Union coming at Flexjet!

[gret]

The Federal Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq.) prevents the application of state right-to-work laws to the railroad and airline industries.

So good luck with that.

Are you sure about this? It applies to "common carriers" and I don't think a fractional would fall into this classification. This is a question.

 

[Praetorian]

Are you sure about this? It applies to "common carriers" and I don't think a fractional would fall into this classification. This is a question.

The RLA defines who is covered this way:

"..any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad and which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service (other than trucking service) in connection with the transportation, receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit, refrigeration or icing, storage, and handling of property transported by railroad, and any receiver, trustee, or other individual or body, judicial or otherwise, when in the possession of the business of any such 'carrier'."

Although the original intent was for this to cover railroads the act was later amended to cover "air Carriers". Given that fractional companies have air-carrier certificates, we are covered under the RLA.

As far as the right to work law goes, what it boils down to is the fact that these laws are enforced at the state level. It's a commerce clause issue, where federal law -in this case the RLA- trumps state law.

 

[gunfyter]

Would love to get out from under the RLA....

 

[gret]

The RLA defines who is covered this way:

"..any company which is directly or indirectly owned or controlled by or under common control with any carrier by railroad and which operates any equipment or facilities or performs any service (other than trucking service) in connection with the transportation, receipt, delivery, elevation, transfer in transit, refrigeration or icing, storage, and handling of property transported by railroad, and any receiver, trustee, or other individual or body, judicial or otherwise, when in the possession of the business of any such 'carrier'."

Although the original intent was for this to cover railroads the act was later amended to cover "air Carriers". Given that fractional companies have air-carrier certificates, we are covered under the RLA.

As far as the right to work law goes, what it boils down to is the fact that these laws are enforced at the state level. It's a commerce clause issue, where federal law -in this case the RLA- trumps state law.

Makes sense, but according to the FlexJet website, they say they are not "air carriers". See here-

For Part 91 and Part 91 K flights, the owner of the aircraft (or fractional owner) has operational control of the aircraft, which means that the owner, not the management company, is responsible for the actions of the flight crew, for aircraft operations, and for safety of flight. Part 91 flights, including fractional flights, may be operated by entities that are not "air carriers." The FAA reviews and approves fractional programs under Part 91, Subpart K.
​

http://www.flexjet.com/FAQ/​

I'm sure this is resolved somewhere, but I haven't found anything on point. I did see a case against EJM that said because they fly Part 135 on a lot of flights, they were a "common carrier". In fact, it was to EJM's benefit to make this call as they were trying to screw a male flight attendant out of overtime and they skated because of the RLA exemption.

 

[gunfyter]

Perhaps we can avoid the ticket tax if we can get out of RLA....

 

[Praetorian]

Makes sense, but according to the FlexJet website, they say they are not "air carriers". See here-

For Part 91 and Part 91 K flights, the owner of the aircraft (or fractional owner) has operational control of the aircraft, which means that the owner, not the management company, is responsible for the actions of the flight crew, for aircraft operations, and for safety of flight. Part 91 flights, including fractional flights, may be operated by entities that are not "air carriers." The FAA reviews and approves fractional programs under Part 91, Subpart K.
​

http://www.flexjet.com/FAQ/​

I'm sure this is resolved somewhere, but I haven't found anything on point. I did see a case against EJM that said because they fly Part 135 on a lot of flights, they were a "common carrier". In fact, it was to EJM's benefit to make this call as they were trying to screw a male flight attendant out of overtime and they skated because of the RLA exemption.

Both FO and NJ also have 91/91k ops and fall under the RLA. Keep in mind Flex has a 135 certificate.

The NMB looks at how simmilar employes, in this case pilots, have historically been represented. NJ set the precedent long ago.

Also it's not like any company, Flex or otherwise, is going to challenge this, because it works in their favor to bargan under the RLA.

This is all probably moot though at Flex.

 

[Hung Start]

Flexjet DOES NOT have a Part 135 certificate.

Hung

 

[luckydog]

Both FO and NJ also have 91/91k ops and fall under the RLA. Keep in mind Flex has a 135 certificate.

The NMB looks at how simmilar employes, in this case pilots, have historically been represented. NJ set the precedent long ago.

Also it's not like any company, Flex or otherwise, is going to challenge this, because it works in their favor to bargan under the RLA.

This is all probably moot though at Flex.

Foreign owned companies cannot be issued a 135 certificate. Flexjet by Bombardier is a part 91/91k operator only.

 

[gret]

Hung and Lucky are both correct.

Flex is a foreign owned entity and cannot own a Part 135 certificate. It has been a dirty secret for a long time that the local FAA office has nicely overlooked the regulations and allowed the strawman to hold the certificate on behalf of Flex. The former head of the FAA was put on the board of Bombardier a few years ago when Congress was on the warpath against the Dallas FAA office and things went silent.

Who has operational control of the aircraft…Flex or the certificate holder? It probably isn't a topic that should be discussed here.

 

[Praetorian]

So who are these guys? http://www.flexjet25.com/_pop-up/FAQ/

I guess it would be more accurate to say, "access to a 135 certificate". I stand corrected, but my opinion remains the same on the RLA guestion.