Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Hold on tight

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Register   Log in
Now that I've heard both sides of the story, it looks like the IBT 1108 pretty much killed the CitationAir deal. Kenn wanted to take care of "his guys" (i.e. Flight Options pilots) but the IBT 1108 wanted to take care of the Fl Ops and CitationAir pilots since it represents both. There would have been winners and losers under either plan, but Kenn would have made Fl Ops furloughed pilots the winners and all CitationAir pilots the losers. IBT 1108 would have made some CitationAir pilots the winners, and the rest of the CitationAir pilots along with all furloughed and about 50 currently flying Flight Options pilots the losers. Kenn refused the IBT's offer to integrate the CA pilots by DOH because he wouldn't put about 50 currently employed Fl Ops pilots on the street under this plan. I have to question why the Fl Ops MEC allowed it to prioritize non-Fl Ops pilots over its own members. That doesn't make any sense to me.
 
AeroBoy said:
Now that I've heard both sides of the story, it looks like the IBT 1108 pretty much killed the CitationAir deal. Kenn wanted to take care of "his guys" (i.e. Flight Options pilots) but the IBT 1108 wanted to take care of the Fl Ops and CitationAir pilots since it represents both. There would have been winners and losers under either plan, but Kenn would have made Fl Ops furloughed pilots the winners and all CitationAir pilots the losers. IBT 1108 would have made some CitationAir pilots the winners, and the rest of the CitationAir pilots along with all furloughed and about 50 currently flying Flight Options pilots the losers. Kenn refused the IBT's offer to integrate the CA pilots by DOH because he wouldn't put about 50 currently employed Fl Ops pilots on the street under this plan. I have to question why the Fl Ops MEC allowed it to prioritize non-Fl Ops pilots over its own members. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you only heard the FO management's side of the story, my friend.

The 1108 could not and did not kill that deal. That decision was in the hands of FO management alone. They could have done it as planned, with or without the approval of the 1108, as they have done with every other business decision that they have ever made.

The truth is, Kenn and Co. knew from the start that taking the CA planes without the pilots was illegal under McCaskill-Bond, and would not stand up in court. So they asked the 1108 to sign a LOA waiving their right to test the legality of the deal in court.

When the 1108 leadership refused to sign off on his illegal transaction, Kenn killed the deal.
 
luckydog said:
It's more like everyone loses, even Kenn.
Click to expand...

For what little my opinion is worth, I think Kenn is a big winner here. The whole mess has caused enough of the FO pilots to turn against the 1108 that the "in house union" movement has picked up considerable steam, and Kenn's goal of crushing the 1108 may soon be a reality. As a matter of fact, one of the organizers called me on the phone in the past week.

It was a smart move by Kenn. If the 1108 had signed off on the deal he would have looked like a hero to the furloughed FO pilots, and the 1108 would be facing legal action for failing to represent the CA pilots. As it turned out, the 1108 looks like the bad guy to a lot of our crews and the 1108 may soon be replaced by a "rubber stamp" union.
 
Ricci was trying to transfer the risk of a lawsuit to the IBT. It's really that simple. Now he will tell the furloughed the IBT is responsible for breaking the deal. Transfer risk, divide and conquer. Don't be distracted form that fact.
 
Is it really about the Furloughed FO pilots? I'm sure most if not all those 85 guys left and have moved on. There's more to this story. Pilots her on Flightinfo only have about half the facts. Even if this works out in some way, shape, or form. I'm pretty sure all the CA Pilots are just plain fed up! We would all walk away tomorrow if offered a position with another company. This has turned into real amateur hour on behalf of management and IBT. Great group of people, it's just a Damn shame.
 
Regardless of the applicability of MB in the proposed FlOps / CA deal (which IMHO doesn't apply to 135 on demand ops. It will have to be challenged in court to vet the intent of the law...but I digress...) the big problem with the 1108 has exposed. They can not, effectively, represent 2 or more competing pilot groups. Their choosing to pursue other pilot groups serves only the best interest of the IBT 1108 - NOT the pilots themselves. Say want you want about Kenns divide and conquer techniques, the 1108 have shot themselves in the foot here.
 
Last edited:
ProFracPilot said:
Regardless of the applicability of MB in the proposed FlOps / CA deal (which IMHO doesn't apply to 135 on demand ops. It will have to be challenged in court to vet the intent of the law...but I digress...) the big problem with the 1108 has exposed. They can not, effectively, represent 2 or more competing pilot groups. Their choosing to pursue other pilot groups serves only the best interest of the IBT 1108 - NOT the pilots themselves. Say want you want about Kenns divide and conquer techniques, the 1108 have shot themselves in the foot here.
Click to expand...

Bingo! One union cannot represent competing pilot groups.

Fresh Air, I said I talked to both sides. I did in fact hear the 1108's side, and from someone pretty high up in the organization. Right or wrong, the 1108 wouldn't budge on the issue, but it was this action that caused the deal to be spiked. Kenn just walked away when he realized that the union couldn't/wouldn't work with him.
 
AeroBoy said:
Bingo! One union cannot represent competing pilot groups.

Fresh Air, I said I talked to both sides. I did in fact hear the 1108's side, and from someone pretty high up in the organization. Right or wrong, the 1108 wouldn't budge on the issue, but it was this action that caused the deal to be spiked. Kenn just walked away when he realized that the union couldn't/wouldn't work with him.
Click to expand...

But as you blame the union, your not saying one thing. Kenn is free to purchase Citation Air as we speak.
 
ProFracPilot said:
Regardless of the applicability of MB in the proposed FlOps / CA deal (which IMHO doesn't apply to 135 on demand ops. It will have to be challenged in court to vet the intent of the law...but I digress...) the big problem with the 1108 has exposed. They can not, effectively, represent 2 or more competing pilot groups. Their choosing to pursue other pilot groups serves only the best interest of the IBT 1108 - NOT the pilots themselves. Say want you want about Kenns divide and conquer techniques, the 1108 have shot themselves in the foot here.
Click to expand...

You are dead wrong. MB applies to air carriers as defined by the FAA and the Railway Labor Act. 135 certificate holders are air carriers by definition.
 
doh said:
You are dead wrong. MB applies to air carriers as defined by the FAA and the Railway Labor Act. 135 certificate holders are air carriers by definition.
Click to expand...

MB does not apply when the same union represents both pilot groups. The 1107.5 could have agreed to this deal.
 
Rupert. said:
MB does not apply when the same union represents both pilot groups. The 1107.5 could have agreed to this deal.
Click to expand...

Quoted from the amendment: ...if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent?s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section...

Since it is part of the amendment, MB applies even when the two air carriers are represented by the same bargaining agent.
 
..."Internal Union Merger Policy. Where one union represented both employee groups affected by a transaction prior to a merger, the CAB held that a carrier's acceptance of an integrated seniority list produced pursuant to that union's internal merger policy satisfied the obligations under Section 3. The McCaskill-Bond statute explicitly provides that the union's internal policy applies in this circumstance."...


​
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/...ity+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute

..."Totally contrary to the rumor on the line that you have to belong to a union for McCaskill-Bond to apply ? McCaskill-Bond would apply to all airline employees, union or not, in the event of a covered transaction. Interestingly, in merger between two ALPA carriers, ALPA?s merger policy will supersede the requirements of McCaskill-Bond. .... Translation: you?re covered under federal law. If you?re union and you merge with another carrier represented by the same union (ALPA, anyone?), ALPA?s internal merger policies supersede the protections of federal law."...


http://www.jetbluefacts.com/2011/th...it-relates-specifically-to-the-amendment-are/
 
ProFracPilot said:
Regardless of the applicability of MB in the proposed FlOps / CA deal (which IMHO doesn't apply to 135 on demand ops. It will have to be challenged in court to vet the intent of the law...but I digress...) the big problem with the 1108 has exposed. They can not, effectively, represent 2 or more competing pilot groups. Their choosing to pursue other pilot groups serves only the best interest of the IBT 1108 - NOT the pilots themselves. Say want you want about Kenns divide and conquer techniques, the 1108 have shot themselves in the foot here.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about M-B not applying, and the conflict of interest too. It doesn't matter whether the CA pilots were represented by the same union as the Flops pilots, a different union, or no union at all. If the CA MEC asks the union that represents them to pursue it, they are obligated to do so under their Duty of Fair Representation. Even if the pilots were not represented, they could still get an attorney and pursue this legally. In fact, he wouldn't even have anybody to ask to sign his ridiculous LOA if the CA pliots had different (or no) representation. So if CA guys had a different union, or no union, KR/DAC was never going to be exempt from being sued for violating M-B. No differently than if they were represented by the same union, except how KR tries to spin it and make the 1108 look bad. I don't believe KR ever intended to do this "deal". His strategy was only to divide and conquer, from the very beginning. If it were a such a great deal, Cessna/Textron would have a bidding war on their hands, and NJ would throw their hats in the ring.
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top