Hold on tight

[chief9404]

Guys lets stop with all the rumors and falsehoods. Under federal law we have more rights as a non union group, than a member of 1108. I would guess if bought we will be operated separately like Flex Jet. With 1108 we will all be on the street, and that's a fact.

Don't think for once that KR and Directional Capital are out for your best interest. You are very naive if you do.

 

[7on7Off]

You need to change your username.:nuts:

Company bitch; whipping boy; and all the derivatives were taken!

 

[GooseHZ]

Its gonna be funny seeing Sal and Hump in Indoc up in CGF.

 

[outerfix]

7&7, Sal is right that we would be better off with no union in the event of a pilot merger but wrong that we would be on the street. In a covered transaction, that is a sale that involves 50 percent or more of the assets, the Mcckaskill-Bond act takes effect. The Mcckaskill-Bond act states that in the event of a pilot merger with dissimilar/ no union, the merger will be via Allegheny Mohawk which would probably net us relative Seniority. In the event of two pilot groups with the same union merging, that unions merger policy will take effect. Teamster merger policy is DOH with fences. We would be slotted in with FO's furloughed pilots but still get to keep our seat. We could never bid another airplane, we would work every holiday, we would get our last choice of vacation, our first officer's would never upgrade, etc. What happens if our fleet goes away or is replaced? We don't know but my guess is a bump and flush.

http://thepilotsurveyor.com/2012/05/27/what-is-the-mccaskill-bond-amendment/

 

[Newkem]

There presence at HQ has been confirmed. Along with a delegation from the FAA.

And now they are off to CYUL, home of Bombardier.

Hmm....

 

[Praetorian]

7&7, Sal is right that we would be better off with no union in the event of a pilot merger but wrong that we would be on the street. In a covered transaction, that is a sale that involves 50 percent or more of the assets, the Mcckaskill-Bond act takes effect. The Mcckaskill-Bond act states that in the event of a pilot merger with dissimilar/ no union, the merger will be via Allegheny Mohawk which would probably net us relative Seniority. In the event of two pilot groups with the same union merging, that unions merger policy will take effect. Teamster merger policy is DOH with fences. We would be slotted in with FO's furloughed pilots but still get to keep our seat. We could never bid another airplane, we would work every holiday, we would get our last choice of vacation, our first officer's would never upgrade, etc. What happens if our fleet goes away or is replaced? We don't know but my guess is a bump and flush.

http://thepilotsurveyor.com/2012/05/27/what-is-the-mccaskill-bond-amendment/

Under your hypothetical scenario, if FO chose to violate M.B. and you were un-represented who would challenge the company's decision and most importantly, pay for the litigation that would be required to overturn it?

I hear its expensive to go to federal court.

 

[outerfix]

Pratorian,

(a) In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settled by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. The parties shall select the arbitrator from such panel by alternatively striking names until only one remains, and he shall serve as arbitrator. Expedited hearings and decisions will be expected, and a decision shall be rendered within 90 days after the controversy arises, unless an extension of time it is mutually agreeable to all parties. The salary and expenses of the arbitrator shall be borne equally by the carrier and (i) the organization or organizations representing employee or employees or (ii) if unrepresented, the employee or employees or group or groups of employees. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties.

 

[outerfix]

Pratorian, you are right. We would have to pay and chip in for a mediator. I guess we would have to weigh that against the cost of being shafted in a DOH scenario and all the hardship and financial loss that would bring. BTW the Teamsters could fix this and amend the merger policy. At this point, there is fire burning and the Teamster merger policy only adds gasoline to the fire. Question, do you think Cap. Dubinsky would have allowed a DOH merger when he was at United?

 

[notapilot]

Really? Have you ever heard of a sell off? All that's required is a pt 135 certificate. It's gets a bit more complicated when the same parent company can sell off trips to it's "non-union sister operator" thereby taking money out of one pocket and putting it in the other. A strike would be bad for Flight Options but equally good for Flex while being neutral for the parent company. See the Rub?

Some are inferring that would be scabbing. I'm not sure that's true so long as the Flex pilot doesn't fly the Flops tail. Would a Delta pilot be scabbing if he carried a would be UA passenger who changed flights because of a strike?

I will start by saying I hope Flight Options pilots do well when all the dust settles. I'm not a fan of some of the nastiness that sometimes goes on between all our groups. I will also say that your last paragraph is spot on. A charter sell off to any different company is just that. To suggest what has been thrown around here is just ignorant.

 

[doh]

I hope it doesn't come to that!

 

[gunfyter]

So I am not sure I missed it somewhere ... but is it ever explained how this purchase helps the operation if the two companies run separately?

IOWs what is the purpose of this purchase if the operations are not merged?

 

[gret]

Good question...likely savings would occur with mgmt, accounting, HR, sales, advertising, purchasing synergies, mtx coordination, maybe scheduling and flight planning, etc.

Not sure what can be saved in the dispatch and crewing areas as they would have to staff up and dispatch based on two different certificates.

 

[jetwash]

Interesting Canadian perspective.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/busi...lexjet+private+equity+firm/8872937/story.html

 

[gunfyter]

That was my thinking

And from a management standpoint, they pretty well have to say that everything is fine and nothing will change. But at some point, I suspect they’ll want to take advantage of the strengths that Flexjet offers (in relation to the more downscale Flight Options) and merge the two companies. Because the transaction as it stands does not make sense. You can’t operate these two companies totally independently.

 

[johnsonrod]

I agree with the concern about some potential overlap. I thought most mergers are meant to reduce costs by streamlining and reducing redundant costs (focusing on what works and removing the rest). From a customer standpoint, I see demographic overlap in several fleet types when compared to load and capabilities (all approximate):

Phenom 300 - Lear 45/75
Citation X - Lear 85/CL300
Legacy - CL300/350/605

Which fleet types would you keep and which would you remove? Why would a customer select a Legacy when a new CL350 or 605 could accomplish the same mission? Are you confusing the customer by offering so many different types that are relatively similar in terms of performance/capability? I assume the expanding Beechjet 400XT fleet could be used as the "value" fleet type with the Sentient ad hoc charters given the lower operating costs.

 

[CL300Pilot]

Personally, I dislike the "luxury and value" tags. I can see where both companies can operate independently. Options would be the entry level fractional company with the Beechjets and such, while Flexjet is the upper end with the Lears and Challengers. If we do end up merging, I hope we do so in a win/win for both of our companies and pilot groups. I will continue to reach out to our options brethren in hopes of a unified group.

Honest side question and not a union busting question either. If Options decertified the union, what are the implications? Given KR's opinion of unions, would that help or hurt you? Again, I am more curious and not trying to start the pro/anti-union banter.

 

[CL300Pilot]

Double posting, sorry

 

[fischman]

Making our profession a commodity is bad for all of us.

The race to the bottom begins...

 

[BlueNose]

Making our profession a commodity is bad for all of us.

The race to the bottom begins...

Begins??? Dude, that race was over in April 2010, at least among the Big 4 fracs. Have you seen the Options pay scales and scope clause? This is just Ricci's victory lap.

 

[Fresh Air]

Honest side question and not a union busting question either. If Options decertified the union, what are the implications? Given KR's opinion of unions, would that help or hurt you? Again, I am more curious and not trying to start the pro/anti-union banter.

That's a tough question, and one that has certainly been raised in the minds of FO pilots. I think that the problem with trying to decert is that we don't have any plausible alternatives to the Teamsters, which nobody really loves, but neither are they the boogeymen that Bogart and his ilk try to portray them as. We aren't willing to leave ourselves totally naked without any protections, as we were in the Scheeringa days. There has been a feeble effort to garner support for an in-house union, but the people spearheading that effort have been a well-known (ex-PSM) management stooge, and a personality-impaired old Legacy pilot who would be sure that the union looked after the interests of the very senior crewmembers, and nobody else. So, with no credibility among the pilot force, that effort is going nowhere. Not to mention, with less than 350 pilots paying dues, there would be no money to support the infrastructure needed for negotiations, legal counsel, and all the expenses which go into operating a functioning bargaining unit.

So to answer your question: Yes, decertifying our Union would likely result in our being rewarded by FO management for giving up our right to organize and going to our knees before his mighty benevolence. And remaining standing on our feet will likely result in more punishment, humiliation, and possibly the loss of our jobs when if/when Kenn decides to rid himself of the Union thorn in his side by shutting us down altogether.

I value my dignity more than this job, so my choice is to (possibly) die on my feet rather than live on my knees. Others' opinions may vary, and I respect their right to disagree.