New Astar contract

[penguin22]

So where would Airborne Express be if DHL never came to Wilmington? Weren't they losing market share? I was under the impression that by DHL giving Airborne some flying they saved pilot jobs? True or not?

Most definitely NOT true. For over twenty years, we've always been profitable, and market share was steady at around 9-10%.

Look for yourself:
http://www.prnewswire.com/gh/cnoc/comp/024550.html

I can only imagine who may have given you that impression.

 

[Whistlin' Dan]

...what is in our contract, is Allegheny Mohawk Labor Protection Provisions. There's nothing about stapling in Allegheny Mohawk LPPs, and nothing about stapling in our contract. Only, apparently, in yours.

There IS in our contract plenty about successorship, which if we had chosen to, could go to court and try to enforce them, to your detriment. We're not doing that.

Pay up. You owe me a nickel.

I stand corrected. Here's your nickel (.05). But having A/M successorship rules in a contract doesn't change the fact that a union has a legal duty to try to enforce successorship clauses in it's contracts. Nor does it change the fact that in most airline mergers, the pilots of the stronger carrier have felt that they weren't getting everything they were entitled to, while the pilots of the weaker carrier felt they were being screwed.

Of course, as used here, "stronger" and "weaker" carriers are relative terms, since neither ASTAR or ABX are actually employed by DHL.

 

[Clipperskip]

Who is DHL?

I stand corrected. Here's your nickel (.05). But having A/M successorship rules in a contract doesn't change the fact that a union has a legal duty to try to enforce successorship clauses in it's contracts. Nor does it change the fact that in most airline mergers, the pilots of the stronger carrier have felt that they weren't getting everything they were entitled to, while the pilots of the weaker carrier felt they were being screwed.

Of course, as used here, "stronger" and "weaker" carriers are relative terms, since neither ASTAR or ABX are actually employed by DHL.[/quote

Dan your last statement sums it all up. Neither Astar nor ABX is DHL! It is my understanding that the corporate restructuring that took place at Astar is simular to that which occurred at ABX. After the restructuring your scope/successorship language is practically worthless as you are no longer a part of DHL but simply a customer. As our last union president said during our shotgun negotiations of August 2003 "our challenge now is to create a scope/successorship language that ties our flying to the customer and not to the parent company. This has never been done before."

I understand the frustration of the pilots on both sides but it is time to put the issues to bed! Astar and DHL need ABX. Astar, at this time and for the forseeable future, can not provide the air service DHL needs in the US without the ABX a/c and their pilots. Likewise ABX needs the flying that DHL provides them. It is time to drop the law suits and to move forward. As it is now we might just find that we all are fighting over lounge chairs on the deck of a sinking ship. Lets keep it all in perspective. If DHL works out there service issues in the US then we are will captains in wide-body a/c. If they do not then we will all be joining the job market together. Once we are on the street the arguments over scope language will all be pointless.

 

[goastar]

"After the restructuring your scope/successorship language is practically worthless as you are no longer a part of DHL but simply a customer. "

Clipper yes we are a customer now, but before the sale we had a scope signed by DHL (and not just the US portion) before they sold us. They violated the agreement, we will get retribution. I understand this seems to frighten you all, but had Airborne(which does not exist any longer) bought DHL and we continued to fly Airborne freight(which does not exist any longer), I am sure you (ABX air) would be pursuing every avenue to either force a merger,force the company to compensate you for the lost flying, or force them to let you have all the flying. Realistically, I do not see how you could go away as I agree with your statements above and I think most others at Astar agree. So we will continue to seek compensation from DHL, I know the teamsters would if it were Airborne that still existed.

Do you think you would be buying airplanes and cargo doors if you were going away? I don't think the ACMI world can afford you or your 76's. Look at the rest of the ACMI world, they don't quite fly 76's or make 200+ a year, I think you will be around at DHL for a long while.

 

[erichartmann]

So for those yall watching at home.....

According to Erichartmann and Penguin22, it's OK to HAVE scope language in your contract, just not to enforce it. Whatever dude.

Which particular bit of scope language are you refering to? The no longer applicable bit requiring your FORMER parent to have you fly your FORMER parent's freight? The bit that the NLRB admin law judge ruled now constituted illegal interference in commerce and ordered you cease and desist from attempting to enforce?

 

[erichartmann]

Penguin,

FWIW, we were trying to force a merger, to prevent precisely what is happening right now. Your leadership was not interested in that at the time. I'm not going to waste time trying to convince you or Eric otherwise. While I'm not a commuter, I'd have to say that starting a jumpseat war would be damaging to both groups. I think both sides should listen to their leadership, and act accordingly. As AV8OR said,

Peace, out.

Yeah sure. "Your leadership was not interested" is not my understanding of the situation. I heard from my leadership "at the time" what your alleged intentions were. I was and am skeptical.

 

[erichartmann]

peace my ---

"After the restructuring your scope/successorship language is practically worthless as you are no longer a part of DHL but simply a customer. "

Clipper yes we are a customer now, but before the sale we had a scope signed by DHL (and not just the US portion) before they sold us. They violated the agreement, we will get retribution. I understand this seems to frighten you all, but had Airborne(which does not exist any longer) bought DHL and we continued to fly Airborne freight(which does not exist any longer), I am sure you (ABX air) would be pursuing every avenue to either force a merger,force the company to compensate you for the lost flying, or force them to let you have all the flying. Realistically, I do not see how you could go away as I agree with your statements above and I think most others at Astar agree. So we will continue to seek compensation from DHL, I know the teamsters would if it were Airborne that still existed.

Do you think you would be buying airplanes and cargo doors if you were going away? I don't think the ACMI world can afford you or your 76's. Look at the rest of the ACMI world, they don't quite fly 76's or make 200+ a year, I think you will be around at DHL for a long while.

The key phrase, as you yourself said, is "before the sale". After the sale that language is worthless. I would suspect that your attoney's have privately told your MEC you probably won't prevail.

We are buying aircraft with cargo doors because that is the industry standard. If we intend to compete in the business we're now in we must have them. The system used by Airborne was propritary. It was used for a varitey of reasons, not the least of which was to make the company unattractive as a takeover candidate.

As to whether or not we continue to do business with DHL (or vice versa) that remains to be seen. For now I would say DHL cannot do without us, but that could change.

I remain severly annoyed that you are attempting to legally compell our joint customer to cease doing business with us, particularly as the basis of your complaint is founded in a relationship which no longer exists. Your actions smack of the cliche "All's fair in love, war, and business". If that is the way you intend to proceed do not be suprised if we in turn take whatever (legal) action we deem appropriate.

uke: peace!

 

[hvydriver]

Yeah sure. "Your leadership was not interested" is not my understanding of the situation. I heard from my leadership "at the time" what your alleged intentions were. I was and am skeptical.

Thanks for making my point for me Eric.

 

[erichartmann]

Thanks for making my point for me Eric.

I did not "make your point". I am not part of the leadership. My opinions are strictly my own. I did express my skepticism to the leadership of the local at time because I felt they had a much higher level of trust in your leadership than I did.

"A pessimist is an exprerienced optimist."

I am a pessimist!

 

[skycruizer]

The key phrase, as you yourself said, is "before the sale". After the sale that language is worthless. I would suspect that your attoney's have privately told your MEC you probably won't prevail.

I remain severly annoyed that you are attempting to legally compell our joint customer to cease doing business with us, particularly as the basis of your complaint is founded in a relationship which no longer exists. Your actions smack of the cliche "All's fair in love, war, and business". If that is the way you intend to proceed do not be suprised if we in turn take whatever (legal) action we deem appropriate.

uke: peace!

The opinion of Lynne Nowel is wrong and you should not rely so heavily on it. Simply put Lynne wasn’t there when the deal between DHL and ALPA was entered into and therefore she has no direct knowledge as to the intent. Out side the NLRB her theories have little value to you.

I can however completely understand your severe annoyance if you believe that ALPA is trying to take your flying. But it appears to me that ALPA is simply attempting to hold DHL to an agreement that precedes the ABE buy out. The 1224 would do nothing less if the circumstances were reversed.

Punishing the rank and file via jump seats only inflicts insult on injury to the least responsible of individuals. The Pilot work force of either group, ABX or ASTAR, have little if any direct responsibility for the current set of circumstances. Deep down I believe you know this and I urge you to reconsider your position.