NetJets common carrier

[Ultra Grump]

Semper fido got it right. If a G man come over to our side... then there would be a seat open on the G side... for me....

Let's say this integration came to pass. And let's say that an NJIer with a DOH one day before mine bids and is awarded an open Capt slot on the NJA side, leaving me out. This opens an SIC slot on the NJI side. However, because of the fence described earlier, I am unable to bid for that slot, unless I go to the bottom of the G-list, right? So essentially all NJI guys will have a form of super-seniority over NJAers, in that they keep their seniority on the Gulfstream, yet get DOH on any of our aircraft. Am I understanding this correctly?

We would get the work rules... no fence on rules, just on type ratings.

The other question is how will the single-carrier petition result in the NJI workrules and pay taking precedence over our negotiated contract?

 

[Fozzy]

This is all guess work. My impression of fences is that it will allow pilots to stay in a seat once merged even if they would not normally be able to hold that position. So for example, (and this should get some pissed, but makes my point) All of NJI gets stapled or FLOPS or whoever. Stapled. But they would have a fence to allow them to hold that seat (helps company in the training area and keeps pilots happy). You in seniority would not loose in rank, but they would keep their seat.
That is my guess.

And pay, that must be negotiated.


GV I took a look at that right to work law. What would keep NJ, if they lost a single carrier suit, from folding the SC ops because they are not needed and just moving the G's to Ohio? Forget about the union end of this. They are forced to make them part of NJA. Planes get moved to another "company" and now that SC law is worthless. Just throwing that out there.

 

[Publishers]

You all seem to be ignoring Gulfstreams role in this.

Secondly, I beg to differ that you have any passengers. The whole concept is that you are providing a service to owners. The owners hire Netjets or NJI and that is not the same thing as an airline so they sure are not your passengers at all. You have a glorified airplane brokerage service and management service. I think the court would say that you are not even an air carrier except in the FAA world of commercial aviation.

You also know that an individual cannot be forced to join a union according to law. If you have another company where the employees do not want to be in a union, you will have a problem convincing a court to force single carrier. It is one thing when a company does not want that to happen, another when the employees do not want it to happen.

The Pan Am / Boston etc battle that just went on may serve as an example and they were companies with the same owners.

This is where I think you go astray on the single carrier thing. The court is going to look to what you do and it is not in their perception an air carrier like other cases. You serve at the contracted pleasure of some owners. If Netjets owned the aircraft and you were providing strictly 135 open charter to the world, maybe different but I do not think this single carrier will fly.

 

[Majik]

Well thank you Perry Mason, but I think we'll let another attorney provide our legal advise.

So you're saying, while we are in negotiations, we should not pursue the single carrier issue if it might help pursuade Santulli to give us a better deal? Sounds like you're just against the idea of us getting a better deal at all. I think we should consider using every tool in the drawer to get the job done and that's what we'll do, whether you APPROVE or not. Enjoy the view from the sidelines.

 

[Ultra Grump]

Secondly, I beg to differ that you have any passengers. The whole concept is that you are providing a service to owners. The owners hire Netjets or NJI and that is not the same thing as an airline so they sure are not your passengers at all. You have a glorified airplane brokerage service and management service. I think the court would say that you are not even an air carrier except in the FAA world of commercial aviation.

So if that is the case, why are we subject to the RLA?

 

[CatYaaak]

So if that is the case, why are we subject to the RLA?

What does labor law or the mere existence of a labor agreement between you and your employer NJA have to do with whether an operation meets the standard of being an "air carrier" with regards to who the passengers are, and how they access the air services? Where's the common carriage involved when your customers are technically considered to be private owners? The whole point of setting up the fractional scheme the way it was, was to exist outside the common carriage world.

Outside the womb of NJA, interchange agreements exist between private owners/companies to ride on each other's aircraft and maintain Private, non-common carrier status, thus remain Part 91 ops. The pilots fly "other" people all the time. That's all your "owners" are doing, and it's nothing special or new except for the way it was financed, structured, and sold to a niche market of medium-use customers.

You're trying to apply airline-world "it's our flying, they're our passengers" answers to somewhere it doesn't. Owners have an element of operational control, and aren't just stranger pax that walk up and buy a ticket, also why their names are legally attached to certain, specific aircraft in your fleets.

The ability for an owner of a Hawker share (who's name is attatched to a specific Hawker serial number) to ride on an Ultra, or for that matter, another Hawker within NJA, and remain Part 91 has nothing to do with a labor agreement or being an "air carrier". It's about interchange agreements built into the fractional contract between private owners that you just happen to drive around. Same thing if you fly a Gstream owner from NJI or vice-versa.

If you guys are spending union dues money on lawyers who are blowing sunshine up your bums on this, I hope you fire them quickly when the time comes. Fractionals are certainly a viable idea and have broken some new ground, but you're not going to re-define what makes something a "carrier", especially after all the lobbying and reg/law-parsing that was undertaken to deem you presicely the opposite.

 

[Grizz]

I'll try to explain this and I'll use small words so Publishers and CatYaaak can follow along. We were recognized as a collective bargaining unit under the Railway Labor Act. Because we still do a significant portion of our flights under Part 135 with non-owners onboard (Marquis Cards), that is d@mned unlikely to change.

We would love nothing more than to be moved under the National Labor Relations Act because it would give us tons more leverage. NetJets will never allow that because they like us just where we are. Because they want us under the RLA, it has some provisions they can't ignore such as the single carrier provision.

If you were NetJets management, what would you rather have? A union that can file to have your non-union group get absorbed into the union side OR a union that can go on strike at the end of a contract? It's a simple equation in their mind and one that we're stuck with. That being said, get ready for the single carrier lawsuit. It's one of the few weapons that the RLA leaves us and we'd be foolish not to use it.

I'm sure we're going to hear from the self-styled experts on labor law such as Publishers and CatYaaak, but I'll defer to the guys that really are experts. Not a couple of yahoos on a message board that are impressed with their own delusions of grandeur.

 

[CatYaaak]

I'll try to explain this and I'll use small words so Publishers and CatYaaak can follow along. We were recognized as a collective bargaining unit under the Railway Labor Act. Because we still do a significant portion of our flights under Part 135 with non-owners onboard (Marquis Cards), that is d@mned unlikely to change.

We would love nothing more than to be moved under the National Labor Relations Act because it would give us tons more leverage. NetJets will never allow that because they like us just where we are. Because they want us under the RLA, it has some provisions they can't ignore such as the single carrier provision.

If you were NetJets management, what would you rather have? A union that can file to have your non-union group get absorbed into the union side OR a union that can go on strike at the end of a contract? It's a simple equation in their mind and one that we're stuck with. That being said, get ready for the single carrier lawsuit. It's one of the few weapons that the RLA leaves us and we'd be foolish not to use it.

I'm sure we're going to hear from the self-styled experts on labor law such as Publishers and CatYaaak, but I'll defer to the guys that really are experts. Not a couple of yahoos on a message board that are impressed with their own delusions of grandeur.

If I were NetJets management, I'd love for you to keep doing what you're doing...spinning your wheels and wasting your money on this non-issue. If you lose, you lose. If you win, it doesn't do a thing to improve your own condition, namely pay. If they offer up NJI as a sacraficial lamb, then it's seen as a concession on their part and they'll want something in return, which again does nothing to improve your condition.

But hey, if it makes you feel better or convinces the rank and file you're "doing something" up there steering the raft.....well, it's their money so whatever.

Thank you for the education on civlian aviation Grizz. Labor lawyers are of course the apex of aviation knowledge, should be deferred to, and no way would they ever tell their clients such as yourself exactly what they want to hear.

 

[Ultra Grump]

CatYaaak - Are you always a confrontational ass?

What does labor law or the mere existence of a labor agreement between you and your employer NJA have to do with whether an operation meets the standard of being an "air carrier" with regards to who the passengers are, and how they access the air services? Where's the common carriage involved when your customers are technically considered to be private owners? The whole point of setting up the fractional scheme the way it was, was to exist outside the common carriage world.
...
You're trying to apply airline-world "it's our flying, they're our passengers" answers to somewhere it doesn't.

Thanks for the tirade. I'll ask again: so if that is the case, why are we subject to the RLA?

 

[Publishers]

You are subject to the RLA beause you are technically in the air trasportation world of DOT and FAA. That should not comfort you in the single carrier status issue.

Introduction

Whether they know it or not, employees in a unionized workplace have a choice to make: they can join and support the labor union that represents their bargaining unit, or they can choose to refrain from joining and supporting the union.(2) In a diverse society such as ours, it is hardly surprising that individual employees' opinions frequently differ from those of the labor union officials charged with representing their interests, and that many employees will not want to join the union or support it.