XJ to get 17 CRJ200's from 9E

[ImbracableCrunk]

My MEC Speaks for Me! (Just not to me!)

No one on the inside other than the MEC (and they're not talking much lately) knows anything at XJ.

Yeah, didn't we have some issues with some MAIR letter or something? Gosh, I swear there was some big to-do. . . . Lawyers and judges or something. Musta been my imagination.

 

[GRAAB HIRBOUBI]

Xj

I am just under 500 seniority. At 5 crews per planes its simple math
36+17+49=102 planes = about 500 captains.

It will take about 2 years to get all the 705's so you tell me when to realistically expect upgrade. Attrition and more aircraft are the only variables that MAY accellerate the process. Then I expect a pretty bad reserve schedule in MEM. NOPE!

Yes the MAIR letter was supposed to be in court in the week of April 20th or 25th. Nobody in the MEC will answer email or phone or ALPA board posting or calls on the subject.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Can you post any link to your information on "single carrier" with the NMB?

Yup.

I can also let the RJDC toads continue to feed $$ to Haber while he "researches" the issue...and advises them that he can't find a conclusive definition.

I choose Option B.

Everything I have seen from ALPA and the NMB states that "single carrier" only deals with the "who represents" part of the equation.

Wow! (And by "Wow!" I mean "who cares?") Merger "expert" N2264J tells us it simply means ALPA is considering petitioning the NMB to have ALPA represent a carrier it's represented for decades. If you can't tell, I think this is about the coolest thing I've ever seen on FI.

He and his cabal of victims are angry! They're militant! They're in italics! And not just any italics...but extra slanty italics to indicate they are really angry.

The Single-Carrier status petition issue simply illustrates that they,

A. Don't know what they're talking about.
B. Have hired incompetent counsel.
C. Probably have extra-small weiners.

Can you site any examples of single carrier petitions between groups who were represented by the same union?

I appreciate your thirst for knowledge (I recommend you drink at the Fountain of Knowledge instead of just gargling), but if you think I'm gonna provide any information to the know-it-all RJDC bumblers...you're wrong.

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

Occam, you might've spoken to this topic on other threads, but in this thread, you've mostly been dookie-slinging and name calling.

I don't know much about the RJDC and ALPA, but you, sir, seem mighty belligerent.

I appreciate your thirst for knowledge (I recommend you drink at the Fountain of Knowledge instead of just gargling), but if you think I'm gonna provide any information to the know-it-all RJDC bumblers...you're wrong.

And that's why we call it Flight Info, folks.

 

[N2264J]

If your Labor-savvy lawyer (snicker) knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't need to ask the question, would he?

I guess you realize that lawyers sometimes ask questions during depositions for purposes other than their own professional education, don't you?

Comments made by the former President of ALPA...doesn't change the fact that the NWA MEC doesn't need to file anything to have Mesaba represented by ALPA. That's your assertion...and it's wrong. You know it, and I know it.

You know, all the messages between us are still here if someone wanted to take the time to go back and read them. You are aware of that, aren't you?​

My asserton is that the NWA MEC needs a mechanism to bring Compass into ALPA. The NMB isn't bound to the NWA contract so a single carrier petition is filed which would include Mesaba since they're a wholly owned subsidary. It has nothing to do with a single list according to the former president of the ALPA and his legal staff.​

It is amusing, however, at the amount of time it took you to throw your buddy Duane under the bus in a effort to cling to what's left of your credibility with the Mesaba pilots.​

It must be situational Semper Fi.​

 

[PCL_128]

My asserton is that the NWA MEC needs a mechanism to bring Compass into ALPA.

Guess again. Shouldn't you be writing another check to that arrogant twit Haber?

 

[JoeMerchant]

Yup.

I can also let the RJDC toads continue to feed $$ to Haber while he "researches" the issue...and advises them that he can't find a conclusive definition.

I choose Option B.



Wow! (And by "Wow!" I mean "who cares?") Merger "expert" N2264J tells us it simply means ALPA is considering petitioning the NMB to have ALPA represent a carrier it's represented for decades. If you can't tell, I think this is about the coolest thing I've ever seen on FI.

He and his cabal of victims are angry! They're militant! They're in italics! And not just any italics...but extra slanty italics to indicate they are really angry.

The Single-Carrier status petition issue simply illustrates that they,

A. Don't know what they're talking about.
B. Have hired incompetent counsel.
C. Probably have extra-small weiners.



I appreciate your thirst for knowledge (I recommend you drink at the Fountain of Knowledge instead of just gargling), but if you think I'm gonna provide any information to the know-it-all RJDC bumblers...you're wrong.

You can't win this argument now.... either ALPA has knowingly mislead the ASA and CMR MECs by advising that single carrier petitions are only for representation, or you are wrong and ALPA advised ASA and CMR correctly..... either way you look bad....

 

[JoeMerchant]

Guess again. Shouldn't you be writing another check to that arrogant twit Haber?

OK PCL, what say you? ALPA has advised the ASA and CMR MECs that a single carrier petition is only for the purpose of determining a bargaining agent. If both carriers are already ALPA, then it does no good. Occam disagrees and believes it is the first step to merging.

Would you care to enlighten us with your understanding? Is PCL going to file a single carrier petition for Colgan? What is ALPA telling PCL?

 

[PCL_128]

OK PCL, what say you? ALPA has advised the ASA and CMR MECs that a single carrier petition is only for the purpose of determining a bargaining agent. If both carriers are already ALPA, then it does no good. Occam disagrees and believes it is the first step to merging.

Your buddy N2264J stated that Compass isn't ALPA until a single carrier petition is filed. ALPA is already recognized as the official bargaining agent of NWA. I know the NWA ALPA rep that led the negotiations for the Compass CBA. My understanding is that the NWA MEC is considering the possibility of running Compass as part of the NWA MEC rather than have it as a separate unit.

Is PCL going to file a single carrier petition for Colgan? What is ALPA telling PCL?

Sorry, but PCL ALPA's bargaining strategy is not something that we broadcast publicly. Neither is our confidential legal counsel from ALPA.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Your buddy N2264J stated that Compass isn't ALPA until a single carrier petition is filed. ALPA is already recognized as the official bargaining agent of NWA. I know the NWA ALPA rep that led the negotiations for the Compass CBA. My understanding is that the NWA MEC is considering the possibility of running Compass as part of the NWA MEC rather than have it as a separate unit.

Your buddy Occam said that a single carrier petition is the first step in merging carriers and that the NWA MEC was persuing it with NWA/Compass/Mesaba. Others, including ALPA national, have pointed out that a single carrier petition is only for determining the bargaining agent, and that if all carriers are already represented by the same agent, a single carrier petition does no good.

Enlighten us.... what is a single carrier petition for? Does it do any good for the NWA MEC to file one if NWA, Compass, and Mesaba are already represented by ALPA?

 

[PCL_128]

Your buddy Occam said that a single carrier petition is the first step in merging carriers and that the NWA MEC was persuing it with NWA/Compass/Mesaba. Others, including ALPA national, have pointed out that a single carrier petition is only for determining the bargaining agent, and that if all carriers are already represented by the same agent, a single carrier petition does no good.

Enlighten us.... what is a single carrier petition for? Does it do any good for the NWA MEC to file one if NWA, Compass, and Mesaba are already represented by ALPA?

Occam has many more years of ALPA experience than I do, so I tend to defer to him on these matters. To answer your question, though, I have always had the impression that you were correct about the purpose of a single-carrier petition. That understanding wasn't based on a briefing from ALPA legal, however. That was just my personal understanding as a layman. I asked Occam about this a few weeks ago, and he's told me that my understanding is incorrect. I haven't had a chance to talk with legal about this yet, so I still don't have an "official" answer, but I tend to trust Occam's information. I'll be in Herndon next week, so hopefully I'll have some spare time to stop by and talk with someone from legal about this.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Occam has many more years of ALPA experience than I do, so I tend to defer to him on these matters. To answer your question, though, I have always had the impression that you were correct about the purpose of a single-carrier petition. That understanding wasn't based on a briefing from ALPA legal, however. That was just my personal understanding as a layman. I asked Occam about this a few weeks ago, and he's told me that my understanding is incorrect. I haven't had a chance to talk with legal about this yet, so I still don't have an "official" answer, but I tend to trust Occam's information. I'll be in Herndon next week, so hopefully I'll have some spare time to stop by and talk with someone from legal about this.

That is VERY interesting since ALPA legal has advised the ASA and CMR MECs that a single carrier petition is what you and I understand it to be. If that is incorrect, then ALPA legal has been misinforming the ASA and CMR MECs. Let me know what you find out.....

 

[YourPilotFriend]

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. The fate of these airlinks has already been determined. Single carrier, PID whatever....all has to be what management wants, ALPA does not run the company.

 

[PCL_128]

I don't know what you guys are arguing about. The fate of these airlinks has already been determined. Single carrier, PID whatever....all has to be what management wants, ALPA does not run the company.

Go back to your cubicle, little man.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Occam, you might've spoken to this topic on other threads, but in this thread, you've mostly been dookie-slinging and name calling.

I don't know much about the RJDC and ALPA, but you, sir, seem mighty belligerent.

Fair cop.

Perhaps you'll read the other posts I've made on the topic. It's tough being one of the legacy schmucks that supports integration of our Airlinks in a concert hall full of opera singers ("Me, me, me, meeee") who refuse to accept that there is a cost and risk to list integration. Most of them also believe that they shouldn't bear any of the cost of that process.

It gets old.

 

[N2264J]

So tell me, was Woerth knowingly misleading our attorney under oath or is he just ignorant?

Haber: Is it in fact management that defines when the merger takes place?
Woerth: Managements usually announce mergers, yes.
Haber: I mean in circumstances where it is where one is talking about operational integration and other indicia of that sort, but where there is not a formal legal merger?
Woerth: If there is a merger it is usually a management-announced merger and their plan to integrate is known to the public and to us and that is how mergers occur.
Haber: But ALPA merger policy is defined for something that is less formalistic?
Woerth: No, it is to recognize when it is a rumor of a merger and an actual merger, to distinguish the rumors of a merger and the likelihood of a real merger taking place.
Haber: So, then why would ALPA seek in some instances single carrier determinations from the National Mediation Board despite management's objection?
Woerth: Single carrier representation has nothing to do with mergers. It has that to with representational status of the unions.
Haber: But single representation would be another way of getting what you advocated; right?
Woerth: They are not related at all.
Haber: Why not?
Woerth: Because it just has to do with who is the collective bargaining representative in a single carrier case; teamsters, ALPA, independent. A single carrier just describes who is going to be the bargaining representative.
Haber: At Mesa, for example, ALPA represented all carriers involved, so what was the rationale for seeking National Mediation Board single carrier determination?
MR. MIGLIORE: Object to the form of the question; assumes facts that are not in evidence.
THE WITNESS: I don't know why we sought single carrier determination.​

http://www.rjdefense.com/2006/woerth_xscript.pdfhttp://www.rjdefense.com/2006/woerth_xscript.pdfhttp://www.rjdefense.com/2006/woerth_xscript.pdf

Delta unions disagree on single-carrier status: Delta Air Lines and its pilots union have asked the National Mediation Board for a determination that Delta and Northwest Airlines are now a single carrier -- a move opposed by unions representing Delta flight attendants and ground workers. A quick change in operating status would give Delta "the opportunity to de-unionize the rest of the labor groups," according to the International Association of Machinists. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

So Razor, let's put aside the anti-union proclivity of the Delta MEC for a moment and ponder this: if a single carrier petition is only useful in determining the bargaining agent as Bill Roberts advised the Comair and ASA MECs and Woerth testified to under oath, why does Delta and Northwest need one? They're already both represented by ALPA.

 

[NuGuy]

So Razor, let's put aside the anti-union proclivity of the Delta MEC for a moment and ponder this: if a single carrier petition is only useful in determining the bargaining agent as Bill Roberts advised the Comair and ASA MECs and Woerth testified to under oath, why does Delta and Northwest need one? They're already both represented by ALPA.

Heyas,

Because this IS about representation...for the other employee groups, some of which are represented, while others are not.

As part of the new contract, ALPA agreed to support a single carrier petition.

Nu