Island Air Sold

[English]

Aloha completes sale of Island Air

Prabha Natarajan

Gavarnie Holdings concluded its acquisition of Island Air from Aloha Airgroup on Tuesday.

Island Air operates 46 daily flights from Honolulu and Kahului, Maui, to smaller airports such as Molokai, Lanai and Kapalua, West Maui. The commuter airline was owned by the same parent company as Aloha Airlines and Gavarnie signed a purchase agreement for it in December.

Island Air will carry a new tag line "Simply Hawaii." Its first new route between Maui and Kona will be launched Thursday. The airline plans to add four more new routes -- Hilo to Kahului, Hilo to Honolulu, Lihue to Kahului and Lihue to Honolulu.

Gavarnie will add five more aircraft to the company's existing fleet of four 37-seat de Havilland Dash-8 aircraft.

The airline will retain its marketing ties with Aloha Airlines. For instance, Island Air customers can use the AlohaPass mileage program.

The sale allows Aloha to focus on its interisland and trans-Pacific routes, said Aloha president Glenn Zander.

The source is the Pacific Business News web edition, Tuesday, May 11, 2004.

 

[av8tortype]

Let the journey begin ...

 

[Pull & Rotate]

There are major scope issues involved here. I think ALPA is going to have a great case against this deal. It is a pretty clear violation of the Aloha Airlines pilots contract.

 

[English]

Even with a clear violation, it could take years to resolve. Look at APA's grievance over the American Connection (AX) codeshare. That took two years in arbitration to resolve.

 

[Paladin]

Are these new aircraft also going to be Dash-8s? Maybe they'll grab some of ALGs old ones.

 

[Freight Dog]

This will definitely be interesting. I wonder how your average WP pilot feels about this..

 

[toa2mdt]

ALG?

you guys dont even want old ALG Dashs! Pieces of crap!

 

[Sleepyhead]

FYI, they are suppose to get all Dash-8-100s.

"The sale allows Aloha to focus on its interisland and trans-Pacific routes, said Aloha president Glenn Zander"

That is an interesting statement, do we do anything else?

 

[igneousy2]

There are major scope issues involved here. I think ALPA is going to have a great case against this deal. It is a pretty clear violation of the Aloha Airlines pilots contract.

Rule 1 with Contracts, it rarely is a "clear" violation of a contract. That's what lawyers get paid the big bucks for...make things as vague as possible so you can argue it either way when you need to. Be wary of any union officer/rep that uses the terms "clear violation" and contract in the same sentence.

2. This is not, by any means a CLEAR violation of AQ's scope. There is no mention of code-shares in the scope clause, therefore, any connection would have to be argued. This in and of itself will take a couple of years to unravel. An arbitrator is going to get into issues like "operational control" and the money trail. If it doesn't point back to Aloha, ALPA will have a tough case. Also, I'm curious what the past-practice was prior to 2004. I know AQ has had marketing agreements with other airlines like UA that flew OGG-HNL. That would also have a bearing on the arbitrators interpretation of your scope clause.

3. Even after this whole process plays itself out, at least 1 maybe 2 years, the arbitrator finds that AQ did violate the scope clause, AQ ALPA will have to prove that it's pilots suffered harm. That will also be a tough sell to an arbitrator because most of the routes that we are talking about are not currently flown by AQ pilots and AQ probably has data that shows that it would never be feasable to operate LIH/KOA, KOA/OGG, OGG/ITO with a 737. So far at least, any parallel routes with AQ can be argued as being merely "positioning."

4. Even if AQ ALPA pilots get the arbitrator to agree that it's scope was violated, that it did suffer harm, arbitrators consistently come down in the middle. If they come down to far either side they would never get any work. The most that could be reasonably hoped for by AQ ALPA would be a "cease and decist" order which would mean that AQ drop the code share with Island Air after maybe 2 years of operation. A real lose lose situation.

This may be the best time for AQ ALPA to put something together, no furlough claus for all pilots on property perhaps.



just my .02

 

[Freight Dog]

Rule 1 with Contracts, it rarely is a "clear" violation of a contract. That's what lawyers get paid the big bucks for...make things as vague as possible so you can argue it either way when you need to. Be wary of any union officer/rep that uses the terms "clear violation" and contract in the same sentence.

I'll agree with this one.

2. This is not, by any means a CLEAR violation of AQ's scope. There is no mention of code-shares in the scope clause, therefore, any connection would have to be argued. This in and of itself will take a couple of years to unravel. An arbitrator is going to get into issues like "operational control" and the money trail. If it doesn't point back to Aloha, ALPA will have a tough case. Also, I'm curious what the past-practice was prior to 2004. I know AQ has had marketing agreements with other airlines like UA that flew OGG-HNL. That would also have a bearing on the arbitrators interpretation of your scope clause.

I don't have a copy of my contract here as I'm on a trip, but our contract states that the routes in question will be flown by Aloha Airlines pilots on our seniority list. Now... here's where it gets tricky. If your HNL-KOA or OGG-KOA flight bears an AQ code and doesn't have a WP code as a primary code attached to it, it's a scope violation in my book...

3. Even after this whole process plays itself out, at least 1 maybe 2 years, the arbitrator finds that AQ did violate the scope clause, AQ ALPA will have to prove that it's pilots suffered harm. That will also be a tough sell to an arbitrator because most of the routes that we are talking about are not currently flown by AQ pilots and AQ probably has data that shows that it would never be feasable to operate LIH/KOA, KOA/OGG, OGG/ITO with a 737. So far at least, any parallel routes with AQ can be argued as being merely "positioning."

If the arbitrator finds that AQ violated our scope, believe me, it won't be as difficult as you think to prove that our pilots suffered harm in terms of upgrades, new-hires, bid lines, wages, etc. Look at what APA over American was awarded for an even tougher grievance than this one. The damage is monetary.

As for "not profitable", when I flew -200, and did OGG-KOA-OGG, that flight was jam packed every single time, and we'd still be leaving people behind. Given what they charged for tickets, that was a BIG time money-maker.

4. Even if AQ ALPA pilots get the arbitrator to agree that it's scope was violated, that it did suffer harm, arbitrators consistently come down in the middle. If they come down to far either side they would never get any work. The most that could be reasonably hoped for by AQ ALPA would be a "cease and decist" order which would mean that AQ drop the code share with Island Air after maybe 2 years of operation. A real lose lose situation.

Or perhaps it would force the company to put AQ aircraft crewed by AQ crews on an AQ flight. Now there's a concept...

This may be the best time for AQ ALPA to put something together, no furlough claus for all pilots on property perhaps.

No furlough clause is absolutely worthless... Didn't help Delta much, or UAL.



just my .02

There's mine..

 

[dash8driver]

There is a reason why lawyers love it when they are on a case that already has a precedent set....


there's mine...

 

[igneousy2]

Here's your Scope

SCOPE:

B.1. All flying over present or future certificated routes of Aloha Airlines, Incorporated or any extension thereof, and any contract or charter flying presently performed or to be performed in the future, and all other flying performed by Aloha Airlines, Incorporated or which customarily would be performed by Aloha Airlines, Incorporated including training (except for initial factory conducted training on newly purchased equipment), shall be accomplished by active Pilots on the Aloha Airlines Pilots' System Seniority List and shall be flown in accordance with all provisions of the Employment Agreement and applicable amendments thereto between Aloha Airlines and the Pilots as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International, provided such flying either produces revenue for the Company, is subsidized by the Company, or is subcontracted for by the Company.

B.2. Aloha Airlines currently operates Boeing 737 Series Aircraft between the principal airports located in the State of Hawaii: Lihue, Kahului, Honolulu, Kona and Hilo. Such aircraft are flown by pilots in the service of Aloha Airlines, Inc. (Aloha Pilots), as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA). Any aircraft flown on routes between the principal airports above shall be flown by Aloha Pilots unless specifically agreed otherwise.


B.2 is talking about contract pilots flying YOUR 737's...so just throw it out.

B.1 may refer to code share agreements, however, it is far from black & white.

I didn't look through the LOA's so there may be something relevant there.

Anyway, who knows what will happen in arbitration, I just had to speak out because i've been hearing many pilots (WP and AQ) speak of the scope provisions as iron clad and clear cut which I do not believe it is.

Later

 

[Freight Dog]

That's from the old contract. We supposedly "improved" our scope when we gave up 10% in January 2003 where it further specified the routes and specifically named Island Air. I don't have it here with me...

In any case, I still think we'll win the grievance.

 

[English]

I don't understand why ALPA contracts seemed to always be so poorly worded. Eagle has experienced heartburn over the loopholes in their contract language for years. When I first read the Aloha contract, I thought the wording was too vague as well.

But I'm just a pilot, what do I know.

 

[igneousy2]

I don't understand why ALPA contracts seemed to always be so poorly worded. Eagle has experienced heartburn over the loopholes in their contract language for years. When I first read the Aloha contract, I thought the wording was too vague as well.

But I'm just a pilot, what do I know.

the only thing AQ ALPA's got going for it is that AQ doesn't have the floor full of lawyers that AMR has over at Centerport. (AMR HQ)

Later

 

[Trash8Mofo]

Here we go....

Aloha Airlines Pilots Rebuke Management’s Outsourcing of Jobs

Honolulu -- The pilots of Aloha Airlines, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), today announced their filing of a legal challenge seeking reversal of management actions that violate job-protection terms of their contract.

The pilots contend that, by allocating flying under the Aloha code to former subsidiary Aloha Island Air, Aloha management breached contractual "scope" provisions that restrict the outsourcing of Aloha pilots’ jobs and require ALPA approval of new code-share agreements.

"The company evidently believes they found a way to do an end run around our scope clause. However, ALPA is confident that legal precedent will support the contention that management’s actions violate the protections contained in the collective bargaining agreement," said Capt. Conrad Waggener, chairman of the Aloha pilots’ unit of ALPA.

The Aloha pilots’ action does not seek a reversal of the sale of Island Air. Rather, it seeks either the restoration of Aloha flight assignments that otherwise would now be transferred to the Island Air operation or an agreement between management and ALPA on an alternative that would allow the arrangement with Island Air to continue as an exception to the contractual code-share restrictions.

The contract language in question was added to the Aloha pilots’ collective bargaining agreement as part of their concessionary negotiations related to Aloha’s application for an ATSB loan guarantee in February 2003. Management offered the job protections in return for the ten percent reduction in wages and benefits that the pilots and other Aloha Airlines employees delivered.

According to ALPA’s president, Capt. Duane Woerth, the issue strikes at the heart of airline pilots’ collective-bargaining interests. "Unlike workers in most other industries, airline pilots make an enormous sacrifice if they decide to leave an employer for which they’ve worked any significant period of time. The seniority system forces them to restart their careers with a new airline at the bottom of the pecking order. Consequently, pilots are more ‘wed’ to their employers than most other workers. This is why job protections -- securing the pilots’ right to perform the flying that generates revenue for their respective carriers -- are essential safeguards in airline pilots’ contracts," Woerth said.

"Given the importance of this issue to all airline pilots, and the intent of the Aloha pilots’ contractual scope language, ALPA finds Aloha management’s attempt to circumvent these job protections highly objectionable," Woerth added. "This association will give the Aloha pilots any and all support they need to rectify this matter."