ILN ops

[erichartmann]

here is some interesting reading on the FAA's definition of "Operational Control"

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-21226.htm

Quite interesting. It confirms my belief that DHL does not exercise "operational control" of ABX by simply picking a desination city and specifying arrival times. I would suspect the same also applies to Astar. OTOH, a court finding that a parent/subsidiary relationship at some level exists between Astar and DHL might have ramifications with the DOT vis a vis Astar's "citizenship" and it's legal right to hold an operating certificate andoperate in the U.S.

 

[AV8OR]

"OTOH, a court finding that a parent/subsidiary relationship at some level exists between Astar and DHL might have ramifications with the DOT vis a vis Astar's "citizenship" and it's legal right to hold an operating certificate andoperate in the U.S."

We're not claiming a "parent/subsidiary relationship". We are claiming the same thing anyone else with a signed contract claims... the legal obligation to make it whole. Contracts get broken all the time, (more than that if it's DHL) but the signers have an obligation to honor their financial commitment to the contract. DHL was a co-signer to our contract. Pure and simple. If we, AStar default on our end, to uphold our contractual obligations to DHL, there'll be financial ramifications for us. Same for ABX. If DHL fails to pay AStar or ABX for services provided by our respective ACMI's, again financial ramifications. OK, well same deal here. We have a contract, backed by and signed, by the "good faith and financial backing) of DHL Worldwide...not the airline, the shipping company. We're not claimimg them as parents, or that we're a subsidiary. They were the co-signers on the note, the contract. If priciple A. defaults on a note, then principle B. the co-signer will have the ramifications of being the co-signer to the contract. Why? Because the parties entered into the contract under the auspices that at least some of the integrity of the contract being made whole would be born by the co-signer.

So, that's all we want. It's all we've ever wanted. If DHL wants to use ABX Air for 100% of it's lift, fine by me. Seriously. Yall have at it. But they're gonna have to PAY FOR IT, because they were co-signers on our contract. Trust me, I don't give a flying fart whether or not you call us DHL, AStar or Joe Blow Air, DHL just needs to honor what was really a fiduciary responsibility to our contract. I don't really care how they make it whole, just that they do so.

 

[767pilot]

Didn't UPS and FDX already push the foreign control issue with DHL in front of the D.O.T. and loose?

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

I would suspect the same also applies to Astar. OTOH, a court finding that a parent/subsidiary relationship at some level exists between Astar and DHL might have ramifications with the DOT vis a vis Astar's "citizenship" and it's legal right to hold an operating certificate and operate in the U.S.

Don't be too smug there. The same connection might very well be made between DHL and ABX.

Good luck getting the Krauts to honor that contract.


"I believe [this document will bring us] peace in our time."

Neville Chamberlin, upon the signing of the Munich Pact with Germany in 1938

 

[erichartmann]

"OTOH, a court finding that a parent/subsidiary relationship at some level exists between Astar and DHL might have ramifications with the DOT vis a vis Astar's "citizenship" and it's legal right to hold an operating certificate andoperate in the U.S."

We're not claiming a "parent/subsidiary relationship". We are claiming the same thing anyone else with a signed contract claims... the legal obligation to make it whole. Contracts get broken all the time, (more than that if it's DHL) but the signers have an obligation to honor their financial commitment to the contract. DHL was a co-signer to our contract. Pure and simple. If we, AStar default on our end, to uphold our contractual obligations to DHL, there'll be financial ramifications for us. Same for ABX. If DHL fails to pay AStar or ABX for services provided by our respective ACMI's, again financial ramifications. OK, well same deal here. We have a contract, backed by and signed, by the "good faith and financial backing) of DHL Worldwide...not the airline, the shipping company. We're not claimimg them as parents, or that we're a subsidiary. They were the co-signers on the note, the contract. If priciple A. defaults on a note, then principle B. the co-signer will have the ramifications of being the co-signer to the contract. Why? Because the parties entered into the contract under the auspices that at least some of the integrity of the contract being made whole would be born by the co-signer.

So, that's all we want. It's all we've ever wanted. If DHL wants to use ABX Air for 100% of it's lift, fine by me. Seriously. Yall have at it. But they're gonna have to PAY FOR IT, because they were co-signers on our contract. Trust me, I don't give a flying fart whether or not you call us DHL, AStar or Joe Blow Air, DHL just needs to honor what was really a fiduciary responsibility to our contract. I don't really care how they make it whole, just that they do so.

No, not directly. However, labor contracts differ under the law from other contracts. The case I am familiar with suggests that for DHL to have an obligation to honor your labor contract a “parent/subsidiary” relationship must still exist. I believe, if you research it, you will find the corporate entity which was a party to your CBA no longer exists in the eyes of the law. I also think much of this, to include the sale of DHL Airways to Dburg, was done specifically to separate DHL from your CBA and relieve them of the need to honor the clause. In short, I think you have been thoroughly hosed. You and I, and our peers at our respective carriers are pawns in larger game. If you play chess, you will be familiar with what happens to pawns.

Peace

 

[erichartmann]

Don't be too smug there. The same connection might very well be made between DHL and ABX.

Good luck getting the Krauts to honor that contract.


"I believe [this document will bring us] peace in our time."

Neville Chamberlin, upon the signing of the Munich Pact with Germany in 1938

No smugness involved Dan. I was making an observation with respect to the claims Astar's ALPA unit is making vis a vis their CBA and DHL.

ABX has no similar claim.

BTW, if you are going to highlight or add emphasis to portions of my posts you are quoting it would be ethical to note that you have added emphasis.

 

[rotor&wing]

No, not directly. However, labor contracts differ under the law from other contracts. The case I am familiar with suggests that for DHL to have an obligation to honor your labor contract a “parent/subsidiary” relationship must still exist. I believe, if you research it, you will find the corporate entity which was a party to your CBA no longer exists in the eyes of the law. I also think much of this, to include the sale of DHL Airways to Dburg, was done specifically to separate DHL from your CBA and relieve them of the need to honor the clause. In short, I think you have been thoroughly hosed. You and I, and our peers at our respective carriers are pawns in larger game. If you play chess, you will be familiar with what happens to pawns.

Peace

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.

 

[AV8OR]

"The case I am familiar with suggests that for DHL to have an obligation to honor your labor contract a “parent/subsidiary” relationship must still exist. I believe, if you research it, you will find the corporate entity which was a party to your CBA no longer exists in the eyes of the law."

With all due respect Erich, to your knowledge of the law, you are wrong on two counts.....

A. Our contract was signed by two (2) parties, "The Company" (DHL Airways now Astar) and a company called DHL Worldwide Express. Specifically they (both of em) are co-signers to our scope remedies section which calls for binding arbitration. They elected to take us to court instead.

B. While DHL Airways, "The Company" (see A. above) is now AStar Air Cargo, the other signer, DHL Worldwide Express is still very much a company. As a matter of fact, they bought Airborne Express and they reside in Plantation, FL.

Here, check it out:

The first article is from 2003 and will illustrate two companies, one of which changed it's name, while the other did not, both of whom signed the CBA......
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BEK/is_7_11/ai_108721134

The second is a transcript from the former CEO himself, speaking to a government panel on postal reform. Take a look at how he breaks own the lines of the company and where his (DHL Worldwide Express) resides....Plantation, Fl.

http://www.postcom.org/public/2004/dhl.pdf

Guess what? Same address then as it was in Nov, when DHL Worldwide Express released this press release....

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/501394

So, ya see, DHL Worldwide Express is very much in business, and it was they, who violated the contract they signed, and the required arbitration remedy they agreed to.

That's alright though........show me the money!

 

[Johnlp3]

Show me the flying...

 

[flyinboxes]

Show me either! Preferably the money so I can quit!

 

[shooter]

Show me either! Preferably the money so I can quit!

even if it does somehow get to a payday on the contract ( I doubt it ever will), don't expect a payday. I will reference EWW vs. USPS and a signed contract for the company and a signed contract for the pilots. Sure the company got paid but the employees (pilots and pilot contract included) got zip.

Then ask yourself if the company has a contract with DHL. I don't believe they have one except the ACMI contract they now hold.

I'm not a lawyer, but then neither are any of you. Unless you chose pilot career over law which would make no sense.

 

[penguin22]

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.

Doesn't matter zip what your lawyers think. What matters is what the Judge thinks.

This Judge doesn't think much of your case.
http://www.nlrb.gov/nlrb/shared_files/decisions/alj/JD-64-04.htm


Here's a couple excerpts from the Judge's decision for everyone's reading pleasure:

"On August 28, a hearing was held before District Judge Loretta A. Preska. During the course of that hearing, ALPA reiterated and made clear its position that only ALPA members employed by ASTAR could fly the freight for Airborne that had previously and was presently being flown by the Teamsters Union flight crews of ABX. ALPA takes this position undeterred by the fact that the many differences in the size, operations, pilot qualifications, and capabilities of ASTAR, ABX, and their respective pilots render ALPA incapable of handling much of the ABX flying that ALPA claims for itself. "

"In the present case, ALPA is allegedly threatening DHL Holdings and its subsidiaries, employers within the meaning of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the NLRA, with the object of forcing these employers to stop doing business with ABX"

"ALPA has sought, ........ to require DHL Holdings and DHL Worldwide to terminate its subsidiary’s contract with ABX, pursuant to which ABX provides flying services for Airborne, flying that has traditionally and is presently being done by Teamsters members, and to assign this flying to ALPA members. "

"ABX is the primary employer in ALPA’s grievance and counterclaim because ALPA seeks the ABX flying positions for its members. "

"Indeed, ALPA’s claim (that the scope clause in its collective-bargaining agreement requires that ALPA members must handle the flying for airline companies with whom DHL does business) uses the scope clause “as a sword, to reach out and monopolize all the [flying] job tasks for [ALPA] members.”

"The secondary and unlawful aspect of ALPA’s action in filing a grievance against DHL is its intention to require DHL to cease doing business with ABX, at least insofar as the pilots of ABX are not represented for collective-bargaining purposes by ALPA."




Just a guess on my part, but I'm guessing Judge Gontram may have some real legal training too!

 

[AV8OR]

Hey peng, be careful what ya crow about........

Judge Gontram has plenty of knowledge regrading ........NLRB Law. It's not the first time the NLRB has tried to rope in a "labor organization" under the NLRB that we all know is properly grouped under the RLA. If need be, it'l go all the way to the Supreme Court. Not because anyone gives a flip about us, but because if we, airlines, (that includes you my friend) are going to be governed by NLRB rules, then you can take most any airline pilot contract out there and throw it away.

 

[flyinboxes]

Of course a NLRB judge would see it that way. She has no choice. Under the NLRB scope is illegal. This is a RLA case and will one day end up back where it belongs........one day.......one........day.........ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

 

[penguin22]

Hey peng, be careful what ya crow about........

(not crowing at all, btw...)

I know all about NLRB/RLA issues. That's why our union, when asked, didn't join ABX's complaint.

I'm just pointing out for everyone to see ALPA's job grab attempt. Imagine!... a union, trying to take jobs away from another union!:bomb: