 of this title are extended to and shall cover every common carrier by air engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and every carrier by air transporting mail for or under contract with the United States Government, and every air pilot or other person who performs any work as an employee or subordinate official of such carrier or carriers, subject to its or their continuing authority to supervise and direct the manner of rendition of his service.

Remember the "agent" agreement every Flexjet pilot has with Jet Solutions?

As to Jet Solutions. Let's see. Flexjet, LLC owns the airplanes. Leases them to Jet Solutions to operate as Part 135. Provides pilots employed by Flexjet, LLC, as agents, to fly the trips originally sold by Flexjet, LLC. Does anyone really believe that an arbitrator of judge is going to buy into Flexjet, LLC not being less than an arms-length in that transaction? Or rather, the NMB?

The companies are in separate entities owned by the investors with Directional as the manager.

Regarding Jet Solutions, the FAA has bought it for years...don't agree with it and don't understand how the Dallas FSDO let it continue, but that's the way it has been.

Holes in the regulations, and even the labor contract, big enough to drive a Peterbilt thru.

 

[albatros101]

Agreed. but KR does not have the gold and he does not make the rules, that is where the investors come in, if they don't like what he is doing he will be heading down the road and word is that some of the big investors are not to happy with him.

KR can not afford the Flex or the FO crews unhappy as that will kill the business.The business is to make money for the investors and if he fails he is gone. I don't fear KR he has a boss just like we do.