Flexjet Management Promotes Calling Pilots while in Rest

[Praetorian]

lim it ed adjective
1. restricted in size, amount, or extent.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. If Jet Solutions is a Flight Options brand partner, and all Flex pilots have agency agreements with Solutions, how exactly is the number of FO trips they fly restricted? Did I miss the scope provision that restricts the amount of third-party charter or brand partner flying the company may use...

Yes

...or is that still a big hole in the contract scope clause as we've discussed on here before?

The only 'limiting' factor for DAC in sending more trips to the Flex side is that FO crews have a much lower hourly labor cost (not really the preferred way to guarantee job security for your members, is it?). If FO dispatch availability tanks during upcoming negotiations, I think they will send trips to the Flex side, the only 'limit' being what the Flex fleet can handle. Please explain to us what the IBT will do to stop that? Or is that threat 'inconceivable'?

CBA Section "1.3(b)(1) Subcontract Charter shall not be used to reduce existing positions or to slow expansion. " You will notice this section of the CBA was cited in the union's pending grievance.

Also I suspect your concern is the subject of fence negotiations and will be addressed.

I know you have some kind of axe to grind with our union. But since we're headed back to collective bargaining in the fall, don't you think its high time you stopped airing this stuff in public? Time to circle the wagons.

If you want to raise these issues, why don't you do it with the union's leadership in person, or on our message board, where they can be addressed directly and more thoroughly?

 

[el raton]

Under 91k you are right

If they choose to run 135 then it wouldbe different

Our 91k/135 rest rules pretty much mirror each other.

 

[el raton]

CBA Section "1.3(b)(1) Subcontract Charter shall not be used to reduce existing positions or to slow expansion. " You will notice this section of the CBA was cited in the union's pending grievance.

Also I suspect your concern is the subject of fence negotiations and will be addressed.

I know you have some kind of axe to grind with our union. But since we're headed back to collective bargaining in the fall, don't you think its high time you stopped airing this stuff in public? Time to circle the wagons.

If you want to raise these issues, why don't you do it with the union's leadership in person, or on our message board, where they can be addressed directly and more thoroughly?

Yet you are all too willing to air Flex's "stuff" in public.

 

[squawk]

Any part of a contract can be willfully ignored. Just look throughout aviation labor history for these actions. Scope is the most frequently abused. The union must perceive a scope violation and argue it before management. Management can just tell the union to go through the grievance process. Scope violations are not always so transparent and there is a lot of interpretation by both sides. This process can take a very long time, months and months, years, and in the meantime, the violations continues.

Just saying this because so many IBT members speak of scope as if it acts like a preventive restraining order. Not so. Aviation managers have walked all over very strong scope agreements in order to archive operational goals. They do it willfully because there are no consequences other than having a mediator tell them to cease after a long grievance process.

Now I fully expect some rabid IBT member to tell me what a knave in the woods I am. I say, your scope is not as rigid as you think, and, it does not prevent managers from doing what they need or plan to do with the operation.

 

[The Architect]

Can You Say Injuction?

Any part of a contract can be willfully ignored. Just look throughout aviation labor history for these actions. Scope is the most frequently abused. The union must perceive a scope violation and argue it before management. Management can just tell the union to go through the grievance process. Scope violations are not always so transparent and there is a lot of interpretation by both sides. This process can take a very long time, months and months, years, and in the meantime, the violations continues.

Just saying this because so many IBT members speak of scope as if it acts like a preventive restraining order. Not so. Aviation managers have walked all over very strong scope agreements in order to archive operational goals. They do it willfully because there are no consequences other than having a mediator tell them to cease after a long grievance process.

Now I fully expect some rabid IBT member to tell me what a knave in the woods I am. I say, your scope is not as rigid as you think, and, it does not prevent managers from doing what they need or plan to do with the operation.

"Willfully ignored?" I think not.

No "mediators" are involved in this process.

Also, while the grievance process is ongoing, labor-management usually tries to reach a settlement.

And, of course, there are court injunctions to cease and desist. That's federal court. Good luck on telling a federal judge your not complying with his order.

Oh ya. IBT 1108 hands down won a scope grievance a few years ago against Flight Options. Took a few months. But an "arbitrator" clearly ruled in favor of the IBT.

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

They do it willfully because there are no consequences other than having a mediator tell them to cease after a long grievance process.
NJ pilots also got a check.

 

[Praetorian]

Yet you are all too willing to air Flex's "stuff" in public.

I'm just suggesting he take it here http://forum.ibt1108.org where it will mostly stay among the pilots.

If I remember you were also invited to take part in the discussions in that forum. Maybe you should take the lead in moving this discussion over there.

Or not. And we can keep showing our collective a$$es to managment here in public.

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

Are we invited on yammer yet?

 

[The Architect]

Respectful Clarification

They do it willfully because there are no consequences other than having a mediator tell them to cease after a long grievance process.
NJ pilots also got a check.

GC-

With all do respect...

It is important to clarify that "mediators" are not part of the grievance process. It appears that the term "mediators" is being used when the reference to such individuals is "arbitrators."

These are VERY different individuals with very different jobs when its comes to labor-management disputes and negotiations.

And there can being serious consequences with not following an arbitrator's decision. Finally, an "injunction" by a federal court is a different process ordered by a federal judge.

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

Sorry. I was relying on squawk's expertise.

 

[BlueNose]

cba section "1.3(b)(1) subcontract charter shall not be used to reduce existing positions or to slow expansion. " you will notice this section of the cba was cited in the union's pending grievance.

- And without actual numerical limits on sell-off, I think this clause is toothless, and I suspect you know the same. With the ridiculous 4.0 staffing ratio the contract allows, how many more shares could be sold before FO is obligated to hire another pilot? You see the numbers, you should know the answer. According to the contract, isn't the company still overstaffed? They can never actually fly the demand at anywhere near a 4/1 ratio, but they can use Flex's capacity at will, without violiating the contract. And just how would you ever prove that the company would 'slow expansion'?

also i suspect your concern is the subject of fence negotiations and will be addressed.

i know you have some kind of axe to grind with our union. But since we're headed back to collective bargaining in the fall, don't you think its high time you stopped airing this stuff in public? Time to circle the wagons.

- The only issue I have is that the FO pilots are screwed, and my dues helped pay for it. The IBT won representation because of failed leadership in the company, but a good portion of the conditions being endured by the pilot group now and for the next few years are because of obvious leadership failings in the IBT. Yet you not only don't admit it, you come on here to present yourselves as saviors of the pilots for both sides of the new house. The fact is that the FO pilots now work in a union sweatshop with the worst labor conditions in the fractional industry. Wages are low, scope is weak, and with no effective limits on sell-off, and now having an in-house group (Flex) to pick it up without the normal financial loss to the company, the pilot group has lost their only traditional leverage when negotiations get tough. With RLA rules, management can play prevent defense for years before actually making any concessions in a new contract. That part's not your fault, but I don't think you've been honest with the membership about what to expect. We'll see how the patience and support holds up when we go into 2017 with status quo still in effect. How will you prevent that scenario, or do you not agree that it's likely? KR can push this as far as he wants, because he knows your only real remedy is filing a single carrier suit that, if won, would probably lead to decertification.

if you want to raise these issues, why don't you do it with the union's leadership in person, or on our message board, where they can be addressed directly and more thoroughly?

- You publish Flex company memos here, then write this? Afraid of a little sunshine? "Nothing is covered up that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark shall be heard in the light."

_____

 

[TWA 2 ASA FO]

I'm just suggesting he take it here http://forum.ibt1108.org where it will mostly stay among the pilots.

If I remember you were also invited to take part in the discussions in that forum. Maybe you should take the lead in moving this discussion over there.

Or not. And we can keep showing our collective a$$es to managment here in public.

We were originally told that this message board would be only FO and FJ pilots. "Mostly" shows that there would be others. Who would these other people be?

Most of the FJ pilots didn't want to sign up since we were required to hive the IBT personal information that a lot of us felt was not a great idea.

So far it only seems that one side is really showing it's a$$es to anyone, and that would be the group represented ty the IBT.

 

[GlorifiedCabbie]

Welcome on board BlueNose. FO pilots are tired of the union sweatshop conditions we have to endure here. I just hope the Flex pilots are going to help us raise our standards. I'm counting on you to help us out. On the other hand, I hope it doesn't get ugly again. We went thru that once before.

 

[Praetorian]

_____

You're making a lot of bad assumptions here pal, but I'll play along. I don't think our contract is perfect, but given the circumstances under which the agreement was negotiated - worst recession in 80 years, lukewarm support from the pilot group and the fact that it was a first contract, starting from scratch - I think the union did an excellent job with it. Do I think every part of it is perfect? No! But the good thing is, unlike the FX pilots who will take what they are given from management, we get to go back to the table this fall and try again. Maybe this time things will be different. Maybe this time our pilot group will support our union. One thing is for sure, the economy is picking up, and the Majors are starting to hire away our pilots, this should put some pressure on the company to improve our lot in life, or risk loosing us, with full knowledge that given our current starting wages, few pilots will be willing to sign up. I bet right now they'd have to call 100 furloughed pilots to get 10 to accept. And if the company ultimately needs to hire, like when MS tried to hire, many of the low time pilots that answer the call will not be able to pass the training.

I fundamentally disagree with you about scope. I think we have excellent scope language in our CBA, but it functions as a system. No one part can be evaluated individually. I think it'd be easy to prove the company is slowing expansion, just establish a trend over several quarters. If history is any guide the situation with FO/FX will all play out over time (probably years) and in the end you will see that our scope language is pretty good. Btw I think one of the bad assumptions you're making is that FX has been flying a lot of our trips. How do you know this to be true? From what I hear their staffing levels are also maxed out over there. They have enough trouble covering their own trips.

The second part of your response reads like one of the rants the in-house bunch used to put up. I say "used" because they're clearly dead in the water. One man show now. It also comes across as pure FUD. But at least managements FUD has a purpose. Yours really doesn't seem too, unless you enjoy self flagellation. Anyways I disagree that Flight Options pilots have, "the worst labor conditions in the fractional industry." Really? Do you remember how it was before the CBA? Do you remember the rolling duty days? Looks like the FX guys are going to find out all about them, which I think was probably a motivating factor for some to post that letter up on here. To remind the FO pilots what it used to be like. Do you remember the "special check-rides" for pilots perceived to be malcontents? Do you remember when they jacked up our employee contributions to our medical plan with an email? Do you remember the "productivity workshops"? Do you remember the RIF?

So give me a break, we go to work each week with a set of rules that are in stone. We have a just cause provision to protect us from unilateral discipline. We have the ability to file grievances when our contract is violated. We have union stewards on duty 24/7 to help us work thinks out with management when they just aren't listening. Btw, from what I've seen most of those things are worked out, because management understands that the union will enforce our CBA.

So what are you trying to accomplish with this crap on here. TWA is right, your showing our a$$ to management. Difference between us and them is we are going back to the table and must stand strong. It really doesn't matter what they do right now. You think the union's leadership is lying to the pilots? You think the CBA stinks? What good does trashing the one group of people whose interests are precisely aligned with yours on here do you or anyone else? You want to make things better, get involved with our union and help.

 

[Praetorian]

We were originally told that this message board would be only FO and FJ pilots. "Mostly" shows that there would be others. Who would these other people be?

You know Guys like you, who give their user names and passwords to management, so they can read the boards.

Most of the FJ pilots didn't want to sign up since we were required to hive the IBT personal information that a lot of us felt was not a great idea.

But you think it's better to have these discussions on here where the world can see them?

So far it only seems that one side is really showing it's a$$es to anyone, and that would be the group represented ty the IBT.

After reading BlueNose's post I have to give you that last one.