No comment on ASA PBS LOA yet?

[JoeMerchant]

Yeah he might put more work at a company that costs more. He might not mind losing money because he is a good guy. He might not mind upsetting Skywest to the point that they vote in a union. Not what I would do if I was CEO but you never know.

Aircombat,

There are costs associated with dismantling ASA also...IMO, all we have to do is remain close, cut costs where we can, and provide the highest quality product we can. I'm with you on the single list, but the fact of the matter is that is something for long term planning and we can't get it now. I supported it back in 2000 with Delta, and I thought we should have made it a higher priority during the last contract negotiations....Those windows have closed, and we have to wait for another window to open.

In the meantime, if you believe what you typed above, it would behoove you to support this PBS LOA which will buy us some more time to develope a more long term scope solution.....Voting this down will accelerate your fears.

 

[JoeMerchant]

It’s funny how you remember what they are capable of yet think that if we are good little minions this time everything good will come our way. It’s like the battered wife syndrome. Onelist is changing the game it takes two to play.

You are missing the point aircombat. I remember what they are capable of doing when we don't have a single list AND we don't work with them...That is what happened during the contract negotiations. We fought and Jerry transferred assets.

The same thing will continue to happen if we continue to do the same thing, which is what YOU are advocating. I'm with you on the single list, but it isn't going to happen overnight and probably not for many years if ever at this point.

It is you that seems to forget what happened when we tried the "fight" without the single list...Until we get a single list, we need to work with him...

 

[PCL_128]

I would love to trust you fully. The simple fact is that it would not be wise to do so on this subject. Alpa has a clear reason why they wouldn’t want to pursue this.

I'm not even one of your reps. I'm just somebody at another airline with years of experience doing union work. Since I'm not one of your reps, what could my ulterior motive possibly be? I'm just trying to educate you so you don't look so ignorant here.

Scope sounds like “Negotiating for any group outside of this designated bargaining unit” yet that has been listed as a mandatory subject.

Again, scope is a PERMISSIVE subject of bargaining. It is not mandatory.

Like I said I would like to be able to trust alpa on this issue however I think the only non bias source on this subject would be the NMB members responsible for us. If you have information on how I can contact them I would appreciate that.

Is that a joke? Do you really believe the three members of the National Mediation Board, appointed by the President of the United States, are going to take phone calls from random line pilots? Are you really this dense?

If all we can do is delay negotiations over this then that’s what we should do. Giving them PBS now would make it nearly impossible.

Ratifying this LOA will give you far more leverage in negotiations when you get to Section 6. You'll be able to build upon the improvements in this PBS LOA, and you'll look like the good guy to the NMB. If you pass up this LOA, then you're going to learn the hard way how this process really works.

 

[aircombat]

Is that a joke? Do you really believe the three members of the National Mediation Board, appointed by the President of the United States, are going to take phone calls from random line pilots? Are you really this dense?

No joke. I was just trying to see how much you are trying to guard information. The union should try to educate all of its members but it doesn’t feel like that. Most of what I get is intimidation. I already wrote to the NMB and will hopefully hear back early next week. I will post what I hear back regardless of the results. I urge everyone interested to do the same.
CALL:
Information Hot Line: 202-692-5050
Freedom of Information Act: 202-692-5040

EMAIL:
[email protected]

WRITE:
Daniel Rainey
Director, ADR Services
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
1301 K Street NW, Suite 250 East
Washington, DC 20005-7011

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat,

There are costs associated with dismantling ASA also...IMO, all we have to do is remain close, cut costs where we can, and provide the highest quality product we can. I'm with you on the single list, but the fact of the matter is that is something for long term planning and we can't get it now. I supported it back in 2000 with Delta, and I thought we should have made it a higher priority during the last contract negotiations....Those windows have closed, and we have to wait for another window to open.

In the meantime, if you believe what you typed above, it would behoove you to support this PBS LOA which will buy us some more time to develope a more long term scope solution.....Voting this down will accelerate your fears.

Nobody is talking about “dismantling”. More like “dissolving”. There is little cost involved in letting us slowly shrink through attrition and the limits of the no furlough clause. Assets will be slowly transferred to Skywest. We are just talking about were future flying will be put.

I know that you are scared about what will happen in talks but if we can stay strong and see it through to the end, it would not matter. Like I said they can’t do much worse then they already have because of the no furlough clause.

This submissive stance that you advocate will end badly and we don’t need the union to do that. I could be making 2% more. At least then we would have a chance at growth after the huge pay cuts necessary to get us cheaper than Skywest were imposed on us. Jerry isn’t going to give us growth because we are nice people and he is a nice guy.

 

[OCP]

Aircombat you are sounding more and more crazy as this thread goes on. You won't listen to two people who have actually delt with section 6 and the NMB. One person from your own airline and another who has absolutly no vested intrest in any way we vote. Now you want to write the NMB for what? We are not even in section 6 yet! Let alone what you think you are doing can't legally happn.

 

[PCL_128]

I already wrote to the NMB and will hopefully hear back early next week. I will post what I hear back regardless of the results. I urge everyone interested to do the same.

Now I'm beginning to think you're just a troll. Nobody could be gullible enough to believe that an NMB board member is actually going to respond to their inquiries. Some secretary will email you back a canned response, just like your Congressman's office does.

WRITE:
Daniel Rainey
Director, ADR Services
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD
1301 K Street NW, Suite 250 East
Washington, DC 20005-7011

Take a look at Mr. Rainey's title. Do you know what "ADR" stands for and means? ADR is Alternative Dispute Resolution, which has nothing to do with collective bargaining and Section 6. ADR deals with grievance mediation.

 

[aircombat]

Aircombat you are sounding more and more crazy as this thread goes on. You won't listen to two people who have actually delt with section 6 and the NMB. One person from your own airline and another who has absolutly no vested intrest in any way we vote. Now you want to write the NMB for what? We are not even in section 6 yet! Let alone what you think you are doing can't legally happn.

I’m writing the NMB to find out if it’s legal or not. If they can’t answer the question hopefully they will be able to point me in the right direction. So far I only found one reference that says scope is mandatory and none that say it's permissive. If you guys have any other references other than hearsay from the union then I would appreciate it.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Now I'm beginning to think you're just a troll. Nobody could be gullible enough to believe that an NMB board member is actually going to respond to their inquiries. Some secretary will email you back a canned response, just like your Congressman's office does.

I have to agree...There's no way someone actually believes what aircombat believes...I'm done....

 

[Jack-O-Lantern]

This guy has the idiot meter pegged off scale high!

 

[GeekMaster]

It's kind of funny, considering that WAY back in the early parts of the thread, I discussed it with him over and over until he finally said he decided to quit arguing. Now he's arguing so hard that he's not even talking sanely. I think he's one of those guys who hates to lose so bad that it makes him physically and mentally ill when he can't win

 

[Speedtape]

Everythings rosy? What happens if PBS is voted down Speedtape? What if we are not part of Jerry's "bigger" plan because we won't "play." No whipsaw? Were 4 700's not transferred from ASA to SkyWest Airlines? You'll see more transferred if PBS is voted down, my guess.

What if we are not seen as an asset anymore? Could we not be sold? I'd like to put an end to all that. There would be an added benefit of having virtually the whole Country to fly out of. That's a nice add on, but not the main reasoning behind wanting OneList.

Trojan

Wait a minute! Are we talking about One List or PBS? Those are two totally different issues! They are not tied together.

You speak of 4 airplanes that were transferred to Skywest--Yes, it happened and there is no doubt that it was a planned move because we would not roll over. Did it change anything in negotiations? If it was such an effective thing, then more would have been transferred! Why did that not happen? The Sky was not falling then, and it is not falling now!

Now, let's address PBS--which is a separate issue from One List. Delta and every DCI carrier has PBS. Plain and simple, if PBS does not pass the vote, we may be punished, but we might not be. You, nor I can guarantee that. I will guarantee that PBS will be at ASA! PBS will be at ASA either after passing the vote, or should the vote fail, there is no doubt that the Company will obtain it in Sections 6, because every other DCI carrier and Delta has PBS. Just as we can ask for Industry Standards and usually obtain it, the Company will do the same and there is no doubt that a mediator will side with them on this issue. The Sky is not falling, but PBS is coming!

So, the question that should be posed to our pilot group is, "Would you rather accept PBS now, with OUR work rules, or would you rather have it renegotiated with THEIR work rules in Section 6 that will be obtained with a 3rd party Mediator that will be overseeing and to some degree governing the process? I would rather have PBS on the ASA Pilot Group's terms, NOW! (Joe and PCL can validate my assertion about Section 6 and the outcome!)

What if we are not seen as an asset anymore? Could we not be sold? I'd like to put an end to all that. There would be an added benefit of having virtually the whole Country to fly out of. That's a nice add on, but not the main reasoning behind wanting OneList.

We are an asset because we have a contract for about the next 12 years or so with the strongest and most viable Major Carrier and we have the greatest DCI presence in their main hub. Skywest may own us, but Delta still controls our destiny. What would be so wrong with being sold? If we were sold, I would imagine the Party who has the most vested interest in us would be the Principal. For that reason, I don't want one list, and don't want to go down that road spending one cent of capital trying to achieve it. (I know that it will never happen, and for good reason!) We are much more valuable as a separate company and it is more beneficial to keep us separate. If I had to guess, I would say that there may be something contractual somewhere that dictates that we will remain separate to protect the interests of Contractor.

Lastly, from a risk assessment perspective, ASA is better protected by remaining separate because the Contractor, that our sister company feeds with about 60% of it's operations, is at GREAT RISK of failure! Should that happen, the fact that we are separate and have great value to Inc. and our Main Contractor, might create a (fire sale) sell back opportunity! That situation would be a reversal of position for the same Principals, with our company, once again, being the property and object of the transaction. (Give that one some thought!)

Separte Lists and separate companies provide us with more protection--especially in this economy and these times. We have mass and value which make us very important to our Contractor. In addition, I'm quite sure that some people on Virginia Avenue would get great pleasure out of squeezing a certain CEO like he squeezed them in 2005! Payback is sweet!

 

[aircombat]

It's kind of funny, considering that WAY back in the early parts of the thread, I discussed it with him over and over until he finally said he decided to quit arguing. Now he's arguing so hard that he's not even talking sanely. I think he's one of those guys who hates to lose so bad that it makes him physically and mentally ill when he can't win

I admitted earlier that I could be wrong on this issue. I don’t mind admitting it if I am. I haven’t lost yet. I haven’t seen any references saying that seniority list mergers is a permissive area. Here’s some more on the subject.
“Distinction between Mandatory and Permissive subjects:

Matters that regulate relations between employer and employees (no-strike clauses, wages, hours, etc.) are mandatory.
In Ford Motor Co., the prices of food in the vending machines was a mandatory subject of bargaining.

Matters that regulate relations between employees and the union (ex: ballot clauses) are permissive.

Illegal – Things that cannot be bargained over because they must be included in the contract (i.e. recognition of the majority supported union), or are prohibited (i.e. a closed shop).

Rule – An employer may not insist on permissive subjects of bargaining.”
​

I know of several seniority list mergers that probably wouldn’t have happened if the company couldn’t insist on it. Some have even gone to arbitration. Again I’m asking for real information. You may refrain from the comments if you don’t have a source.

 

[aircombat]

Wait a minute! Are we talking about One List or PBS? Those are two totally different issues! They are not tied together.

They sort of are tied together. If we give up PBS now then we would never be able to bargain onelist with a good seniority merger. We trade PBS for merger.

That is funny how just earlier today you falsely accused me of wanting to merge with Skywest so that I could live in SLC and now you want separate lists for the off chance that we could be bought back by Delta. I guess you want to end up like Comair. Everything position has it’s risks. Where we are now is the riskiest.

 

[PCL_128]

The case you need to be looking at is Japan Air Lines vs. International Association of Machinists (1975). The court ruled that scope issues, in this case the issue of outsourcing, were permissive subjects of bargaining.

But the specific case is not important. What's important is what the NMB actually recognizes, and they don't recognize scope provisions as being mandatory subjects of bargaining. The reason for this is what the Railway Labor Act actually says.

Section 2, First of the Act requires the parites to: "...exert every reasonable effort to make and maintain agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, and working conditions."

Those are the three items specified in the Act as being mandatory. In other words, compensation (which includes retirement and insurance), scheduling, and related working conditions (vacation, sick leave, etc.). A grievance process is also required by a separate section of the Act, so that is also mandatory. Other subjects are permissive. You keep looking at cases and documents that pertain to the National Labor Relations Act, which has very different rules on just about everything than the RLA does.