• NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

Ricci's Henchmen might go to jail!

Vinny

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Posts
51
Total Time
5000
From the union's announcement yesterday:

This morning the IBT filed a Motion for Contempt and Further Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, naming the following as Counterclaim-Defendants/Co-Contemnors:

FLIGHT OPTIONS, LLC,
FLEXJET, LLC,
ONESKY FLIGHT, LLC,
FLIGHT OPTIONS HOLDINGS I, INC.,
And Henchmen :beer:
ROBERT SULLIVAN, an individual,
JOSEPH SALATA, an individual,
JASON WEISS, an individual,
DENNIS FLORIAN, an individual.

As a result of the Company's and these individuals, failure to comply with the Court's order, the RLA and the 2010 agreement; the IBT was compelled to seek additional legal injunctive relief to protect the best interests of ALL the pilots it represents.

The IBT's Statement of Argument filed in Court today states in part:

"As for contempt, the Carrier has refused to rescind its unlawful Voluntary Separation Program ('VSP') as ordered by the Court and further failed to bargain it in good faith. Indeed, the Union reached an agreement on the VSP but the Carrier refused to sign it, and then furloughed Flight Options pilots once again blaming the Pilots Union for its actions.
As for injunctive relief, the Carrier has not only flagrantly failed to bargain in good faith the VSP, but it has also done so with respect to successor labor contract negotiations under Section 6 of the Act. The Carrier has not made a single good faith counterproposal to the Pilots Union under Section 6 in nearly seven months of bargaining. Moreover, the Carrier threatens to violate the so-called Fence Agreement between the parties, which was imposed by compulsory interest arbitration under the CBA. For, the Carrier has announced that it will transfer Flight Options aircraft to its London, England affiliate FlairJet by the end of this year. This action is indisputably in contravention of the Fence Agreement, will make arbitration of the dispute over this action a nullity, and therefore, must be enjoined."

In the conclusion of the motion, your Union states:

"The Court should find the Carrier and its officers and agents in contempt for failing to rescind the VSP, failing to bargain the VSP in good faith, and order the Carrier to sign the VSP, recall pilots and pay all lost compensation to affected pilots. The Court should also hold that the Carrier violated Section 2, First of the Act as to the VSP as to these allegations. Further, the Court should find that the Carrier has failed to bargain in good faith under Section 6 for the past seven months, order the Carrier to bargain with the Pilots Union, and award the Pilots Union its negotiation costs and attorney fees associated with negotiations and prosecution of this motion. Lastly, the Court should enjoin the transfer of Flight Options aircraft listed on the Fence Arbitration Award Appendix A including Nextant 400XTis pending arbitration of the dispute before Arbitrator Herbert Fishgold."

__________________________________________________________


But what does it all mean, you might ask?

I did a little research and found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

"When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called 'found' or 'held in contempt'; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process... A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court."

And, as we know, going to jail might lead to this: https://youtu.be/jVDN8yR3ig0
 
Last edited:

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
They continued to pay at least two pilots VSP money. That's not going to be well received by Judge Gwin...
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
They don't like to play by the rules, but expect us to follow their rules to the letter. If they can't follow the rules, why should we? So what kind of leadership do they represent? They certainly don't have the moral high ground. Are they going to try to do it financially? Maybe, but only for a select few and shortchange the rest.
 

el raton

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Posts
425
Total Time
8000+
I'm so glad you guys (IBT) fought the good fight and won the VSP battle. Screw the furlough pilots! Let them starve! The IBT's need to feel relevant was way more important than the furloughed pilot's wellbeing.
 

exagony

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 9, 2002
Posts
371
Total Time
5000+
You're an idiot- proves you haven't been keeping up with what's going on... IBT signed an agreement on the VSP and the company didn't sign the agreement. Get on the VUH and educate yourself already before you post uneducated drivel on here.
 

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
I'm so glad you guys (IBT) fought the good fight and won the VSP battle. Screw the furlough pilots! Let them starve! The IBT's need to feel relevant was way more important than the furloughed pilot's wellbeing.

Actually, if you read the lawsuit, recall with back pay and full access to the VSP is exactly the union position. Management's position is: "Screw the furlough pilots! Let them starve!" I suppose it's too much to ask you educate yourself before posting pure stupidity...smh...
 

Imissmypilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
536
Total Time
7500
That's great news and I'm happy to see some tangible forward progress (knowing there is much behind the scenes progress) however I wonder why Ricci and Handschuch are not named in this case.

Ricci is obviously the head henchman. Enough said. What I can assume is just like the pilots whose lives he will turn up on end for his desires, he really will do the same to even his own executives. Sounds to me like there's not too much protection in being an FOK at all, even a high level FOK.

Maybe these executives will start to figure out the truth of the matter. They are not merely puppets of the puppet master; their hands are just as bloody. When they knowingly choose to unethically fight for Ricci's personal vendetta and philosophical war against his own pilots, they are just as responsible for the gutting of people's lives. Until he is stopped, he can continue wage war on pilots and their families with no care for the consequence. By the way I hold every Red Label pilot out there as just as responsible for the small victories Ricci has won against your fellow pilots and I will personally never forget it although one day I might be persuaded to get over it.

Get it through the thick heads of every anti-union pilot you see out there: the only protection you have against this war mongering dictatorial oppressive tin can ruler is YOUR UNION.

And you get what you pay for. If you want to pay nothing then you are setting the entire group of us to basically get that: nothing. As a paying participant I am pissed when I hear people talk about saving up their dues (for a boat or a vote, right?) because I feel like you are stealing from mine and my families future. I don't give a sh!t if you are even anti-union. It does not get you off the hook for obstructing the progress on a contract that benefits all of us and this industry.

Which brings me to benedict Handschuch who once famously promised to walk out the door the second he felt like "his" pilots were unfairly mistreated or abused. Why is he not named in the lawsuit when he is the fence tearing henchman?

I have repeatedly said it is obvious to me the game plan is to try and swing Red Label off into a separate non unionized company and wind down regular Flex just like he is winding down Options. Yes that means eventually furloughs in a flush economy will happen here too.

What are we doing to prevent this from happening? My prediction is just like the transfer of capital to Flair, Ricci will do it first and worry about the legal consequences later. That is his modus operandi: he would rather spend your paycheck on protracted legal battles than allow you to spend it on your family. As long as we put up with this management style by signing up for Red Label, not paying dues, not wearing bling or whatever the hell else it is you can do to move this along it will not change and you become a player by omission and you are betting against your fellow pilots and their families. That's not Ricci - that is YOU!

I am happy about the lawsuit but I am still pissed off. If we were stronger this lawsuit would not even happen and we might even have a ****ing CBA to be voting on instead of looking at arbitration thanks to this management team.

Can I say it again? I no longer hold the union leadership responsible since I'm starting to see reality. The real enemy is the tail draggers who think they can have their cake and eat it too by working against this pilot group not with it. They are defacto soldiers in Ricci's war.
 
Last edited:

Imissmypilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
536
Total Time
7500
I'm so glad you guys (IBT) fought the good fight and won the VSP battle. Screw the furlough pilots! Let them starve! The IBT's need to feel relevant was way more important than the furloughed pilot's wellbeing.

You're an idiot- proves you haven't been keeping up with what's going on... IBT signed an agreement on the VSP and the company didn't sign the agreement. Get on the VUH and educate yourself already before you post uneducated drivel on here.

nah I assume he is just thinking he can hedge his bet as an FoK or at least Red Label now.

El you have repeatedly said you care about Flexjetters and NOT the furloughed pilots so why do you care about the VSP?

Or is that disinterest the reason you remain so uneducated about the reality of what happened with the VSP? Your new master is the reason the VSP never happened. If you read the lawsuit you will see management agreed to it and then simply chose to not follow through.

And just in case you do perhaps care about the furloughed pilots, this lawsuit is the only support we have to get these guys what was promised to them.

I know in the grand scheme of things you support this union el. So seriously, get over the SLI and man up. You weren't the only one upset but the consequences of remaining upset are far more damaging than your bitter will get you.

A union is a new reality. It's about we not me.
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
I'm so glad you guys (IBT) fought the good fight and won the VSP battle. Screw the furlough pilots! Let them starve! The IBT's need to feel relevant was way more important than the furloughed pilot's wellbeing.

Where are you getting your information? Statements like this make you look like a stool. edit:fool
 

V1 Rotate

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Posts
529
Total Time
10000+
Here are the facts surrounding the VSP:

• Ricci admitted in his initial e-mail that he was breaking federal law because he knew the Union was going to sue him.
• The law he broke falls under the RLA which prohibits management from dealing directly with its employees.
• Federal Judge Gwin upheld this back in April.
• All the Union wanted was for the VSP to be put into an LOA, as required.
• Once an agreement was reached and two handshakes from the company were given, they then welched on the deal and walked away.

Had the company been allowed to proceed as they originally intended, the precedent would've been set that any time in the future when the company waned to make changes to your employment status (pay, schedule, vacation, PTO, furlough, seniority, you name it), they could do so without any involvement from the Union to stop, or at least dampen the impact, such actions would have on your careers.
 

Imissmypilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
536
Total Time
7500
V1, I believe you are missing that in addition to the LOA, the only change the the Union requested was transparency: a record of who requested it and who received it.

In my opinion, that's the part Lord Farquaad couldn't stomach and hence, welched on the handshake agreement and furloughed instead.
 
Last edited:

1folinepilot

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Posts
207
Total Time
10000+
From the union's announcement yesterday:

This morning the IBT filed a Motion for Contempt and Further Temporary and Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, naming the following as Counterclaim-Defendants/Co-Contemnors:

FLIGHT OPTIONS, LLC,
FLEXJET, LLC,
ONESKY FLIGHT, LLC,
FLIGHT OPTIONS HOLDINGS I, INC.,
And Henchmen :beer:
ROBERT SULLIVAN, an individual,
JOSEPH SALATA, an individual,
JASON WEISS, an individual,
DENNIS FLORIAN, an individual.

As a result of the Company's and these individuals, failure to comply with the Court's order, the RLA and the 2010 agreement; the IBT was compelled to seek additional legal injunctive relief to protect the best interests of ALL the pilots it represents.

The IBT's Statement of Argument filed in Court today states in part:

"As for contempt, the Carrier has refused to rescind its unlawful Voluntary Separation Program ('VSP') as ordered by the Court and further failed to bargain it in good faith. Indeed, the Union reached an agreement on the VSP but the Carrier refused to sign it, and then furloughed Flight Options pilots once again blaming the Pilots Union for its actions.
As for injunctive relief, the Carrier has not only flagrantly failed to bargain in good faith the VSP, but it has also done so with respect to successor labor contract negotiations under Section 6 of the Act. The Carrier has not made a single good faith counterproposal to the Pilots Union under Section 6 in nearly seven months of bargaining. Moreover, the Carrier threatens to violate the so-called Fence Agreement between the parties, which was imposed by compulsory interest arbitration under the CBA. For, the Carrier has announced that it will transfer Flight Options aircraft to its London, England affiliate FlairJet by the end of this year. This action is indisputably in contravention of the Fence Agreement, will make arbitration of the dispute over this action a nullity, and therefore, must be enjoined."

In the conclusion of the motion, your Union states:

"The Court should find the Carrier and its officers and agents in contempt for failing to rescind the VSP, failing to bargain the VSP in good faith, and order the Carrier to sign the VSP, recall pilots and pay all lost compensation to affected pilots. The Court should also hold that the Carrier violated Section 2, First of the Act as to the VSP as to these allegations. Further, the Court should find that the Carrier has failed to bargain in good faith under Section 6 for the past seven months, order the Carrier to bargain with the Pilots Union, and award the Pilots Union its negotiation costs and attorney fees associated with negotiations and prosecution of this motion. Lastly, the Court should enjoin the transfer of Flight Options aircraft listed on the Fence Arbitration Award Appendix A including Nextant 400XTis pending arbitration of the dispute before Arbitrator Herbert Fishgold."

__________________________________________________________


But what does it all mean, you might ask?

I did a little research and found this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court

"When a court decides that an action constitutes contempt of court, it can issue a court order that in the context of a court trial or hearing declares a person or organization to have disobeyed or been disrespectful of the court's authority, called 'found' or 'held in contempt'; this is the judge's strongest power to impose sanctions for acts that disrupt the court's normal process... A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court."

And, as we know, going to jail might lead to this: https://youtu.be/jVDN8yR3ig0

I found it humorous that the double standards the 1108 leadership shows when it cries over the Onesky management not following their demands, but it flagrantly screws over its membership
 

Imissmypilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
536
Total Time
7500
I found it humorous that the double standards the 1108 leadership shows when it cries over the Onesky management not following their demands, but it flagrantly screws over its membership

Blah blah blah syPHILis. Wrong as always but I will say your tenacious pursuit of stupidity is impressive.
 

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
"Tenacious pursuit of stupidity". I like it. May I quote you?
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton Location Elkrun Township, Columbiana County, Ohio Status Operational Security class Low-security (with minimum-security prison camp) Population 1,960 (620 in prison camp) Managed by Federal Bureau of Prisons The Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton (FCI Elkton) is a low-security United States federal prison for male inmates near Elkton, Ohio. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. It also has an adjacent satellite prison camp that houses low and minimum-security male inmates.
FCI Elkton is located in central Columbiana County, Ohio and is 45 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[1]
 

1folinepilot

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Posts
207
Total Time
10000+
Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton Location Elkrun Township, Columbiana County, Ohio Status Operational Security class Low-security (with minimum-security prison camp) Population 1,960 (620 in prison camp) Managed by Federal Bureau of Prisons The Federal Correctional Institution, Elkton (FCI Elkton) is a low-security United States federal prison for male inmates near Elkton, Ohio. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice. It also has an adjacent satellite prison camp that houses low and minimum-security male inmates.
FCI Elkton is located in central Columbiana County, Ohio and is 45 miles northwest of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.[1]

Looks like a great place for the 1108 leadership
 
Top