Hold on tight

[dime line]

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.

But as you blame the union, your not saying one thing. Kenn is free to purchase Citation Air as we speak.

 

[doh]

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.

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.

 

[Rupert.]

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.

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

 

[doh]

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

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.

 

[gret]

..."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/

 

[993_Pilot]

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.

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.

 

[billybob]

Nja could have a hat in the ring....

 

[Fresh Air]

Bingo! One union cannot represent competing pilot groups.

I think we can mostly agree on that point! Representing both FO and CS has caused a real mess for the 1108. Seems to work for ALPA, but for us it's been a real headache.

 

[gunfyter]

NJA ... nuff of a mess integrating NJI ...

 

[AeroBoy]

But wait...there might be more this week. And it's not CitationAir -- Kenn's moved on from that train wreck.