Frontier reaches TA with pilots

[StaySeated]

Lynx already exists. There is nothing in our contract or the TA that is going to change that reality. I totally agree that Holding's should have been contractually bound by our current contract, but that is precisely my point. When the current contract was negotiated no one thought Frontier Airlines could possibly develop a holding company. They are a publicly held company and the change would require a shareholder vote. Fast forward a few years and the Holding company exists and several people at the GO still go to bed at night giggling themselves to sleep because of it. I personally believe that Frontier Holdings already has an order for EMB 170's and 175's. Once this TA is ratified, either the first time or after a no vote, an announcement will follow and they will rapidly take deliveries of the E-jets.

The SJ language and the E-jet weights are in the contract for a reason, because it is going to happen.

 

[OpenClimb]

Lynx already exists. There is nothing in our contract or the TA that is going to change that reality.

Au contraire, mon frere (who knows on the spelling, I have enough difficulties with English).

We are in Section 6 negotiations pursuant to the Railway Labor Act. One of the provisions of the Railway Labor Act is known as "Status Quo."

The short explanation of this provision is that the Pilot Group _and/or_ the Company can't do anything it didn't do before negotiations began. Pilots can't taxi slow. The Company can't change all our hotels to Motel 6. The Company can't change or do anything that smacks of coercion--threatening us into ratifying a new contract.

Here's what the IPA (union for UPS pilots) has to say about Status Quo:

"When do collective bargaining agreements expire under the RLA?
Under the RLA, agreements do not have expiration dates; instead they have amendable dates which are indicated within the agreement. IPA’s contract became amendable December 31, 2003. Until a mutually negotiated change is accepted by both parties to the agreement, the provisions of the original agreement remain in full force. This is commonly referred to as "status quo." Both the union and the company have a legal obligation to maintain the status quo until the process of the RLA has been fully exhausted."

Saying that the Collective Bargaining Agreement doesn't apply to Holdings is complete legal folly. If this were the case, why has the Company honored the Contract for the past 14 months? If changing the name of a legal entity allowed the legal entity to disavow its contractual obligations, then what good are contracts at all? Heck, I should just change my middle initial so I don't have to pay my mortgage!

OUR EXISTING SCOPE LANGUAGE: (Section 1.E.1.)

"Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, all flying on the Company's aircraft (whether leased to or owned by the Company) in its' [sic] scheduled airline service or under the Company's operational control, including wet leases (aircraft and crew) and contracting for other carriers entities (government, military or commercial), but not dry leases (aircraft but no crew) to other carriers or entities, shall be performed by Pilots on the Frontier Airlines Pilot Seniority List."

OUR EXISTING SUCCESSORSHIP LANGUAGE: (Section 1.E.5.)

"The Company shall not create or acquire an "alter ego" for the purpose of transferring the assets of the Company to such airline or entity and/or to avoid the terms and conditions of this Agreement."

See also... (Section 1.G.)

"This Agreement shall be binding upon any successor or assign of the Company unless and until changed in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended. For the purposes of this Paragraph, a successor or assign shall be defined as an entity (other than an air carrier or an entity which owns, is owned, or is controlled by an air carrier) which acquires all or substantially all of the assets or equity of the Company through a single transaction or multi-step related transactions."

So...

Not only do we have existing contract language which says we've got SCOPE, we also have existing language that says the contract applies to SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST (the new Holdings Company).

On top of all this, we have the even more restrictive Status Quo provisions of the Railway Labor Act.

We are only negotiating from a position of weakness if we CHOOSE to ignore the protections we already have! I can't say this strongly enough. Don't vote Yes on this contract just because you think we're on the ropes and this is the best we can do.

 

[Hawker dude]

As usual, Slowcur doesn't have even the most basic understanding of RLA negotiations. Go back to your cubicle.

OK. Mr. ALPO. what the hel@ has ALPO ever done for pilots? hah. screw them over. Dwayne Worthless padded his pockets with our money.

ALPA used to be a machine. Pilots stuck together like brothers... now... too many pus$ies involved.

so my point is what's your's.

 

[StaySeated]

open climb...check. Sorry, just can't seem to say/type one without the other anymore.

I understand status quo and totally 100% agree with your post. I also disagree with the rational offered up on our board about how one list is too expensive blah blah blah.

With that being said, I do not see how voting no on the TA is going to right the wrong known as lynx. Are you saying that the ta should include language requiring lynx to disappear and all flying should be on our list? I would love that to happen, but I would also like $100 bucks for the right seat and $200 for the left and a defined benefit plan. I just don't see any of those things happening here.

It will all be moot when we merge with spirit anyway.

 

[OpenClimb]

Hello Stay Seated,

No, I don't think we should attempt to block Lynx from happening altogether. If we're paying another company to perform these services, then it would make sense to assume the outside Company would be making money on the deal. If, instead, we can create our own company to do the flying and therefore capture the profits from said operation, then it would make good business sense to do so.

The point to my post is that we need to restrain the growth of the "Express" (for lack of a better term) fleet so as to preserve the jobs of mainline pilots. We don't want the tail wagging the dog as has happened at Delta and to some extent at most all the Legacy carriers.

My point (I can have 2 points, can't I) is that unlike some of the carriers who are currently in bankruptcy or have recently emerged from bankruptcy, we are in a position of power to secure a strong scope clause in our next contract. Contrary to popular Flightinfo banter, scope clauses can work so long as your carrier isn't in bankruptcy.

What we have in the TA is frankly _pathetic_ with regard to scope. See a couple of posts above for the details and my justification for this conclusion. [Post #129, specifically]

Since we don't have line-item veto power on the TA, the only way we can prevent the pathetic scope language from becoming the law of the land is to vote No. If the TA fails, we'll continue under our current (much stonger) scope language as part of Status Quo. The Union will do another survey which would presumably show scope as a strong concern of the pilot group. Management will be sufficiently motivated to reach an agreement because they're planning to be operating Lynx by mid-summer--tough to do under Status Quo.

I'm trying to be rational with this analysis. I just don't see a need to accept less than we have right now. I'm always open to enlightenment!

 

[OpenClimb]

It has come to my attention that some of our pilot group believes that voting no on this contract means that we are going to strike. I heard one strong proponent of the TA recently asked what's so bad with the TA that we'd be ready to strike over it.

Nothing could be further from reality. If this contract fails, the terms of our existing contract remain in full force and effect. There was even a Chief Pilot's memo that recently stated this. If the vote on the TA fails, we continue operations under Status Quo.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we do not have an arbitration provision in our contract. In other words, unless the company files for banruptcy protection we won't have a contract imposed upon us.

I can't remember the exact details, but I seem to remember that FAPA put out a pretty good summary of the Railway Labor Act negotiations flowchart. This would be a good reference for members as you consider your voting options.

A yes or no vote is simply a choice between what we currently have and what has been proposed in the TA. That's it--nothing more, nothing less.

 

[StaySeated]

I got the same impression after speaking with a few people. They think we are going to be stuck with arbitration like Alaska if we don't vote this in asap. We haven't even filed for mediation yet! I have flow with a few different points of view recently, empathy or "yes" voters seem to outnumber the "no's". Unfortunately.

 

[OpenClimb]

Mediation is not the same as arbitration.

In mediation a neutral 3rd party (the mediator) helps the parties resolve their differences by encouraging discussion.

Arbitration is where the parties hire what is essentially a private judge (the arbitrator). The parties to the dispute present their cases to the arbitrator who then makes a ruling--much the same way a judge would make a ruling in the traditional legal system. The parties can agree ahead of time whether they will be 'bound' by the arbitrator's decision. You may have heard of the terms "binding" or "non-binding" arbitration.

In our case, we may be asked to participate in a _mediation_ process which is typically facilitated by the National Mediation Board. It's still just mediation--NOT ARBITRATION.

We have no obligation to participate in Arbitration. The only way we will have a contract imposed upon up is if the Company files for bankruptcy protection and a federal bankruptcy judge decides our contract is out of line.

Them's the FACTs.

 

[F9 Driver]

Facts?

It has come to my attention that some of our pilot group believes that voting no on this contract means that we are going to strike. I heard one strong proponent of the TA recently asked what's so bad with the TA that we'd be ready to strike over it.

Nothing could be further from reality. If this contract fails, the terms of our existing contract remain in full force and effect. There was even a Chief Pilot's memo that recently stated this. If the vote on the TA fails, we continue operations under Status Quo.

The other thing to keep in mind is that we do not have an arbitration provision in our contract. In other words, unless the company files for banruptcy protection we won't have a contract imposed upon us.

I can't remember the exact details, but I seem to remember that FAPA put out a pretty good summary of the Railway Labor Act negotiations flowchart. This would be a good reference for members as you consider your voting options.

A yes or no vote is simply a choice between what we currently have and what has been proposed in the TA. That's it--nothing more, nothing less.Mediation is not the same as arbitration.

In mediation a neutral 3rd party (the mediator) helps the parties resolve their differences by encouraging discussion.

Arbitration is where the parties hire what is essentially a private judge (the arbitrator). The parties to the dispute present their cases to the arbitrator who then makes a ruling--much the same way a judge would make a ruling in the traditional legal system. The parties can agree ahead of time whether they will be 'bound' by the arbitrator's decision. You may have heard of the terms "binding" or "non-binding" arbitration.

In our case, we may be asked to participate in a _mediation_ process which is typically facilitated by the National Mediation Board. It's still just mediation--NOT ARBITRATION.

We have no obligation to participate in Arbitration. The only way we will have a contract imposed upon up is if the Company files for bankruptcy protection and a federal bankruptcy judge decides our contract is out of line.

Them's the FACTs.

Fact: Status quo only goes until the end of the cooling off period. There is an “end game” to negotiations.

They don’t go on forever. The negotiators for FAPA say the negotiations have gone about as far as they are going to go without mediation at Frontier. If we enter mediation there are only two outcomes – agreement or release (which the company would probably ask for immediately after filing for mediation.)

After release - we can withhold our services (strike), the company can lock us out and hire scab labor, or they can IMPOSE CONTRACT TERMS on us if we wish to continue working for the company.

Fact: If we vote the TA down we have to TRY and block the operation of Lynx without certain outcome, and possibly negate the entire scope argument if we lose.

There are some seriously anti-labor judges who have been seated over the past six years, and the only thing worse than having a scope clause you don’t like is having NO scope protection if we lost that argument. (not to mention the damage done during the fight.)

Sorry to take away your perceived leverage, but without the will/ability to strike I don’t see the upside to a no vote on a contract that gives the pilots a net gain and closes huge loopholes in our current successorship language.

 

[OpenClimb]

Yes, I will agree that the Company could impose it's last best offer. Given that the END game is that they could fire us all and continue on running the airline with scabs, it would also make sense that they could impose their terms, too.

If anybody's interested in reading about this straight from the National Mediation Board, they have a set of FAQ's available here.

For various reasons personal and professional, this will be my last post on this matter. Good luck to all of us in keeping our jobs and preserving a quality of life that makes this a job worth having. Please don't fall for scare tactics.

OpenClimb (now @ THRST IDL==>>I give up. You guys win.)