• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • 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.

What would management's list look like?

Vinny

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Posts
51
Total Time
5000
This is what our world would now look like had the union lost the election, leaving management with free reign to handle seniority integration:

From Yammer:

Rick Handschuch - September 5, 2014 at 1:56pm
You guys are the loyal ones to this company you didn't ask for this, and it is only fair that every single pilot here upgrades before a single transfer pilot. I truly believe that is the likely scenario. We can worry about things out of our control but it in this case you guys have all the control. No one is petitioning the NMB without the majority of Flex pilots behind them. That's totally up to you, no one else. I can not think of a single scenario where there can be a merge with old seniority numbers unless it's mandated by the NMB. If I'm missing something please post it here.

Rick Handschuch - February 23 at 9:11am

Kenn wanted the pilots that were loyal to him for many years to have a chance at having a good seniority number. In order to do this he needed the union to petition for single system. Since they won't he has begun hiring Flight Options pilots at the bottom of our list. He has told me he has felt sad for them but it is time to move on. It is extremely obvious and no statement is at odds when I said the integration would have been a bad thing for Flex. Kenn wanted integration, I'm glad it didn't happen and hope it won't. If anything is at odds it's my position against my boss.

And here is what one of the transfer FOK pilots who volunteered to "move on" and be stapled to the bottom of the Flex list had to say recently:

david marker - February 25 at 8:12am from iPhone

Nice effort on a document that will most definitely be rejected by company! For a group that is supposed to support and represent the pilots, coming up with a list that would cause a furlough doesn't seam like the best choice.

And later:

We all are "Happy" to be here as you put it but to ask someone to give up all their years of service and seniority is absurd and not what was agreed upon?

So he volunteered to be stapled to the bottom of the list and now it some how not fair? I wonder what the transfer pilots, who volunteered to go over to Flex, "agreed upon"? What outcome had they been expecting had the union lost the election?

It looks like I'm not the only one that is asking these questions. When asked by another pilot on Yammer, "it was explained to Flexjet pilots that transfer pilots were to enter at the bottom of our seniority list. I would find it interesting if it was explained to you differently. Are you able to elaborate on that at all?", David responded:

It's being rejected so I wouldn't worry about it until such time that a proper list is created that is fair and equitable!

Finally Handschuch weighs in:

I couldn't have said it better. This was supposed to be fair and equitable yet it is evident the committee and union had the intent of putting the screws to the transfer pilots and nothing more.

I'm wondering how the union put the screws to anyone? Based on Handschuch's own statements from 2014 the transfer pilots who, "were loyal to him [Kenn] for many years" were hired "at the bottom" of the Flexjet list. Now the union has given them the option to return to Flight Options and regain their seniority numbers. Again, it makes one wonder what was secretly "agreed upon"? Were the turncoats promised that they would ultimately be placed below the Flexjet pilots, but above all the other Flight Options pilots on a list management created?

One thing is for sure, if we had allowed the collection of snakes and liars who run this company to integrate the seniority list, the majority of us who are not FOKs would be much worse off than we are today.

At the end of the day the list will stand as written, in spite of management's best efforts to calm the fears of their fair haired sheeple fence jumping turncoat children, it's over folks and the Kenn's sheeple have a big decision to make:

From the Flight Options pilots 2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement:

1.5(b)(1) The integration of the Seniority Lists of the respective Pilot groups shall be governed by Sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions (?LPPs?). The parties shall promptly initiate the Seniority integration procedures of Sections 3 and 13 following announcement of an operational merger affecting the Seniority rights of the Pilot groups. The Company or other Successor, as appropriate, shall accept the integrated Seniority List. There shall be no system flush or removal of Pilots from their positions as a result of Seniority List integration.
 
Last edited:

Bjtdrvr

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Posts
180
Total Time
10000
Yes. It does not say that it has to be approved by Onesky management!
 

Bjtdrvr

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Posts
180
Total Time
10000
Also the integrated list does not mean the transfers get flushed from the seats that they are in if they stay at Flex. It only affects their bidding ability going forward.
 

Imissmypilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
536
Total Time
7500
Also the integrated list does not mean the transfers get flushed from the seats that they are in if they stay at Flex. It only affects their bidding ability going forward.

Okay. but with fence agreements that will stay in place until a JCBA happens, how can a pilot with a flight options seniority number fly a flexjet airplane?

Seems to me if a transfer really wanted to ensure his Options number he should move now. Otherwise, chance it the fences fall and stay in fleet and switch when we see the JCBA. But remember you lose longevity for every minute you stay, which helps me out so, yeah, stay a while.

Some very tough decisions ahead for these transfers and I don't envy them. Kenn really screwed them good. I hope they can see that now. And if he cries foul with the training costs he's got no one to blame but himself so don't fall for it!

And now RH proves Kenn's intentions again. What is he still doing here anyway if he is so at odds with his bosses' way of doing business? Sack of ******************** shill. I knew it would take some time but hopefully everyone is finally seeing what a scumbag he is. As for the top 33 who constantly acted like little babies anytime RH was "attacked" I hope they realize he's gearing up to throw you under the bus and to Kenn YOUR years of loyalty are now deemed worthless since they weren't with him.

Be careful what you wish for TP, MR, JM, RB, LK to name a few. Your just desserts as voiced by Kenn himself will never be served thanks to the union you so vehemently protested. Not that you deserve it.
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
So the FAIR way to integrate the seniority list was to upgrade all of the Flex pilots and staple the Options pilots to the bottom of the list? Pilots with 17 years dedication would fly right seat to a pilot that only got hired two months ago? Uncle really has a mess on his hands and can't blame anyone but himself.
 

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
As far as training costs go, management is financially very savvy. They knew exactly how much retraining they were facing when they gave out all those PLOAs. These are managers that negotiate multimillion dollar deals. For them to claim they will be too high, or that the cost was unforeseen, is ridiculous. They calculated that risk when they agreed to all the PLOAs in the first place.
 

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
And Vinny, your post is spot on! Well done!
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
The company has filed a lawsuit against the 1108, and also against IBT over SLI

Seriously, the same company that negotiated and signed and agreed to in a contract that they "shall" accept the SLI.

Wants to sue over the fact that they feel that they do not have to accept the SLI
Wants to sue over the fact that the SLI does not meet McCaskill-Bond.
Wants to sue over the fact that the SLI should not follow McCaskill-Bond arbitration process.
 

flexible

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2015
Posts
85
Total Time
9000
The company has filed a lawsuit against the 1108, and also against IBT over SLI

Seriously, the same company that negotiated and signed and agreed to in a contract that they "shall" accept the SLI.

Wants to sue over the fact that they feel that they do not have to accept the SLI
Wants to sue over the fact that the SLI does not meet McCaskill-Bond.
Wants to sue over the fact that the SLI should not follow McCaskill-Bond arbitration process.

This should make you happy since all mananagments been doing since vote is showing true colors. Even rabid disdainers are changes their opinion based on integration not looking so bad after all and management looking aloof and vindictive.

I was late coming to vote yes based solely on the red label pay scales. Not only are they not adequate for what he claimed was goal of program they also then overpay a specific group of pilots for work we all contribute to. If the planes were solely for rl pilots or customers than I have no problem but that's not true. Those pilots are stealing money I earned for them. And yes I feel it is that disgusting.

All management is doing for 4 month now is causing distrust among pilot group and doing the exact opposite of what I imagine their goal should he. Interesting development toward more of the same. But ricci is quiet. Who is really behind this attitude?
 

Imissmypilot

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Posts
536
Total Time
7500
Wants to sue over the fact that they feel that they do not have to accept the SLI
Wants to sue over the fact that the SLI does not meet McCaskill-Bond.
Wants to sue over the fact that the SLI should not follow McCaskill-Bond arbitration process.

I don't speak legal so much. Are you saying they are arguing two completely in-congruent arguments at the same time? They ought to get slapped with a fine for wasting time like this. Trick question, that's exactly what they're doing.

Maybe in the next contract there ought to be language that forces the company to pay a fine to the pilot group every time a judge determines they do something frivolous, vindictive or force the union to grieve a clear cut issue like this acceptance of the list.

I'm over the list. We need to move onto negotiations and my bypass regarding the issue brought up above about red label. Never thought about it before but flexible is right. The company and those red label pilots are stealing money I earned for them. That is disgusting.
 

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
^^^this^^^
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
That's the Ricci way. Rob from the hard working pilots that make the backbone of this company, so a few of HIS good old boys club pilots reap the temporary rewards.
 

ProFracPilot

What's it doing now?
Joined
May 1, 2003
Posts
701
Total Time
8000
If people would look at McCaskill-Bond from a logical point of view, there's no way this law (as written) was ever intended to apply to all "air carriers". It is far too encompassing. In my (not so humble) opinion the intent of the law was to appease a large political constituency - meaning the normal folks who ride in steerage on part 121 air carriers - by trying to smooth out future "major" air carrier SLI's (and minimize operational impact) after the AA-TWA debacle. Look at it this way: what if two mom and pop 135 air carriers decided to merge (maybe neither had a pilot seniority list...) and then they attempt to apply this law? It would never work. Chances are it would bankrupt the new combined company in training costs alone if an attempt was made to apply it.

This isn't a frivolous lawsuit. Lawmakers craft bad law all the time and then leave it up to the courts to fix the law. Perhaps the merit of the lawsuit is to flesh out the intent of the law as originally written.
 

GlorifiedCabbie

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
1,220
Total Time
15+
The purpose of the lawsuit is nothing more than to perpetuate the lie that the company has the backs of the transfer pilots. The company will put on a good show but its nothing more than that. The company gambled with the careers of those pilots, and will now blame the union. Unfortunately the blame falls on the transfers because they were the ones that gambled against the united pilots that did not see thru the deceit and vote out the union. Now that they lost, as in any gamble, they must pay the price.
 
Last edited:

doh

Jump seat shrink
Joined
Aug 26, 2003
Posts
4,017
Total Time
48 yrs
Anyone notice the absence of the usual apologists? Handschuch's quote has them pretty much shut down. Anything they say to try and twist that makes him a liar. Tough spot for the sycophants.
 

Praetorian

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Posts
577
Total Time
aeons
If people would look at McCaskill-Bond from a logical point of view, there's no way this law (as written) was ever intended to apply to all "air carriers". It is far too encompassing. In my (not so humble) opinion the intent of the law was to appease a large political constituency - meaning the normal folks who ride in steerage on part 121 air carriers - by trying to smooth out future "major" air carrier SLI's (and minimize operational impact) after the AA-TWA debacle. Look at it this way: what if two mom and pop 135 air carriers decided to merge (maybe neither had a pilot seniority list...) and then they attempt to apply this law? It would never work. Chances are it would bankrupt the new combined company in training costs alone if an attempt was made to apply it.

This isn't a frivolous lawsuit. Lawmakers craft bad law all the time and then leave it up to the courts to fix the law. Perhaps the merit of the lawsuit is to flesh out the intent of the law as originally written.

You're right the amendment only applies when a "covered transaction" occurres. However DAC's acquisition of FX and the subsequent merger clearly fall under that definition.

Ironically DAC's former attorney has perhaps devoted more scolarship to MB then anyone else. Here is a good article he wrote on the topic:

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/164186/Aviation/Seniority+Integration+And+The+MccaskillBond+Statute

You can call this lawsuit what you want, but, as with just about everything DAC has done lately, it's sole purpose is to delay the union's ability to negotiate a joint CBA. They know they will ultamately loose, but time is money.
 
Top