Pan Am

[dumpduck1]

What are they up to now?

 

[Go around]

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/11022004/news/46206.htm

 

[exhaustgas]

Clarification please?

This question may be redundant, but did the court order prohibit BMA from flying any route previously flown by PAA (defined by city pairs) or any route which PAA is capable of flying, in which case the later would basically leave BMA with no options, as PAA is capable of serving identical route structures? In reading the article it seems as such that Guilford has pretty much shut down operations at PAA, am I reading this correctly? What impact will this have? If BMA flies routes never flown before by PAA and uses the other UAL tubes sitting waiting for service never before placed on the PAA certificate will this give BMA the ability to leaglly continue operations indefinately?

 

[mkingmei]

Both PAA and BMA closed

I just talked to a friend of mine over there and he said that PAA and BMA 727 flying has been stopped and the rumor has it that Planet may be looking into buying them. PAA and BMA would cease to exsist(J31 stay). Apparently Fink finally realized money can't get you out of every situation. Hope he gets everything he deserves....nothing.

Sorry to all who lost thier jobs under this pathetic "leader".

My .02$

 

[skootertrash]

Have any Boston Maine pilots been flying the 727's since PAA have been locked out? If so has anyone started collecting their names yet?

 

[n706us]

ALPA Lost AGAIN

According to public court docs posted today, ALPA lost again regarding their battle with BM Air. Just maybe BM Air is doing something right and BM Air truly understands that our industry needs to change for it to survice.

 

[skootertrash]

According to public court docs posted today, ALPA lost again regarding their battle with BM Air. Just maybe BM Air is doing something right and BM Air truly understands that our industry needs to change for it to survice.

You are kidding right?

 

[aa73]

What are they up to now?

I was just in Houston Hobby and there was a PAA 727 getting ready to fly to Greenville or Greensboro (can't remember which)... aren't one of those airports a major refurbishing center for aircraft?

Course, it could have been a charter too.

 

[727PAA]

N706

Hey dude,

Post your link. I am sure since you are reading something..or say you are. Let us all read it.

 

[n706us]

Sorry

Unable to post link, but here is a cut/paste of the document.

[font=CourierNew,Bold]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
​

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
​

[/font]

Air Line Pilots Association
​

International
​

v. Civil No. 04-331-JD
​

Guilford Transportation Industries,
​

Inc., et al.
​

[font=CourierNew,Bold]

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
​

[/font]

Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff’s Motion For
​

Order To Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Held In Contempt
​

(document no. 77), which was referred to me for review and to
​

conduct a hearing. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on
​

November 5, 2004. Pursuant to the order of reference, the Court
​

makes the following findings and recommendations.
​

The parties stipulated at the hearing that Pan Am’s pilots
​

were permanently furloughed as of October 31, 2004, that Pan Am
​

has turned its operating certificate in to the United States
​

Department of Transportation, and that Pan Am is no longer
​

operating as a carrier. In addition, ALPA did not dispute the
​

following facts: (1) no aircraft that was on the Pan Am
​

certificate at the time the October 13, 2004 Injunction Order
​

issued has been transferred to the Boston-Maine certificate; (2)
​

2
​

Pan Am did not furlough any of its pilots between July 15 and
​

October 12, 2004; (3) Pan Am did not cut any of its pilots’ pay
​

or benefits between July 15 and October 12, 2004; and (4) ALPA
​

has not submitted to Pan Am any grievances, or a request to
​

mediate the parties’ dispute, since the injunction order issued.
​

The only issue left to be determined is whether the Boston-
​

Maine charter flights cited by ALPA in its motion were operated
​

in violation of the injunction order. The short answer to that
​

question is no. The Court sets forth its findings pertaining to
​

that issue below.
​

The Injunction Order provides at paragraph 2 that the
​

defendants are ordered to:
​

To refrain from using Boston-Maine, or any other
​

affiliated operation, to operate B-727s or any other
​

large jet aircraft in service traditionally performed
​

by Pan Am and that Pan Am is capable of performing.
​

Injunction Order at 2, ¶2 (document no. 62). The Court
​

interprets the order as enjoining the defendants from using
​

Boston-Maine to operate scheduled Pan Am flights, from assigning
​

Pan Am’s routes to Boston-Maine, from using Boston-Maine to
​

operate charter service for Pan Am’s customers, and from
​

assigning to Boston-Maine any ad hoc, or one-time, charter
​

service business that is derived through Pan Am. The order
​

Defendants represented through counsel that Boston-Maine​

1
​

has not stepped into the shoes of any Pan Am work, and that Pan
​

Am is canceling its charter service contracts with TNT Vacations
​

and MK Tour.
​

3
​

neither prohibits the use of Boston-Maine in sub-service for
​

flights that Pan Am is, or was not, capable of performing, nor
​

prohibits Boston-Maine from developing its large jet aircraft
​

charter business entirely independent from Pan Am.
​

With regard to the Pan AM charter for TNT Vacations operated
​

by Boston-Maine on October 17, 2004, the evidence shows that
​

there was no Pan Am captain available to fly the flight at issue
​

on that date, and therefore Pan Am was not capable of performing
​

that flight. As a result, Boston-Maine permissibly provided subservice
​

to cover that flight. The responsibility for Pan Am’s
​

pilots losing that flight falls on ALPA’s members.
​

With regard to the other Boston-Maine charter flights cited
​

by ALPA, the Court finds that those flights were the result of
​

Boston-Maine’s independent business development efforts through a
​

charter sales representative who was not formerly employed by Pan
​

Am. Boston-Maine performed all of those flights with the one
​

large jet aircraft that was on its certificate at the time the
​

injunction order issued. The charter service was performed on
​

behalf of customers with whom Pan Am has not done business. The​

1
​

4
​

relief that ALPA seeks, enjoining the defendants from using
​

Boston-Maine’s large jet aircraft to offer charter service
​

independently obtained through its own efforts, exceeds the
​

express language as well as the intent of the injunction order.
​

Based on the Court’s findings set forth above, the Court
​

recommends that ALPA’s request for an order finding that
​

defendants are in contempt of the injunction order be denied.
​

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be
​

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to
​

file objections within the specified time waives the right to
​

appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of
​

Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United
​

States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).
​

_________________________________
​

James R. Muirhead
​

United States Magistrate Judge
​

Date: November 8, 2004
​

cc: R. Matthew Cairns, Esq.
​

Julie P. Glass, Esq.
​

Eric L. Hirschhorn, Esq.
​

Marie M. McPartlin, Esq.
​

William G. Miossi, Esq.
​

Joseph E. Schuler, Esq.
​

Andrew W. Serell, Esq.
​

 

[skootertrash]

WTF thats horsesh11t!!!


Start a new scab list!!!

 

[Publishers]

I do not think that is applicable. You cannot scab a company that no longer exists.

The bottom line is that Pan Am turned in their certificate and closed. Boston can do whatever it wants at this point.

 

[727PAA]

Publishers

I think you may be wrong on that one. You see the judge has ruled that they are an alter ego carrier. You are right..you cannot strike a company that doesn't have a certificate, but, we are not striking. This is a lock out. Also, the company does have a certificate it is an alter ego one made up to illegally subrogate the Collective Bargaining agreement they had with the Pan Am pilots.

So replacement workers are still scabs whether the union is on strike or managment locked the pilots out.

 

[CaptSeth]

I do not think that is applicable. You cannot scab a company that no longer exists.

The bottom line is that Pan Am turned in their certificate and closed. Boston can do whatever it wants at this point.

Hey sparky, maybe you'd like to go and interview?

 

[skootertrash]

Do you guys have a picket line set up?

 

[Publishers]

To be an alter ego carrier, you have to have an alter ego in the first place. Furthermore, it is not a lock out, the company locking out does not exist anymore. There is no picket line to cross, how can you picket something that does not exist.

Whatever this is, it is not a scab. Owners do have the right to shut down a company and start new ones.

 

[727PAA]

I wasn't the one to make the call that it was an alter ego..the federal judge did. He also stated that the whole reason BMA was flying 727's was to break a union. Replacement workers are scabs. It is very simple. Check the definition of scab if you doubt me.

Here's a little case law that is being cited:

http://www.law.emory.edu/1circuit/apr2000/99-1328.01a.html.

Guilford Transportation is the parent company of both BMA and PAA. They are using one carrier to try and eliminate the union rights of the other carrier.

 

[727PAA]

Here's a break out of the important stuff

The Court's effort to give practical meaning to the status quo requirement would be circumvented if carriers could use third parties to alter the collective bargaining agreement while the dispute was ongoing. Thus courts have held that a carrier may not hire an independent company to carry out the changes that the unions protest. See e.g., St. Louis S.W. Ry. v. Brotherhood of R.R. Signalmen, 665 F.2d 987, 995 (10th Cir. 1981) ("There is nothing which leaves room for a suggestion that the [RLA] can be avoided by employing a contractor to perform the work."). In the same vein, the RLA is defeated if a carrier uses a related corporation to alter the status quo. The RLA itself acknowledges the possibility that carriers may attempt to use affiliates to achieve their goals by giving courts jurisdiction over railroads and those non-railroads that are "directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad. . . ." 45 U.S.C. ? 151. While this provision alone does not justify the issuance of an injunction against a non-railroad corporation, it emphasizes that courts must look beyond corporate formalities if the nominally independent corporation is serving as the alter ego of the carrier

 

[throttlemonkey]

727paa

Are you a lawyer too. I don't understand item one in that court document. how did you come to that conclusion.

Skootertrash,
or should I say grasshopper.
people who have been in the business for a while don't like that s word thrown around. I am sure all the panam guys can count on you to walk a new england pickett line in december. better go get some warm boots or maybe a nice hot cup of shut the F---up!!!

try helping those dudes get jobs and not inflaming an already lousy situation.

 

[WOXOF]

Replacement workers are scabs. It is very simple. Check the definition of scab if you doubt me.

WRONG 727. You are misplacing your anger. Pilots at Boston-Maine are no more scabs than pilots at World Airways, they are doing the exact same thing. Or pilots at Continental Express, and so on.
There is no strike at Pan Am, no picket line, nothing. The Boston-Maine pilots worked there long before Pan Am was shut down, there are NO replacement workers.
I do feel bad for you, and I am sorry about your situation, but don't take it out on your fellow pilots.

Scab:
: a union member who refuses to strike or returns to work before a strike has ended
: a worker who accepts employment or replaces a union worker during a strike

 

[Publishers]

Not from the moment the first carrier was shuttered and the certificate turned in.

 

[skootertrash]

727paa

Are you a lawyer too. I don't understand item one in that court document. how did you come to that conclusion.

Skootertrash,
or should I say grasshopper.
people who have been in the business for a while don't like that s word thrown around. I am sure all the panam guys can count on you to walk a new england pickett line in december. better go get some warm boots or maybe a nice hot cup of shut the F---up!!!

try helping those dudes get jobs and not inflaming an already lousy situation.

Hmmmmmm lets see. How about GO FUKC YOURSELF!

Ya that sounds nice. I betcha I've been in the industry a bit longer than you. Jerk AS$

 

[Kyzer Socei]

Hey skootertrash,

FIST YOURSELF.
D!ck
xoxo

 

[Go around]

Their SCABS

 

[727PAA]

Maybe this will help.

If you have seen the list..as some here have. You will notice there is a group of pilots on that list that got their honor by going to Australia to work. They got on the list because they flew revenue while the Australian pilots were out of work.

There was no strike, but the pilots that flew those trips have their names on the list.

If you have any questions you can ask the head cheese at the Sim Center in Sanford. He made the list for just that reason.

 

[WOXOF]

Actually PAA727, not only did that not help, but it made no sense at all.

 

[727PAA]

Maybe I can make it plain

There doesn't have to be a strike for people to have their names on the "SCAB" list. On the list there are a number of pilots that worked for Braniff and Eastern that went to Australia to take jobs that the Australian pilots were forced to resign from. There was no strike in place, and those pilots were placed on the ALPA list, because they were flying work that was under a job dispute. If you work for BMA you can go ask the guy in the corner office down at the sim center in Sanford. He was one of the Braniff guys to make the list.

 

[throttlemonkey]

Skeetertrash,
(Skeeter being slang for mosquito;referring to both the size of your brain and the fact that you are as annoying as a gnat at a f---ing bar-b-q)

That was about the most scathing comeback I've ever seen. Witty too.

I don't normally get off on busting on mongoloids (feel free to look that one up). You have to be just about the dumbest a-- in captivity and your verbal ability displays it. We probably shouldn't expect much more than one line comebacks and single phrase statements from an evolutionary throwback (look that one up too) such as your self. Thank you though for your input, I'm sure I speak for every one when I say that we are all dumber for having read your posts. Keep up the good work. Your ignorance is amusing to us all.

sincerly,
your friend

Jerk as$ (another witty comeback from the intellectual giant).

ps. congratulations for thinking that you've been in the industry longer than I. I'm having trouble trying to figure out if that makes you dumber than we all think you are. I've been in it for a while now so the answer to my previous question is probably. With that being said why don't you go play a nice healthy game of hide and go f--- yourself.

The next time you want to match wits "I'm your huckleberry".

 

[727PAA]

To bad we can't have a poll

Would be interesting to see how many professional pilots think that the BMA guys should be on that list.

Now remember the only reason there wasn't a strike was because the RLA says we are supposed to use any means available including the courts to avoid a strike. That is what ALPA is doing.

Oh, and I'm not angry...just stating some facts.

 

[throttlemonkey]

were the austrailian pilots alpa members?