ILN ops

[penguin22]

Of course a NLRB judge would see it that way. She has no choice. .

not to be nitpicky, but......

SHE, Judge Loretta A. Preska, is a U.S. District Court Judge, Southern District of New York.

HE, Judge Joseph Gontram, is the Administrative Law Judge for the NLRB

 

[penguin22]

Show me the flying...

Sorry, that flying is ours.

 

[AV8OR]

"I'm just pointing out for everyone to see ALPA's job grab attempt."


How bout just a "job hang on to". If this was a job grab it's absolutely the crappiest one in history.

I don't know why you didn't join the complaint. You appear to agree it's intent and legal position.

Yall keep hashin it out. He11, I'm probably gonna be gone before this crap gets settled anyway.

 

[erichartmann]

there happens to be a bunch of lawyers (with real legal training) that disagree with the above assumption. your post above shows your knowledge of the law....zip.

Ahh, lawyers, with real legal training...

99% of all lawyers make the rest look bad.​

Know the difference between a lawyer and a catfish? One is a bottom feeder, the other.... a fish.​

The only good lawyer is your own, until, of course, he loses your case.​

"The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers..." Shakespeare's Henry VI.​

One lawyer living in a small town will starve. If a second comes to town they will both get rich.​

Ever wonder about lawyer jokes?

For what it's worth, I'm told several lawyer's of my aquaintance essentially share my opinion of your case.

The point.

The point is that lawyers are professional debaters. Its how they earn their living. Lawyers are paid to argue your case which amounts to your point of view. Unless you case is wholly without basis under the law and totally with merit I'm sure you can find a lawyer to argue it, and I wouldn't bet you couldn't do so even if the case had no basis or merit.

A lawyer aquaintence once told me if the law is on your side you argue the law. If the law is against you argue the merit. If you have both on your side dazzle them with your brilliance, if neither, do your best to baffle with bullshi!

As someone else pointed out, many of us will be long retired by the time this is settled.

 

[erichartmann]

"I'm just pointing out for everyone to see ALPA's job grab attempt."


How bout just a "job hang on to". If this was a job grab it's absolutely the crappiest one in history.

I don't know why you didn't join the complaint. You appear to agree it's intent and legal position.

Yall keep hashin it out. He11, I'm probably gonna be gone before this crap gets settled anyway.

Had you been quickly sucessfull, the net effect would likely have cost me my job. It may yet. The freight you were demanding to fly was the freight I was flying. From my POV, crappy or not, it's a grab.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I have a couple of questions...

I'm assuming that the ABX/IBT contract contains some sort of language that governs scope. Does it not specify that ABX pilots, and only ABX pilots, fly Airborne freight? If so...and if Airborne had been the dominant company in the merger of Airborne and DHL...who would now have first dibs on flying the combined freight? ABX pilots, or the former DHL pilots?"

Next question...and this is assuming that your contract contained a section on successorship...does the contract between ABX/IBT and Airborne not apply to any company that takes over Airborne? In other words, had Airborne (not ABX) been sold to another company (it wouldn't even have to be another airfreight company...it could be "Guido's Pizza" for the sake of this discussion) would they not incur the obligation to employ ABX pilots along with the sale? Or could Guido say, "Hey, I don' know nuthin' 'bout no 'contract.' 'Dat was with 'dem other guys. All I know is 'dat I got my own guys, see?" and bring in his own drivers?

Legalities aside, you have 3 entities (DHL, Astar, and ALPA) who have negotiated contracts independently of 3 other entities (Airborne, ABX, and IBT) who have done the same. Even if you had all 6 of those entities in the same room at the same time, it would be virtually impossible to work out an agreement free of conflict and that was fair to all. When such conflicts arise, it's the responsibility of each side's respective lawyer to represent their memberships interest to a Judge. It's not a "job grab," it's their job, period.

As a practical matter, as long as there are two companies (and two unions) of similar size on the property, the flying will likely be apportioned similarly. Just thank your lucky stars there aren't three.

Whoops...I forgot about Polar...

 

[ABXbooger]

Following the sam logic as Dan, why don't we file a suit claiming breach of scope, because a lot of the flying Astar does was the Airborne Express flying that our scope covered. I have no problem allowing Astar to continue flying what they had prior to the ABF merger, ABF as an airline was flying a lot more freight priot to the merger that everyone is now, DHL and ex-ABF freight combined. Things keep going this way, there won't be enough freight for them to fly anyways...

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

Following the sam logic as Dan, why don't we file a suit claiming breach of scope, because a lot of the flying Astar does was the Airborne Express flying that our scope covered. I have no problem allowing Astar to continue flying what they had prior to the ABF merger, ABF as an airline was flying a lot more freight priot to the merger that everyone is now, DHL and ex-ABF freight combined. Things keep going this way, there won't be enough freight for them to fly anyways...

That was exactly my point...not everybody can have everything they were entitled to under their respective contracts. ALPA has an obligation under their charter to represent the interests of their pilots, just as IBT does their own. In the end, no matter what happens in court, things probably won't change much. In the meantime, the lawyers have done their job.

It's prettty obvious that at some point, falling revenues will force DHL Int'l to enter into a "strategic alliance" with either UPS or FedEX that will make DHL's entire US operations...ahem..."redundant." At that point, the argument about "who flies what" will become moot, as DHL will no longer exist as a stand-alone company.

This ship is sinking. It doesn't matter whether she goes down by the bow or the stern, we're all gonna be treadin' water soon.

 

[Cargoav8or]

Yes, why don't you?

Following the sam logic as Dan, why don't we file a suit claiming breach of scope, because a lot of the flying Astar does was the Airborne Express flying that our scope covered. I have no problem allowing Astar to continue flying what they had prior to the ABF merger, ABF as an airline was flying a lot more freight priot to the merger that everyone is now, DHL and ex-ABF freight combined. Things keep going this way, there won't be enough freight for them to fly anyways...

 

[penguin22]

Yes, why don't you?

That's the whole point here, isn't it?

Of course there's scope in our contract, including successorship language. And when DHL, along with Astar, came along we too could have sent our lawyers out on a hail mary job grab attempt. Instead, we simply accepted the reality of the situation... DHL is coming, and they're bringing Astar.

And that's the point. ALPA, waving Fellows letter in their greedy little hand, chose to go for it all, at the expense of putting ABX out of business. Instead of accepting reality and partnering with the other pilot group involved, they tried to put them out of business.

A major blunder by ALPA, if you ask me. They haven't won a thing, most likely never will, but they sure alienated the very pilot group they will need the most support from.