ILN ops

[Whistlin' Dan]

The real question is, "Is John Dasburg willing to swear under oath that it isn't"

 

[shooter]

The bottom line is that operationally, both Astar and ABX are defacto "employees" when it suits DHL, and "subcontractors" when it does not.

quote]

where does that......familiar.....oh yeah! regionals when it comes to pay scales and then they say they are a commuter.

 

[erichartmann]

True, but FAA policy is that the company exercising "operational control" be the certificate holder. Federal law requires that the certificate holder be owned and controlled by U.S. citizens. What happens when the company calling the shots (in this case, DHL) isn't U.S. owned?

"Overnight express" cannot be adequately served solely through the use of existing airline service, schedules, and available lift. It requires the use of dedicated airplanes flying market-specific schedules. But if "operational control" is assumed to be the province of the certificate holder, and the certificate holder must be of U.S. citizenship, then it would follow that the company calling the shots ("operational control") must be of U.S. ownership as well. DHL is not owned or controlled by U.S. citizens, but they're definitely calling the shots. Why that is, I do not know.

The bottom line is that operationally, both Astar and ABX are defacto "employees" when it suits DHL, and "subcontractors" when it does not.

If they won't s***, I wish they'd at least get off the pot.

Actually I think the FAA looks at operational control as more than just saying fly the airplane to KXXX at 00:00. It gets into things like dictating operational proceedures, callouts, the flight operations manual & company operations policy. UPS had time/motion study engineers on contractors airplanes looking at how things got done "operationally" with an eye toward telling the operator how things should be done the UPS way. This goes way beyond simply having the airplane depart at xx:xx to arrive at the chosen destination at yy:yy. Part of the deal with the Fedex "subcontractors" is that Fedex dictates uniforms and work rules and pay rates. DHL does not do this for ABX.

 

[abxaviator]

True, but FAA policy is that the company exercising "operational control" be the certificate holder. Federal law requires that the certificate holder be owned and controlled by U.S. citizens. What happens when the company calling the shots (in this case, DHL) isn't U.S. owned?

"Overnight express" cannot be adequately served solely through the use of existing airline service, schedules, and available lift. It requires the use of dedicated airplanes flying market-specific schedules. But if "operational control" is assumed to be the province of the certificate holder, and the certificate holder must be of U.S. citizenship, then it would follow that the company calling the shots ("operational control") must be of U.S. ownership as well. DHL is not owned or controlled by U.S. citizens, but they're definitely calling the shots. Why that is, I do not know.

The bottom line is that operationally, both Astar and ABX are defacto "employees" when it suits DHL, and "subcontractors" when it does not.

If they won't s***, I wish they'd at least get off the pot.

So, if I contract for a jet to be at my beck and call every time I want to travel and tell them when and where to fly and what type of aircraft to provide; am I exercising Operational Control?

 

[rotor&wing]

So, if I contract for a jet to be at my beck and call every time I want to travel and tell them when and where to fly and what type of aircraft to provide; am I exercising Operational Control?

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

 

[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