ILN ops

[freighthound]

Enjoy life, have a beer and some of that good barbecue down the road.

Now that's something I can agree with.

 

[Cargoav8or]

....................................

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

If your (Astar) owners do not provide the equipment to provide the service DHL customers demand, do not act surprised when the axe falls across the neck. And if/when it does, do not blame ABX. They are just providing the service they always have. WAY WAY before DHL came to gum the works up.

The thing is, that it's not Astars job to provide the service that DHL customers demand, it's Astars job to provide the service that DHL demands. Up until now, that level of service hasn't necesitated Cat II certification. In fact, if FedEx and UPS were not Cat II and III certified, they (DHL) almost certainly would not be considering it now.

I don't know anybody at Astar who blames ABX for their current woes. If anything, they have a lot of respect for ABX for refusing to be dependent upon DHL Int'l for their continued livelihood.

The problems at Astar are that it's caught between a changing business relationship with it's parent company, and the steeply rising fortunes of those employed by others in the same industry. That, compounded by the fact that it's management team is perceived as being devoid of integrity, credibility, or competency, and it's like watching a train wreck in progress. I wish them the best.

 

[erichartmann]

The thing is, that it's not Astars job to provide the service that DHL customers demand, it's Astars job to provide the service that DHL demands. Up until now, that level of service hasn't necesitated Cat II certification. In fact, if FedEx and UPS were not Cat II and III certified, they (DHL) almost certainly would not be considering it now.

While this is true as far as it goes it is also part of the problem with the business model. It all adds to the perception of ABX that DHL Airways & by default Astar is not and has not been in the overnight express business. They have been an air freight carrier where the mere fact that it moved by air was good enough. This was good enough in much of the global economy, but not in the U.S. That business model ceased to work in the U.S. years ago. This is much of the reason DHL was never able to have much of an impact in the U.S. market. It will not remain viable in the global market for much longer if it still is

As a customer of DHL, Astar will not want to provide a more capable & reliable service unless their customer demands it. DHL may want the service & reliability, but don't want to pay Astar to acquire it. Their business model is to simply look around for another carrier who can. Capitalism 101 at work. .

Unfortunately, in this market, given the regulated nature of aviation, the time lag and other factors work against you. A forward thinking management, or one capable of thinking out side the box would have seen what was coming and acted to fill the need. ABX is not wholly free of problems in this area. Hete absolutely refuses to cut doors in the PC 767s unless DHL pays for it. Right now this is a staring match and part of the driving force to have ABX get other business so as not to be dependant on DHL.

I’m not sure if DPWN understood the dynamics of the U.S. market or the changing global market when they purchased DHL. I think they grasp the concept now, but haven’t really figured out how to deal with it. OTOH, I believe they don’t want to simply copy FDX and UPS. They are trying to figure out if their basic model (which appears to be to lease everything and contract service) will continue to work for them. I don’t think it will. In the end I think leasing (& contracting) is more expensive than owning and managing yourself. You are paying the profit margin of the lessor and the contractor. You will have trouble providing the quality service the customer demands if you are subcontracting to the lowest bidder and leasing the cheapest possible equipment. While neither ABX nor Astar is truly the lowest bidder, this is net effect of having more than one carrier. The desire is to have sufficient competition to drive costs down. This is ultimately self defeating as you cannot charge the same price as FDX and UPS for inferior service, and where service rather than price is the determining factor you cannot compete at all.

I think this may change, probably in a cyclic manner. Having competition throughout the process would provide a less expensive product to the customer. It won’t work while service is perceived by the customer to be one of the major components if not the driving force. Right now the customer perceives the price to be within reason for the service provided in the U.S. market.

I don't know anybody at Astar who blames ABX for their current woes. If anything, they have a lot of respect for ABX for refusing to be dependent upon DHL Int'l for their continued livelihood.

That is not what comes across in some of the posts.

The problems at Astar are that it's caught between a changing business relationship with it's parent company, and the steeply rising fortunes of those employed by others in the same industry. That, compounded by the fact that it's management team is perceived as being devoid of integrity, credibility, or competency, and it's like watching a train wreck in progress. I wish them the best.

There you go again. Astar no longer has a parent company. They have a customer. The former relationship with DHL gets in the way of thinking outside the box. It doesn’t help that former DHL Airways employees are now working at DHL.

 

[Cargoav8or]

"There you go again. Astar no longer has a parent company. They have a customer. The former relationship with DHL gets in the way of thinking outside the box. It doesn’t help that former DHL Airways employees are now working at DHL.[/quote]



So says you, which really means nothing to us. The courts will decide it, then and only then will we move on. Sorry, thats just the way it is, quit beating your head against the wall, we understand your concerns. If it goes out of business, all of it, then it does. Life will go on, we will find other jobs and you will be working in Japan, MIA or LAX. We are okay with that, sorry.


Have a nice day.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

There you go again. Astar no longer has a parent company. They have a customer. The former relationship with DHL gets in the way of thinking outside the box.

When a company only has one "customer," the lines between "employer/employee" and "independent contractor" are blurred considerably. FedEx has a similar arrangement with it's so-called "independent" truck drivers, and as I understand it, the courts have generally been ruling in favor of them being defacto employees of FedEx. If I am wrong about this, somebody will correct me, I'm sure.

DHL's employment of "independent contractors" is exactly what UPS was doing at the inception of their airline ops, and the feds told them that it was unnacceptable. I understand the issues of "foreign ownership," but why DHL has been permitted to operate the way they have is beyond me. The laws as currently written effectively preclude any foreign company from operating an express-mail service in the continental United States.

I do believe that DHL is acting outside the box, and that it will probably be necessary at some point for the pilots to do likewise.

 

[erichartmann]

"There you go again. Astar no longer has a parent company. They have a customer. The former relationship with DHL gets in the way of thinking outside the box. It doesn’t help that former DHL Airways employees are now working at DHL.

So says you, which really means nothing to us. The courts will decide it, then and only then will we move on. Sorry, thats just the way it is, quit beating your head against the wall, we understand your concerns. If it goes out of business, all of it, then it does. Life will go on, we will find other jobs and you will be working in Japan, MIA or LAX. We are okay with that, sorry.


Have a nice day.[/quote]

Actually that wasn't my point at all. BTW, assuming no change in ownship laws in the interim, I wonder what the DOT would say vis a vis your operating certificate if the courts did find in your favor and, in essence, found you to have an ongoing parent/subsidiary relationship with DHL.

Have a nice day.

 

[erichartmann]

When a company only has one "customer," the lines between "employer/employee" and "independent contractor" are blurred considerably. FedEx has a similar arrangement with it's so-called "independent" truck drivers, and as I understand it, the courts have generally been ruling in favor of them being defacto employees of FedEx. If I am wrong about this, somebody will correct me, I'm sure.

DHL's employment of "independent contractors" is exactly what UPS was doing at the inception of their airline ops, and the feds told them that it was unnacceptable. I understand the issues of "foreign ownership," but why DHL has been permitted to operate the way they have is beyond me. The laws as currently written effectively preclude any foreign company from operating an express-mail service in the continental United States.

I do believe that DHL is acting outside the box, and that it will probably be necessary at some point for the pilots to do likewise.

My understanding of what occured at UPS is a bit sketchy. I'm not sure it was a matter of law, rather I think it was a matter of FAA policy. If so, FAA policy clearly cannot trump the foreign ownship laws. If you believe the LAW to preclude any foreign company from operating an overnight express service in the U.S. please cite a reference.

 

[shooter]

"There you go again. Astar no longer has a parent company. They have a customer. The former relationship with DHL gets in the way of thinking outside the box. It doesn’t help that former DHL Airways employees are now working at DHL.

So says you, which really means nothing to us. The courts will decide it, then and only then will we move on. Sorry, thats just the way it is, quit beating your head against the wall, we understand your concerns. If it goes out of business, all of it, then it does. Life will go on, we will find other jobs and you will be working in Japan, MIA or LAX. We are okay with that, sorry.


Have a nice day.

[/QUOTE]

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying your company is being run by DHL? Are you willing to swear under oath that a foreign company is controlling your airline?

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

My understanding of what occured at UPS is a bit sketchy. I'm not sure it was a matter of law, rather I think it was a matter of FAA policy. If so, FAA policy clearly cannot trump the foreign ownship laws. If you believe the LAW to preclude any foreign company from operating an overnight express service in the U.S. please cite a reference.

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.

 

[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

 

[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: