GoJet Airlines

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Notwithstanding the fact that I've already shown that GoJet is not, in fact, flying 70 seat jets for 50 seat rates....

Irrelevant to the issue. The issue isn't the GoJet payrates, the issue is the scope violation.

In a court of law, all TSA's management would need to show is any other plausible purpose for creating the alter ego, and clearly, the AMR scope issue provides this.

We've already demonstrated to you that that's not the case. The AMR scope clause doesn't pertain to seniority lists, only to operating certificates. And as RAH has demonstrated, it is quite easy to operate multiple certificates with a single seniority list. Your "plausible purpose" has been disproved time and time again, you simply don't want to acknowledge it. Without that purpose, the only remaining excuse for the creation of the alter-ego carrier (GoJet) is the circumventing of ALPA's scope over the flying and their legal jurisdiction to negotiate the terms of that flying (ie. payrates).

And even if it did, where is the contract language that states if TSA management DOES create an alter ego carrier, they're required to offer right of first refusal to the TSA pilots?

That would be this part:

All flying in and for the scheduled revenue passenger service of the Company and any wet lease or charter flying presently performed or to be performed in the future by the Company, shall be performed by active Pilots on the Trans States Airlines Pilots' Seniority List and shall be flown in accordance with all of the provisions of the Employment agreement and applicable amendments thereto between the Company and the Pilots as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (AFL CIO).

 

[aloft]

We've already demonstrated to you that that's not the case. The AMR scope clause doesn't pertain to seniority lists, only to operating certificates. And as RAH has demonstrated, it is quite easy to operate multiple certificates with a single seniority list. Your "plausible purpose" has been disproved time and time again, you simply don't want to acknowledge it.

I'm still mulling it over, but I don't think you've adequately disproven it--at least not to my satisfaction. I agree that TSA Holdings COULD HAVE enacted an RAH-like single seniority list for both certificates, but I doubt they were under any obligation to do so. Thus, while the TSA pilots have legal claim to any additional flying on the TSA operating certificate, it's pretty clear they have no claim to the flying done under the GoJet one.

And if they did, they'd have sued and won.

That would be this part:

All flying in and for the scheduled revenue passenger service of the Company and any wet lease or charter flying presently performed or to be performed in the future by the Company, shall be performed by active Pilots on the Trans States Airlines Pilots' Seniority List and shall be flown in accordance with all of the provisions of the Employment agreement and applicable amendments thereto between the Company and the Pilots as represented by the Air Line Pilots Association, International (AFL CIO).

The problem here is that GoJet and Trans States Airlines are distinct legal entities, and GoJet obviously isn't bound by TSA's labor contracts. It's obvious to me that once the alter ego was justified by the AMR scope clause, the TSA labor agreement no longer applied to it. Remember, the contract is with TSA, not TSA Holdings or any subsidiary thereof.

 

[JDMcFly]

"And if they did, they'd have sued and won."

Right.

Actually, I think Pinnacle is violating scope as we speak by letting Colgan pilots even fly at all. But that's another issue.

 

[Foxcow]

And if they did, they'd have sued and won.

One of the main reasons the arbitrator decided that g0jet was a separate company was because they had a different website. BS.

g0jet was created out of spite. Management decide that it was worth the added massive cost of creating new certificate rather than pay people slightly more to fly a slightly larger aircraft. Many of the things that management does is out of pure spite.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I'm still mulling it over, but I don't think you've adequately disproven it--at least not to my satisfaction.

I think it's become quite obvious to everyone here that nothing will ever be to your satisfaction. You've decided that the GoJet pilots are ok in your book, so nothing that disproves that will be considered in your mind. That's a shame. The facts are quite plain to everyone else.

The problem here is that GoJet and Trans States Airlines are distinct legal entities, and GoJet obviously isn't bound by TSA's labor contracts. It's obvious to me that once the alter ego was justified by the AMR scope clause, the TSA labor agreement no longer applied to it. Remember, the contract is with TSA, not TSA Holdings or any subsidiary thereof.

One of your problems is that you lack experience in any sort of contract law or RLA law. Those of us who've gone through ALPA's training can easily see the problems with your statement. Are you familiar with successorship language? Here's an example from the TSA CBA, coming right before the aforementioned "alter-ego" clause:

1. This agreement shall be binding upon any successor or merged company or companies unless and until changed in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Labor Act, as amended.

TSA Airlines was the only entity when this agreement was signed. TSA Holdings didn't exist yet. Hulas later created TSA Holdings and made TSA Airlines a wholly-owned subsidiary of the holding company. Therefore, the above language binds the new holding company, because it became the successor. The new holding company was bound by all scope language that TSA Airlines had agreed to. This wouldn't be the case if TSA Holdings had existed at the time the agreement was signed, but since it later became a successor, it was bound to all terms of the CBA. So, the operation of an alter-ego by the holding company, without the use of the TSA seniority list pilots, is a direct violation of the agreement that TSA Holdings is bound to.

 

[Airdale]

Wow. A few days with limited internet access, seven pages later and I've literally spent more time digging thru reported posts, moderation events and trying to get at the core of the issue than I've spent on the toilet the last few days.

OK!

I'm not closing the thread, I'm going to "time it out" for a bit so I don't spend the next six hours answering PM's, texts and emails about who did/said/posted/threatened/whatever who.

It'll be back. Be patient.

Sorry Doug!!! I didn't mean for it to get out of hand. I was just curious whether or not folks thought of GoJet in a better light now that they are Union.

 

[Maximilian_Jenius]

Wow. A few days with limited internet access, seven pages later and I've literally spent more time digging thru reported posts, moderation events and trying to get at the core of the issue than I've spent on the toilet the last few days.

OK!

I'm not closing the thread, I'm going to "time it out" for a bit so I don't spend the next six hours answering PM's, texts and emails about who did/said/posted/threatened/whatever who.

It'll be back. Be patient.

...ahhhh, so, that's why you didn't return my text today!