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.

 

[erichartmann]

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.

Lynne Nowel is not the only attorney on staff or retained by Local 1224, nor is she the only attorney who believes the case is baseless. Ms. Nowel did not formulate the theory of the case presented to NLRB. ABX Air's management retained a law firm for that purpose. I believe it was Ford and Harrison, though I might be mistaken. Local 1224 was invited by management to participate in the case as a co-plaintiff and declined.

I would say the intent is selfevident and speaks for itself.

The rank and file are the union. While the rank and file have little direct responsibilty for the current situation (i.e. both carriers under ACMI contract to the same customer) the rank and file at Astar's ALPA appear to support the current MEC and its apparent actions regarding scope. If the MEC and the NC are pursuing a given course of action it would appear the majority of the rank and file approve. If they do not they should make an effort to change the action or the people pursuing it.

The NLRB has ruled in favor of case presented by the legal counsel of ABX Air's management, and has ordered Astar's ALPA unit to cease and desist attempting to enforce the scope. I understand the ruling is under appeal in federal court. In the meantime the original case, presented in federal court attempting to compell DHL to abide by Astar's APLA unit contract is on hold. The simple truth is that the changed business relationship vis a vis Astar and DHL has rendered a portion of your contract invalid or moot. Live with it.

 

[goastar]

The simple truth is that the changed business relationship vis a vis Astar and DHL has rendered a portion of your contract invalid or moot. Live with it.[/quote]


If it is invalid or moot, why are you so worried about it? You seem to be the all knowing, perhaps you should sit back, take your own advice, and watch us waist our money. It not going to affect you anyways, right?

As for jumpseats, you are welcome on ours anytime.

 

[erichartmann]

The simple truth is that the changed business relationship vis a vis Astar and DHL has rendered a portion of your contract invalid or moot. Live with it.

If it is invalid or moot, why are you so worried about it? You seem to be the all knowing, perhaps you should sit back, take your own advice, and watch us waist our money. It not going to affect you anyways, right?

As for jumpseats, you are welcome on ours anytime.[/quote]

I am concerned becasue you never know how a court will rule despite the opinions of various attorneys. I have conveyed the opionions of some well respected attorneys I know were consulted.

I am angry becasue I see it as a cheap and underhanded tactic to take my job away from me, one which I personally believe violates the law.

I have, up to now, had no occasion to ride your jumpseat. I don't plan to in the future.

 

[skycruizer]

"I am concerned becasue you never know how a court will rule despite the opinions of various attorneys."

With that in mind why wouldn't ALPA cover all their bases?
The way I see this DHL made a deal with ALPA. Then when their business plans changed DHL ignored the contract they signed (a lesson to anyone doing business with DHL). DHL never attempted to resolve any of ALPA’s concerns prior to the ABE purchase. This left ALPA with no choice but to litigate. How was ALPA to know what DHL’s intentions were concerning ASTAR? Would DHL transfer ASTAR’s flying to ABX? Would ASTAR be shut down? A threat btw that exists today. The forceful pursuit of what ALPA believes is "contractual" is nothing less than the same actions the IBT would have taken if the circumstances were reversed (a point btw you failed to respond to). ALPA views the case as work preservation, you view it as work acquisition I guess. Having read the briefs and decisions I can see how easily that line is blurred.

It has already been stated on this thread that DHL would love to pit one group against the other. The point has been well made so I won’t go into it any further except to say –believe it-. You are well informed as to the issues and events that are relevant to this case. I’m not going change what you believe nor should I. All I’m saying is that the ALPA members are no more to blame in this than the 1224 members are. Both groups have been wronged and both are along for the ride. And what if a merger were to take place? Any "bad blood" will come back to haunt us all in spades. I don’t commute (live local) so I’m unaffected in that sense, but this JS issue could easily become the proverbial "slippery slope".

 

[Clipperskip]

Astar ALPA and ABX pilots

Here is a question for the Astar guys here on the forum. I'm not trying to flame but we have been dancing around this question for awhile. If Astar's ALPA claims are successful in court and the Astar pilots are awarded all the current Astar and ABX flying within North America, what do you guys think should happen to ABX and its pilots? I am not asking for legal interpretation just for your honest opinion. I keep hearing from the ER ALPA guys "the teamsters would be pursuing the same legal path if the roles were reversed". I don't believe that is a valid point, it is nothing more than pure speculation that you are using to justify your legal quests.