Gojet grows...even though TSHoldings Broke!

[laserman2431]

I'm just saying that your vision of what is going to happen seems to have some pretty big holes in it. That doesn't mean there is no hope. I just don't think the path you have described is the one that leads to where you want to go.

 

[dispatchguy]

Burn this ********************hole down, and make sure that dot-not-feather is in the pyre...

 

[laserman2431]

Burn this ********************hole down, and make sure that dot-not-feather is in the pyre...

"I don't say we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops!...uh, depending on the breaks."

"I'm afraid, sir, I must ask you for the key, and the recall code. Have you got them handy, sir?"

P.O.E.

 

[lookin4better]

Regionals are just good time builders and stepping stone jobs... get the time, move on to better things and be happy.

just relAX and enjoy life.



Cheers!

 

[Salukipilot4590]

Regionals are just good time builders and stepping stone jobs... get the time, move on to better things and be happy.

just relAAX and enjoy life.



Cheers!

Well its easy to relax when you have a good job...the regionals aren't a 'good job.'

 

[lookin4better]

I dont think regionals are bad jobs at all.... I am not sure if one would want to get stuck at one for an entire career but to each their own.

But they do serve a good purpose for some needed experience to move on someday to either a good corporate or better airline job. I think many pilots at regionals get all bent out of shape because things arent working out like the brochure said it would. Either sit and let things happen or take charge and make things happen--- I choose the latter.

For example, I see the people in the back of private jets, they did not get where they are by being nice or yielding to their competitors in their respective industries. Like it or not, the strong and determined are the ones who succeed in American careers.

I know several FOs from Eagle who went over to G7 right away in 2005.. they are ALL at a legacy carrier right now. I am sure they lose zero sleep over the complaining on FI. Good for them on taking charge of their careers.

 

[nwa_contrails]

Good for them on taking charge of their careers.

Good for them for stabbing their fellow pilots in the back...karma's a bitch.

 

[McNugget]

GooJet Pilots Receive an Award Upon Training Completion

 

[koepp]

I don't see the NMB reversing their decision unless it can be proven that there has been a significant change from 2005 to now. Are you aware of a significant change?

If all three parties, TSH, ALPA, IBT, were to agree, there would be no reason to involve the NMB.

I don't think you and turnandpull are understanding each other. If the company wants it to be a single carrier, it's a single carrier.

He's talking about the company & ALPA filing jointly saying that the two companies are now operating as a single carrier. There would be "significant changes" that would facilitate this such as the company holding out to the general public as one entity, an admission that the same people control the collective bargaining process at both companies, etc.

This would wipe out the teamsters and impose ALPA on both groups (based on the relative size of each pilot group). That new law that requires allegheny-mowhawk LPP (1972) to be applied to a merger between two groups with different unions would also be tested. I doubt the IBT would even bother to fight it. About the best they could hope for is the NMB to require an election.

 

[laserman2431]

I don't think you and turnandpull are understanding each other. If the company wants it to be a single carrier, it's a single carrier.

He's talking about the company & ALPA filing jointly saying that the two companies are now operating as a single carrier. There would be "significant changes" that would facilitate this such as the company holding out to the general public as one entity, an admission that the same people control the collective bargaining process at both companies, etc.

I agree with your contention that TSH could try to change the operation to make it "a single transportation system." Of course, your first hurdle would be getting the TSH to want to change from two separate transportation systems to a a single transportation system. I am not sure that threats and coercion will cause that to happen, but you never know. It doesn't seem to have been very effective so far.

If TSH does decide to combine the two transportation systems, it will entail much more than just saying "we made a mistake and now we think they are the same." There were a number of factors considered in the Dec. 2005 decision that would have to change first. That's not to say it would be impossible.

TSH would have to change the factors that were considered in the Dec. 2005 case. These include such things as:

• Each Carrier has its own management team that is in charge of day-to-day operations.
• TSA was incorporated in Missouri while GoJet is an LLC formed in Delaware, and has no Board of Directors.
• Labor relations and personnel functions at GoJet and TSA are handled separately.
• Each Carrier has its own website which lists only its job openings, and each Carrier has its own employment applications and personnel forms.
• GoJet and TSA have separate terms and conditions of employment, different wage rates, and separate benefit plans.
• While the paint scheme for each aircraft is determined by the regional partner, GoJet and TSA fleet are identified accordingly, pursuant to DOT regulations, by stickers on each aircraft. Further, all Pilots wear the “brass” of their employing Carrier, GoJet or TSA, when dressed in the standard uniform of their regional partner.
• GoJet and TSA hold themselves out to the government and to the public as separate transportation systems. Each Carrier was issued its own Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the DOT, as well as its own individual Air Carrier Certificate from the FAA. The fact that the Carriers
  hold separate Certificates strongly supports the Board finding separate transportation systems. See Frontier Airlines, 24 NMB 635, 643 (1997).
• When customers book travel on United, American, or US Airways, it is clearly indicated when the flight is operated by TSA or GoJet. Further, the Carriers fly different types of aircraft. GoJet operates exclusively CRJ-700’s, while TSA operates three different type of aircraft with 50 or fewer seats. FAA and DOT operating authority prohibit the two Carriers from swapping aircraft.

Watch for a change in these factors as an indication the two systems are being combined. I'm just saying it would be more complicated than just "saying that the two companies are now operating as a single carrier."

 

[laserman2431]

I don't think you and turnandpull are understanding each other. If the company wants it to be a single carrier, it's a single carrier.

He's talking about the company & ALPA filing jointly saying that the two companies are now operating as a single carrier. There would be "significant changes" that would facilitate this such as the company holding out to the general public as one entity, an admission that the same people control the collective bargaining process at both companies, etc.

This would wipe out the teamsters and impose ALPA on both groups (based on the relative size of each pilot group). That new law that requires allegheny-mowhawk LPP (1972) to be applied to a merger between two groups with different unions would also be tested. I doubt the IBT would even bother to fight it. About the best they could hope for is the NMB to require an election.

"an admission that the same people control the collective bargaining process at both companies"

Well, that sounds easy. Just say that.

Oh. Wait a minute. Wouldn't that be an admission of guilt, perjury, and violations of labor laws. Wouldn't that lead to serious personal and corporate liability? I was just wondering who would be volunteering to make that admission?

 

[CX880]

"an admission that the same people control the collective bargaining process at both companies"

Well, that sounds easy. Just say that.

Oh. Wait a minute. Wouldn't that be an admission of guilt, perjury, and violations of labor laws. Wouldn't that lead to serious personal and corporate liability? I was just wondering who would be volunteering to make that admission?

No it wouldn't. If that was the case, then the whole GJ debacle never would have happened and TSA pilots would have one list. It's no secret who controls GJ and TSA. I don't think anybody cares about a single carrier as long as there is job security under one pilot list.

 

[koepp]

"an admission that the same people control the collective bargaining process at both companies"

Well, that sounds easy. Just say that.

Oh. Wait a minute. Wouldn't that be an admission of guilt, perjury, and violations of labor laws. Wouldn't that lead to serious personal and corporate liability? I was just wondering who would be volunteering to make that admission?

I guess I'll rephrase that for you.

A statement that going forward the same people will control the collective bargaining process at both companies (no changes in other words).

I understand that it is not as simple as the two examples I listed. Those were just examples of the many changes that would have to happen. I never intended to state that those two items were all it took to be a single carrier.

I'm not really sure why you seem to think that it would be so hard for this to happen. If TSH & ALPA sign an agreement requiring a single carrier status, all of the necessary changes would be made to facilitate that. I know that the company doesn't want that, no company does. This is something that would be bought and paid for by the pilot group at the bargaining table (e.g., MAG, RAH, etc.)

 

[laserman2431]

I guess I'll rephrase that for you.

A statement that going forward the same people will control the collective bargaining process at both companies (no changes in other words).

I understand that it is not as simple as the two examples I listed. Those were just examples of the many changes that would have to happen. I never intended to state that those two items were all it took to be a single carrier.

I'm not really sure why you seem to think that it would be so hard for this to happen. If TSH & ALPA sign an agreement requiring a single carrier status, all of the necessary changes would be made to facilitate that. I know that the company doesn't want that, no company does. This is something that would be bought and paid for by the pilot group at the bargaining table (e.g., MAG, RAH, etc.)

It's certainly not impossible. The question is "Does ALPA have the bargaining capital?" So far, the answer seems to be "no."

As far as the MESA comparison, that was addressed in the NMB finding Dec. 2005:
"While ALPA relies on Mesa Airlines, Inc., CCAir, Inc., Air Midwest, Inc., 29 NMB 359 (2002) for support that GoJet and TSA constitute a single system, the facts of that case are inapposite. In Mesa, the Board made a single carrier finding because of the following factors: all three carriers were wholly owned by Mesa Air Group, Inc. (MAG); MAG’s website contained information about each of the carriers, including type of aircraft, number of employees, and daily departure schedules --presenting a public image of a single transportation system; applicants could apply for positions at any of the three carriers online through the MAG website; and labor relations at the three carriers was centralized, evidenced by the fact that the Flight Deck Crewmembers craft or class at two of the carriers were covered by the same CBA, and the heavy involvement of MAG’s CEO in contract negotiations and the overall labor relations at the three carriers. Id. at 368-380.

Here, while GoJet and TSA are both owned by TSH, there are no other similarities to the facts in the Mesa Airlines, Inc., above, decision. GoJet and TSA have their own websites with no information about each other or links to each other. Applicants for positions at either Carrier must apply through the designated web address or mail address, and each Carrier’s website lists only its job openings. Additionally, labor relations are handled separately at GoJet and TSA: with separate management teams; separate wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment; and separate seniority lists and employee rosters."

 

[koepp]

It's certainly not impossible. The question is "Does ALPA have the bargaining capital?" So far, the answer seems to be "no."

As far as the MESA comparison, that was addressed in the NMB finding Dec. 2005:
"While ALPA relies on Mesa Airlines, Inc., CCAir, Inc., Air Midwest, Inc., 29 NMB 359 (2002) for support that GoJet and TSA constitute a single system, the facts of that case are inapposite. In Mesa, the Board made a single carrier finding because of the following factors: all three carriers were wholly owned by Mesa Air Group, Inc. (MAG); MAG’s website contained information about each of the carriers, including type of aircraft, number of employees, and daily departure schedules --presenting a public image of a single transportation system; applicants could apply for positions at any of the three carriers online through the MAG website; and labor relations at the three carriers was centralized, evidenced by the fact that the Flight Deck Crewmembers craft or class at two of the carriers were covered by the same CBA, and the heavy involvement of MAG’s CEO in contract negotiations and the overall labor relations at the three carriers. Id. at 368-380.

Here, while GoJet and TSA are both owned by TSH, there are no other similarities to the facts in the Mesa Airlines, Inc., above, decision. GoJet and TSA have their own websites with no information about each other or links to each other. Applicants for positions at either Carrier must apply through the designated web address or mail address, and each Carrier’s website lists only its job openings. Additionally, labor relations are handled separately at GoJet and TSA: with separate management teams; separate wages, benefits and terms and conditions of employment; and separate seniority lists and employee rosters."

Laserman,

I have already read all of the cases that you are citing here. This isn't about what it means to be a single carrier; It's about bargaining capital. As you stated, TSA ALPA does not appear to have the bargaining capital at this time.

By the way I was referring to this case http://www.nmb.gov/representation/deter2003/30n040.pdf

It's the one where ALPA/MAG filed jointly to the NMB because of an LOA that MAG/ALPA signed which would be similar to TSH signing an LOA with ALPA. Page three pretty much sums it up. If I remember right, the cost to the MAG pilots was very high. I wouldn't expect it to be any less for the TSA pilots. As it turns out, the company knows this.