FltOptions may buy XOjet? Really?

[doh]

Thank you for proving my point. It is obvious that you aren't an expert. You are posting the part of the contract called "Successor Transactions" This is about keeping the contract in tack if your company is sold, bought or acquired. There is nothing about SCOPE, in there. It is about pilot pay protection, aircraft fences and seniority list protection and the integrity of the contract going forward. It also provides time lines to change the CBA if needed, all this if the company is bought or sold. SCOPE is different, it is about who is flying your owners.

I have read many contracts, weather your company is bought/sold or acquires someone has nothing to do with the scope clause in the CBA. I'm not saying you don't have a scope clause in your contract, I'm sure you do. However it isn't going to stop someone from buying you or you buying someone else. The contract should allow the company to continue to do business as before, while still providing protection(s) for the pilots.

Can I play too? It's whether not weather and intact not in tack. You started the spelling game...

 

[Praetorian]

Thank you for proving my point. It is obvious that you aren't an expert. You are posting the part of the contract called "Successor Transactions" This is about keeping the contract in tack if your company is sold, bought or acquired. There is nothing about SCOPE, in there. It is about pilot pay protection, aircraft fences and seniority list protection and the integrity of the contract going forward. It also provides time lines to change the CBA if needed, all this if the company is bought or sold. SCOPE is different, it is about who is flying your owners.

I have read many contracts, weather your company is bought/sold or acquires someone has nothing to do with the scope clause in the CBA. I'm not saying you don't have a scope clause in your contract, I'm sure you do. However it isn't going to stop someone from buying you or you buying someone else. The contract should allow the company to continue to do business as before, while still providing protection(s) for the pilots.

Ok stay with me here. The language I quoted was from section one of our contract, which is titled "Recognition and Scope". You stated the following, “Scope, has nothing to do with it, if one company buys another, it is all seniority list language at that point.” Additionally you’ve said, “I have read many contracts, weather your company is bought/sold or acquires someone has nothing to do with the scope clause in the CBA.” Both of these statements are untrue. As I pointed out, the language which defines what happens to the pilots if another carrier were to purchase Flops is contained in Section 1 “Recognition and Scope”, specifically in subsection 1.5(c), “Pilot Protections in the Event of an Acquisition of an Air Carrier”. I don’t know how this can be any clearer.

My original point was not that our scope protections would prevent another carrier from acquiring Flops, but that it would make Flops an unattractive accusation for a non-union shop. Notice Section 1.5(b)(3) says in part, "In the event of an operational merger, the representative of the post-merger craft or class shall be established pursuant to Section 2, Ninth of the Railway Labor Act, as amended."

Section 2 Ninth stipulates that in the event of an accusation, such as the one being contemplated here, following an operational merger the NMB will hold an election to determine who the bargaining representative of the combined pilot group will be. Given the recently enacted RLA election rules and the relative sizes of the two pilot groups in question, the Teamsters would undoubtedly win the election. So for XO the accusation of Flops would almost guarantee an union on the property, but if an accusation were to occur our pilots would be afforded significant job protections. Section one, yes “Scope”, also provides for pilot protections if Flops were to acquire some else.

Semantics aside, this rumor has been out there for some time now. Given the limits on access to capital that currently exist, I doubt Flops will acquire XO jet or anyone else. As for the acquisition of aircraft assets which other carriers hold in surplus, that remains to be seen. As for the idea that XO will acquire Flops, I really doubt that KR would sell the family business to Dubai, even if that were an attractive proposition. That would be like the Green Bay Packers selling Lambo to Jerry Jones.

 

[Praetorian]

RNObased - Not a contract expert, but the section you may be looking for is 1.4 - parallel operations - a short couple paragraphs in a 14 page long section.

1folinepilot - Don't doubt mgt is playing games, but do you have any tangible proof or concrete numbers "of the charter that MGT is selling off?

The language defining prohibitions on "parallel operations" as defined aviation contracts is designed to prevent the owners of an air-carrier from operating a separate, but similar operation with pilots not on the seniority list (non-union pilots). These operations are sometimes called “alter egos”.


1.4(a) The Company shall not establish a new air carrier to do fractional, JetPASS card holder or other flying of the type covered by this Agreement, unless such flying operations are flown by Pilots on the Flight Options Pilot Seniority List in accordance with this Agreement.

In addition to the language in “Scope” our contract also contains three seperate LOA’s designed to define the ownership structure at Flops, in an effort to rule out parallel operations.

None of this has anything to do with “Successor Transactions” which are covered in a separate part of the Scope article.

 

[Praetorian]

Correction: In an earlier post, I used the word "accusation", the word I meant to use was "acquisition". Of course the meanings of these two words are quite different.

 

[RNObased]

Can I play too? It's whether not weather and intact not in tack. You started the spelling game...

Yeah, I was typing fast and spell check let it through, I will do better in the future.

Praetorian, believe what you want to believe, if the price is right, it won't matter what is written in that contract.

 

[FLYLOW22]

Collateral?

 

[cherry20's]

There is no way that Flops or XO is going to buy/merge with each other. Period!

 

[dime line]

There is no way that Flops or XO is going to buy/merge with each other. Period!

Not that I disagree with you, but......... unless your on your knees with your CEO, or doing his wife........... Cherry, you have no clue! Period.

 

[NCherches]

I think if I worked at FLOPs any rumor of possitive news would be a good one.

 

[cherry20's]

Not that I disagree with you, but......... unless your on your knees with your CEO, or doing his wife........... Cherry, you have no clue! Period.

Your such a stubborn fool that you can't agree with anything I say...

Get a life....

Your one of the biggest reasons I can't stand this forum... Period!!!!!

You just can't fix stupid, can you dime?