Flight Options loses more pilots to Gemini

[Voice Of Reason]

Well, I hope the leopard changed its spots

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Press Release[/font]

close window

Contact: Arlene Salac/Jim Peters
Phone: 718-553-3015
-
Date Posted: October 16, 1998

FAA Proposes Fine Against Gemini Air Cargo

New York - The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed a civil penalty of $75,000 against Gemini Air Cargo Inc., which is based at Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C.

Gemini Air Cargo holds an Air Carrier Operating Certificate from the FAA, which allows it conduct operations under Part 121 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs).

FAA has proposed the civil penalty against the carrier for violation of FARs governing methods, techniques and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or in the manufacturer's Instructions for Continued Airworthiness for a Douglas DC 10-30F aircraft.

The violations include failing to perform maintenance on the aircraft in a manner as to return the aircraft to its original or properly altered condition; and to use materials of such a quality as to return the aircraft to its original or properly altered condition. These failures rendered the aircraft unairworthy. As a result, Gemini Air Cargo operated the DC-10 in an unairworthy condition for more than 90 flights between April 20 and June 9, 1998.

Gemini Air Cargo has 30 days from receipt of the FAA notice to submit a reply to the agency. This announcement is made in accordance with the FAA's practice of releasing information to the public on newly issued enforcement actions involving penalties of $50,000 or more.

###

 

[Voice Of Reason]

FLOPS not so bad after all, huh?

USDOL/OALJ Reporter

McBride v. Gemini Air Cargo, 2004-AIR-7 (ALJ June 2, 2004)



U.S. Department of Labor[size=-1]Office of Administrative Law Judges
800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N
Washington, DC 20001-8002[/size]

Issue Date: 02 June 2004
Case No.: 2004-AIR-00007

................................................................
In the Matter of:

J. REED MCBRIDE, et al,
Complainants,

v.

GEMINI AIR CARGO,
Respondent.
...............................................................



ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S SECOND MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION

Respondent, Gemini Air Cargo, filed Gemini's Second Motion for Summary Decision on May 25, 2004. Respondent argues that Complainants' March 7, 2003 complaint based on failure to rehire must be dismissed as time-barred because the Complainants' original complaints of retaliatory discharge were dismissed as time-barred. Respondent maintains that "such refusal (to rehire) does not constitute a new act of discrimination and, consequently, is incapable of breathing new life into Complainants' time-barred claim." Respondent's Motion at 1-2.

Respondent argues that an alleged failure to rehire cannot be used to "resurrect the old discriminatory act" of retaliatory discharge. As support, Respondent refers to various Circuit Court and U.S. District Court decisions including Burnam v. Amoco Container Co., 755 F.2d 893, 894 (11th Cir. 1985). Respondent's Motion at 3-5. Respondent argues that, "if refusal to rehire was considered a discreet discriminatory act, a potential plaintiff could always circumvent the limitations by reapplying for employment." Respondent's Motion at 3.

The parties have already been advised in the Order Granting Respondent's Motion In Limine that this proceeding will not serve as a "resurrection" of the original complaints of alleged improper termination that have been dismissed as time-barred. Nevertheless, it is clear under the whistleblower statutes administered by the Department of Labor that a refusal to rehire may constitute a separate, distinct act of prohibited, discriminatory retaliation. Artrip v. Ebasco Services, Inc., 1989-ERA-23 (Sec'y., Mar. 21, 1995) (an employer's refusal to rehire a former employee may constitute an "adverse employment action") (slip opinion attached). See also Hasan v. Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., ARB Case No. 00-080 (ARB, Jan. 30, 2001) (slip opinion attached). Holtclaw v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, 1995-CAA-7 (ARB, Feb. 13, 1997) (slip opinion attached).

[Page 2]

Because (1) "refusal to rehire" may constitute an adverse employment action under precedent set forth by the Secretary of Labor and the Department's Administrative Review Board, and (2) there remains genuine issues of material fact regarding the circumstances surrounding the refusal to rehire, Respondent's summary decision motion must be denied.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Gemini's Second Motion for Summary Decision is DENIED.



Thomas M. Burke
Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge

Back to Top
www.oalj.dol.gov
www.dol.gov

 

[Voice Of Reason]

March 9, 2005 DOL Home > OALJ Home > USDOL/OALJ Reporter USDOL/OALJ Reporter

McBride v. Gemini Air Cargo, 2004-AIR-7 (ALJ June 29, 2004)



U.S. Department of Labor[size=-1]Office of Administrative Law Judges
800 K Street, NW, Suite 400-N
Washington, DC 20001-8002[/size]http://www.oalj.dol.gov/images/dollogo.gif

Issue Date: 29 June 2004
Case No.: 2004-AIR-00007

................................................................
In the Matter of:

J. REED MCBRIDE, et al,
Complainants,

v.

GEMINI AIR CARGO,
Respondent.
...............................................................



DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING
RESPONDENT'S THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY DECISION
AND CANCELLING HEARING

Complainants, J. Reed McBride, Jesus Pietri, Omar Tejada, and Homero Herrera, filed a second complaint on March 7, 2003 under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, 49 U.S.C. § 42121 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") alleging that Respondent, Gemini Air Cargo, refused to rehire them in retaliation for reporting safety concerns to the Federal Aviation Administration.1

By Orders dated May 17, 2004 and June 2, 2004, the undersigned denied two motions for summary decision filed by Respondent holding, inter alia, that failure to rehire constitutes an adverse employment action that may support a finding of retaliatory discrimination in violation of the Act.

I
Third Motion for Summary Decision

Respondent filed a Third Motion for Summary Decision on May 28, 2004. Respondent argues that it did not take any adverse action against Complainants as "the undisputed facts actually show that Gemini never received applications for re-employment from any of the Complainants and, consequently, never even considered re-hiring them." Respondent's Motion at 2. Secondly, Respondent argues that Complainants did not file their complaint within ninety days of an adverse employment action as required by 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(1),<A href="http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/wblower/decsn/04air07d.htm#F2">2 because, "contrary to Complainants' allegations – no personnel were hired by Gemini to replace Complainants during the 90 day period immediately preceding the filing of their complaint."

[Page 2]

Complainants filed a Response to Respondent's Third Motion for Summary Decision on June 7, 2004. They argue that, according to Section 3.20(c) of the Employee Handbook, Respondent's policy is to "observe recall procedures" based on the date of lay-off of former employees and performance appraisals. Complainants maintain that the provisions of the Handbook apply to all employee staff, "including the former maintenance representatives, mechanics and inspectors and not just pilots and flight crews."

Complainants also counter Respondent's argument that it hired no inspectors or maintenance representatives within 90 days immediately preceding the filing of their complaint. In support of their position, Complainants attached excerpts of the deposition transcript of Homero Herrera, who testified that certain part-time contractors were hired to take the place of certain employees within 90 days of Complainants' January 2002 lay-offs. As a result, Complainants assert that there are genuine issues of material fact such that summary decision is not proper.

Respondent filed a Reply to Complainants' Response to Gemini's Third Motion For Summary Decision on June 14, 2004. Respondent maintains that its Employee Handbook did not set forth a recall procedure for non-flight crew employees and it does not confer contractual rights upon employees. Moreover, Respondent asserts that there is no evidence that it hired inspectors or maintenance representatives within 90 days of the date of filing the March 7, 2003 complaint. In support of this assertion, Respondent attached the affidavit of Terry Gibson, Senior Generalist of Human Resources wherein she specifically states that, "[d]uring the period December 7, 2002 through March 7, 2003, Gemini hired no inspectors or maintenance representatives."



II
Discussion and conclusions

The second complaint in this case stems from a letter dated March 7, 2003 from J. Reed McBride to the Regional Supervisory Investigator for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. McBride stated that he "learned on January 6, 2003 from several current employees at Gemini Air Cargo that their management, for a second and third time hired additional personnel to work in our positions after terminating us." He does not, however, specifically state that the second or third rounds of hiring occurred within 90 days immediately preceding the filing of this complaint. His non-specific assertion, when compared to Gibson's specific assertion that no inspectors or maintenance representatives were hired during that 90 day period of time, does not yield a genuine issue of material fact.

Moreover, Complainants' reference to Herrera's deposition testimony does not support their position on the timeliness of their complaint. Herrera testified that he knew of replacement personnel hired within 90 days of his January 2002 lay-off. When asked whether he knew of any personnel hired from December 7, 2002 to March 7, 2003, Herrera testified that he did not. Herrera's testimony is not in conflict with Gibson's statement that no inspectors or maintenance representatives were hired during that 90 day period of time.

[Page 3]

Thus, the record, including the uncontradicted, sworn statement of Respondent's witness, shows that no inspectors or maintenance representatives were hired within 90 days of the filing of Complainants' second complaint on March 7, 2003. Accordingly, Claimants have not shown that they suffered an adverse employment action within ninety days of the filing of their complaint. This second complaint must be dismissed as time-barred.<A href="http://www.oalj.dol.gov/public/wblower/decsn/04air07d.htm#F3">3 Accordingly,



ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Gemini's Third Motion for Summary Decision is granted and this complaint is dismissed as time-barred; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing scheduled for August 10-11, 2004 in Miami, Florida is hereby cancelled.







Thomas M. Burke
Associate Chief Administrative Law Judge

<A name=F1>1 Complainants filed their first complaint against Respondent, Gemini Air Cargo, on April 4, 2002 alleging that they were laid off in retaliation for reporting safety concerns to the Federal Aviation Administration. By letter dated September 30, 2002, the U.S. Department of Labor's Deputy Regional Administrator concluded that the complaint was time-barred as it was filed "92 days from the date of the adverse action." Moreover, the Deputy Regional Administrator concluded that the terminations were due to economic hardship faced by Respondent in the wake of September 11, 2001, and not due to retaliation. No appeal to this determination was filed.

2 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(1) provides in part: (1) Filing and notification. A person who believes that he or she has been discharged or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation of subsection (a) may, not later than 90 days after the date on which such violation occurs, file (or have any person file on his or her behalf) a complaint with the Secretary of Labor alleging such discharge or discrimination.

3 Although this matter is dismissed as time-barred, Respondent's assertion, that the Employee Handbook contains only policies and procedures for recalling employees and did not confer any rights upon its employees, would have constituted insufficient grounds upon which to grant summary decision. A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Respondent comports with, or routinely deviates from, the written policies and procedures in the Handbook.

[url="http://www.oalj.dol.gov/images/topdoc.gif"]http://www.oalj.dol.gov/images/topdoc.gif[/url]

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Same old same old

From the June 27, 2003 print edition
Gemini denied
Dulles freight carrier's growth is stalled as feds say no to $30M loan guarantee
John Wilen
Staff Reporter
Dulles-based air freight carrier Gemini Air Cargo recently was refused a $29.7 million federal guarantee on a $33 million loan, effectively denying the company the financing for eight to 10 new cargo aircraft.

The decision comes despite restructuring efforts, such as cutting 175 employees -- 20 in the D.C. area -- over the past two years and a top management shuffle, which will save the company $350 million to $400 million over the next seven years, says Gemini CEO Tom Corcoran.

Corcoran says Gemini (www.geminiaircargo.com) still plans to buy the new planes, just not as quickly.

"We won't grow quite as fast," Corcoran says, "but ... we should be fine."

Indeed, Gemini is majority-owned by financial behemoth The Carlyle Group, which bought the company in 1999 and is investing an undisclosed amount as part of the restructuring, Corcoran says.

Carlyle also brought in Corcoran to replace founder William Stockbridge as CEO in 2001. Stockbridge no longer is with the company.

But Carlyle's investment, and the cuts Corcoran has made to Gemini's operating costs, didn't help the company secure the additional financing. According to a June 2 letter fromDaniel Montgomery, executive director of the Air Transportation Stabilization Board, Gemini's application for a federal loan guarantee was denied because "Gemini's proposal did not provide a reasonable assurance that Gemini would be able to repay the loan."

The ATSB determined that, "the calculations for Gemini implied a probability of default," Montgomery writes.

Corcoran says Gemini wasn't banking on the financing.

"We knew all along that we might not get the loan," he says.


The denial simply means Gemini has to stay focused on keeping costs down, he says.

'pretty close to break-even'
Gemini is privately owned but reports financial information to the Department of Transportation. According to DoT filings, which Corcoran confirmed, the company lost $76.7 million on revenue of $160.1 million in the year ended June 30, 2002, down from a profit of about $6.3 million on revenue of $192.6 million the previous year.

For fiscal 2003, Corcoran says the company will generate close to $200 million in revenue, and "we should be ... pretty close to break-even."

Gemini essentially is a subcontractor for other cargo carriers, what's known in air cargo industry jargon as an ACMI -- or, aircraft, crew, maintenance and insurance provider. ACMI carriers transport about 8.1 percent of the world's air cargo, according to industry estimates.

The company has long-term contracts with carriers such as DHL, operates joint ventures with carriers such as Qantas, and provides on-demand charter cargo capacity for cargo carriers and the military.

"They're sort of the modern equivalent of the tramp steamer," says Leo Schefer, president of the Washington Airports Task Force (www.washingtonairports.com). "They really provide cargo lift on demand."

Gemini owns 16 cargo jets, four of which have been "parked" -- that is, taken out of service -- since early last year. Gemini operates globally.

An industry's pain
Boeing, which produces a widely read annual report on the air cargo industry (www.boeing.com/commercial/cargo), reports that "after growing 6.2 percent and 7.1 percent in 1999 and 2000, respectively, world air cargo traffic fell a dramatic 5.9 percent during 2001."

Boeing attributes the decline, which it calls "the worst ever in the modern air cargo industry," to the downturn in the economy.

Gemini's pain is felt industrywide, analysts say.


"Every player has a tough time making returns above their cost of capital," says Alex Brand, managing director of equity research at BB&T Capital Markets (www.bbandt.com) in Richmond, via e-mail. "That will continue to be the challenge for Gemini and others in the industry."


Corcoran also blames the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for the industry's continued troubles.

Going forward, Boeing says air cargo volumes will grow between 5.2 percent and 7.9 percent a year over the next 20 years, a forecast tied to predictions of global economic growth. How much of that growth various carriers will get depends on a number of factors, Boeing says.

Corcoran thinks he's implemented operational changes that will help Gemini succeed in an increasingly competitive industry. The company's focused on keeping costs down and providing superior service, he says.

But he realizes there's still a hard road ahead.

He says: "The game has changed in our industry substantially."

E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 703/312-8345

 

[Voice Of Reason]

interesting. i thought (it sounds as if i may be wrong) that FO was a good place to be. Gemeni seems like a great place. where else are folks leaving to.

sue

You weren't wrong about FLOPS. I am sure you realize that most pilots everywhere in the industry are b*tching right now no matter where they work. The problem at FLOPS is that the rumor mill tends to lend itself to more doom & gloom than really exists. You have to understand that there is a huge push right now from the IBT (now under the guise of "strong union"--as if you're supposed to believe it's not still them--, in hopes that that will change the MANY times FLOPS pilots have rejected them) really want their dues, and wants them now. Judging from the fact that NetJets new FOs are making pittifully and significantly less than what new FLOPS FOs make, I'd have to say thanks but no thanks. Flops needs a REAL, professional union, not a trucker's union. Pilots always want more than they have, and will always complain...but if you want better wages, you need a professional, white collar organization to help you. No one is going to pay higher wages to people who represent themselves with thugs.

Oh, yeah, BTW don't forget to sign away all of your personal info to "strong union"/IBT's site...Don't worry, they'll erase it....Yeah. Intelligent professionals they must be used to dealing with... (sarcasm)
I guess the two clueless individuals who'd actually DO that would be in charge of 'developing a contract'? Nice. Look at the great contract NJA has after all of these years with MANY people behind 'negotiations.' (again, sarcasm)

I'd be more willing to latch on to FedEx's or UPS's union than these scary low class jokers (meaning IBT, not NJA pilots)

 

[WrknStff]

That's the problem.

There just aren't too many greener pastures in aviation anymore. I think its time we dug in our heels and try to make where we are a better place instead of always bailing on the hopes of easy street.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

There just aren't too many greener pastures in aviation anymore. I think its time we dug in our heels and try to make where we are a better place instead of always bailing on the hopes of easy street.

I totally agree WrknStff! I would just want to be represented by a professional union that will make things better, especially after YEARS of "negotiating." I want dues that go to more than paying some thug to troll the boards all day and spread venom and scare tactics to try and get people to sign up.

 

[fogrunner]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I smell hijack!!![/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I post positive welcome aboard message to people who have successfully interviewed here. All you find to post is old, dated material. Remember this board was originally set up to pass on information on hiring and interview information.[/font]

So what did you do? Perhaps you did a Google search for Gemini FAA violations?

Well in the same time period, numerous National, Major and Global carriers received FAA fines and violations. My purpose here is not to throw mud. Gemini is not perfect, however, who is?


http://www.faa.gov/apa/PR/SAFETY/Safety98.cfm

I understand your pain, I worked for options for 5 years. The frustration seems endless. Who is going to represent you guys. Don't hold your breath for ALPA. With NJA gobbling up nearly 70% of the new owners for 04, I would be worried.

Perhaps you have talked to some of the ex-Options guys who work here. I know I have, and they are very happy with their decision.




Now for some positive news.............


[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Air cargo shipments up 13.4%[/font]
The International Air Transport Association said air cargo in 2004 increased 13.4 percent over year-ago levels, as global aviation enjoyed an across-the-board recovery.

"The traffic recovery in 2004 was phenomenal across all regions," said Giovanni Bisignani, director general of IATA.

International scheduled passenger traffic increased 15.3 percent.

Freight saw double-digit growth in all regions with Middle East carriers reporting the highest increases at 26.8 percent.

IATA forecasts an industry profit of $1.2 billion for 2005, based on stable fuel prices.

 

[Voice Of Reason]

"Perhaps you have talked to some of the ex-Options guys who work here. I know I have, and they are very happy with their decision."
Fogrunner

Of course they are, they just started! Who isn't elated when they start off with renewed "hope." That's exactly how everyone at FLOPS & NetJets started off.
No one is "Hijacking" the thread...I think it is pretty important to RESEARCH a company's background before touting it as the "coming savior." Companies don't change overnight, and the info I posted is not "old."

 

[Voice Of Reason]

"Since September Gemini has hired 10% of its new-hires from Flt Ops."

How many planes do they have (on the property: Meaning actual, not future speculation...remember the Envoys)?
How many pilots total have been hired since Sept?
(more research)