What's the Point of a Union at (Regional/Major/Etc.)

WestIndian425 said:
Not playing sides here, but I decided to get an official definition for the word "entity", since this appears to be a target for debate. The following is from Merriam-Webster Dictionary:


By that definition, both an individual and an organization are entities.

Gotta love "lawyer talk" when it comes to the rules and regulations of our beloved United States. (No offense @jtrain609 cause I know you da man! ;))
Click to expand...

Looking to the definition of entity isn't the right place to start.

Looking to the most basic definition of what makes up a contract is the right place to start.

But don't take my word for it, Cornell's Legal Information Institute is a pretty good source (and I don't want to go typing something out of my copy of Black's Law Dictionary right now):

An agreement creating obligations enforceable by law. The basic elements of a contract are mutual assent, consideration, capacity, and legality. In some states, the element of consideration can be satisfied by a valid substitute.
Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

Oh and don't we have a referee for this stuff now? Hey @PilotDefenseAttorney, are you interested in a lecture on mutual assent, substitution of consideration and third party beneficiaries?
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
Two entities can have a legal agreement between them. The company and I have a legal agreement. And our PVC (thankfully) does not speak for me. I do. I prefer that. I don't want you, or ALPA, or anyone else, speaking for me.
Click to expand...

With a FOQA or ASAP program, a third party is necessary. That's what you keep missing. I don't disagree that your PEA is a binding contract. It certainly is. But that has nothing to do with this conversation about FOQA and ASAP where a third party gatekeeper or an ERC is involved. Your PEA doesn't create that.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
With a FOQA or ASAP program, a third party is necessary. That's what you keep missing. I don't disagree that your PEA is a binding contract. It certainly is. But that has nothing to do with this conversation about FOQA and ASAP where a third party gatekeeper or an ERC is involved. Your PEA doesn't create that.
Click to expand...

So it's completely impossible for the PEA to have, as a condition of signing, the designation of representation in an ASAP program assigned to a third party, such as a sub-group of the pilots, as a designee?
 
jtrain609 said:
Looking to the definition of entity isn't the right place to start.

Looking to the most basic definition of what makes up a contract is the right place to start.

But don't take my word for it, Cornell's Legal Information Institute is a pretty good source (and I don't want to go typing something out of my copy of Black's Law Dictionary right now):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract
Click to expand...

Okay. I don't mind using that approach at all. I did some further digging on the site you've provided, and there's still some ambiguity in solving this debate. Am I missing something?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
With a FOQA or ASAP program, a third party is necessary. That's what you keep missing. I don't disagree that your PEA is a binding contract. It certainly is. But that has nothing to do with this conversation about FOQA and ASAP where a third party gatekeeper or an ERC is involved. Your PEA doesn't create that.
Click to expand...

Within the confines of ASAP, I agree, as we only have a two party MOU. (However I do not think it is impossible. For instance if EVERY pilot signed a three party MOU, would that not qualify?)

For FOQA, I completely disagree. I'll see if I can rustle up our gatekeeper language.
 
jtrain609 said:
So it's completely impossible for the PEA to have, as a condition of signing, the designation of representation in an ASAP program assigned to a third party, such as a sub-group of the pilots, as a designee?
Click to expand...

I would say no. The ASAP and FOQA programs need a single representative for everyone in the pilot group, and the PEAs are individual. We've already seen a case where the company sent out new PEAs to be signed and a subset of the pilot group refused to sign them. What happens when one part of the pilot group designates the PVC as their representative, but another part refuses to do so? Sorry, but that doesn't work with these kinds of safety programs.

The programs were specifically designed around a union being involved as the third party. It's that simple.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I would say no. The ASAP and FOQA programs need a single representative for everyone in the pilot group, and the PEAs are individual. We've already seen a case where the company sent out new PEAs to be signed and a subset of the pilot group refused to sign them. What happens when one part of the pilot group designates the PVC as their representative, but another part refuses to do so? Sorry, but that doesn't work with these kinds of safety programs.

The programs were specifically designed around a union being involved as the third party. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what a designee is. If all the PEA's point to a single entity that represents the pilots as a third party, then that entity would be the desginee of ALL the PEA's, and thus ALL the pilots, and it would fit within the definition that's laid out below.

From Mark's own post, #84 in this thread:

m. Party/Parties.
Click to expand...
Refers to the certificate holder, the FAA, and any other person or entity (e.g., labor union or other industry or Government entity) that is a signatory to the MOU.
Click to expand...

In fact, there could be ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON that is the deginee by the pilot group that is the third signatory. The EXAMPLES include a labor union.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nick said:
Until an airline has an event that truly tests the program, you have no idea how it is going to work. History is not at all on the side that you've chosen to defend, though.
Click to expand...
Actually, there have been a few incidents in recent history that I was made aware of that tested it. One involved a CRJ taking off from ORD with less than required fuel, forcing an emergency landing. Another was a Brasilia taking off at SLC at night, and the runway edge lights were mistaken for the CL lights. There was quite some damage to the plane.
 
jtrain609 said:
I don't think you understand what a designee is. If all the PEA's point to a single entity that represents the pilots as a third party, then that entity would be the desginee of ALL the PEA's, and thus ALL the pilots, and it would fit within the definition that's laid out below.

From Mark's own post, #84 in this thread:

Refers to the certificate holder, the FAA, and any other person or entity (e.g., labor union or other industry or Government entity) that is a signatory to the MOU.
In fact, there could be ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON that is the deginee by the pilot group that is the third signatory. The EXAMPLES include a labor union.
Click to expand...
This is what I was driving at. I was going to post the advisory circular that raised this debate to begin with, but you've answered it. Thanks, man!
 
Bumblebee said:
statement was incorrect.
Click to expand...

It is correct.

The Advisory Circular cleary states a third party is needed to run the program correctly. If the third party doesn't have a way to enforce the MOU created with the Advisory Circular guidance then you may think you have a program, but it isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

For example, Skywest could tell SAPA, 'we don't want you guys at the next few meetings.' What is SAPA going to do about it? Nothing. We had that happen at Colgan a few times before ALPA was on property. Couple this with the issues of representation, it is clear what the Advisory Circular calls for.
 
jtrain609 said:
I don't think you understand what a designee is. If all the PEA's point to a single entity that represents the pilots as a third party, then that entity would be the desginee of ALL the PEA's, and thus ALL the pilots, and it would fit within the definition that's laid out below.

From Mark's own post, #84 in this thread:



In fact, there could be ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON that is the deginee by the pilot group that is the third signatory. The EXAMPLES include a labor union.
Click to expand...

John, read this. Read this again. And again....

:)

ATN_Pilot said:
The programs were specifically designed around a union being involved as the third party. It's that simple.
Click to expand...
 
Seggy said:
It is correct.

The Advisory Circular cleary states a third party is needed to run the program correctly. If the third party doesn't have a way to enforce the MOU created with the Advisory Circular guidance then you may think you have a program, but it isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

For example, Skywest could tell SAPA, 'we don't want you guys at the next few meetings.' What is SAPA going to do about it? Nothing. We had that happen at Colgan a few times before ALPA was on property. Couple this with the issues of representation, it is clear what the Advisory Circular calls for.
Click to expand...
at that point there would be no third party and then it wold longer be viable…while it may be best practice to have a separate entity, that does not mean there isn't a third party looking at it. The Chinese Wall keeps the information from management so it does act as a third party…not a union.Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that it must be a Union to have a valid program.
 
jtrain609 said:
Great source.
Click to expand...

He is right here.

You are trying to be to 'lawyery' with this. Unless you encompass all the aspects of the AC you technically don't have a program. Look at my real life example below...


Bumblebee said:
at that point there would be no third party and then it wold longer be viable…while it may be best practice to have a separate entity, that does not mean there isn't a third party looking at it. The Chinese Wall keeps the information from management so it does act as a third party…not a union.Therefore, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that it must be a Union to have a valid program.
Click to expand...

What happens if the gatekeeper is not a third party but in management? Is that not ok, but having a random third party show up to the ASAP Meetings is ok? If you start making exemptions to the AC then you will have a mess of a program and a lot of bad habits develop. Colgan had a manager as the gatekeeper before ALPA was on property with the 'ASAP Program'. Would you consider that to be a ASAP Program per the Advisory Circular? Because Colgan sure as hell told the NTSB that they had an ASAP Program on property before 3407. We of course called bullcrap on that. @Cherokee_Cruiser, who is the gatekeeper at your place for the FOQA and ASAP 'Programs'?

The point I am trying to make here is it is all or nothing with guidance. If you keep saying, 'but, the third party comprised of SAPA can represent the pilots,' that is being disingenious to the fact that you need LEGAL representation and a course of action to take if the company misuses the information. Look at the ramifications of the third party pulling out from the ASAP Program. Ask the Delta or Air Wisconsin guys how that would have worked if it wasn't for the union taking care of it. It would be a disaster if you didn't have that backing. Yes you can tweak how many times a month you want to meet, how you get the information out there, but in the e.g. with the definitions they specifically say unions, industry, or government. How does these third parties have any teeth without legal backing? They don't talk about the individual showing up to represent themselves at the ASAP ERC Meeting or FOQA Gatekeepers station. They talk about a legal entity representing the MOU Agreements.

Once again, these programs were designed with union safe guards. These union safe guards are in place due to a plethora of legal backings a union can bring to the table to protect these programs.
 
Last edited:
jtrain609 said:
I don't think you understand what a designee is.
Click to expand...

And I don't think you actually read what people say. I addressed your point already by mentioning that there has already been at least one case where a subset of the pilots refused to sign an updated PEA. Do you have a valid FOQA program if 80% of the PEAs designate someone as the third party, but the other 20% do not? Of course not.
 
jtrain609 said:
Looking to the definition of entity isn't the right place to start.

Looking to the most basic definition of what makes up a contract is the right place to start.

But don't take my word for it, Cornell's Legal Information Institute is a pretty good source (and I don't want to go typing something out of my copy of Black's Law Dictionary right now):



http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contract

Oh and don't we have a referee for this stuff now? Hey @PilotDefenseAttorney, are you interested in a lecture on mutual assent, substitution of consideration and third party beneficiaries?
Click to expand...
I did a quick recon of the origin and evolution of this discussion. On that basis, I appreciate the invite but it feels suspiciously like being asked to be the guest of honor at a butt kickin' contest. That said, I had a recent case that left me wondering where the line between benefiting the collective and benefiting the individual union member is - or should be - drawn. In my case, the individual member was being hung out to dry arguably for the benefit of the group as a whole. The union's arguments started sounding a lot like the company's arguments. (Just something else to think about. I know this isn't responsive to the subject matter of your discussion/question, but ultimately much of what you are discussing is exactly the kind of thing that is ultimately determined by a judge and/or jury; followed by an appeals court. Translation, the argument goes on!)
 
PilotDefenseAttorney said:
I did a quick recon of the origin and evolution of this discussion. On that basis, I appreciate the invite but it feels suspiciously like being asked to be the guest of honor at a butt kickin' contest. That said, I had a recent case that left me wondering where the line between benefiting the collective and benefiting the individual union member is - or should be - drawn. In my case, the individual member was being hung out to dry arguably for the benefit of the group as a whole. The union's arguments started sounding a lot like the company's arguments. (Just something else to think about. I know this isn't responsive to the subject matter of your discussion/question, but ultimately much of what you are discussing is exactly the kind of thing that is ultimately determined by a judge and/or jury; followed by an appeals court. Translation, the argument goes on!)
Click to expand...

DFR case? If so, it's sure as hell a hard standard to meet.
 
PilotDefenseAttorney said:
I did a quick recon of the origin and evolution of this discussion. On that basis, I appreciate the invite but it feels suspiciously like being asked to be the guest of honor at a butt kickin' contest. That said, I had a recent case that left me wondering where the line between benefiting the collective and benefiting the individual union member is - or should be - drawn. In my case, the individual member was being hung out to dry arguably for the benefit of the group as a whole. The union's arguments started sounding a lot like the company's arguments. (Just something else to think about. I know this isn't responsive to the subject matter of your discussion/question, but ultimately much of what you are discussing is exactly the kind of thing that is ultimately determined by a judge and/or jury; followed by an appeals court. Translation, the argument goes on!)
Click to expand...

Come on now, you are being entirely to vague about what happened to try to make the point that the 'union's argument started sounding a lot like the company's'. Was it a DFR suit? Was it even an airline union? Was it a suit where your client disagreed with the contract, the union had a bargaining history with the company over the provision, yet your client still disagreed with it and wanted to bring suit? If that was the case, did the union 'sound like the company' because they are acting with integrity? Did your client want the union to do something illegal?

Way to many questions to make any type of point that the union was 'sounding like the company'.
 
A few other points that need to be made here for those trying to interject their opinions on what a FOQA/ASAP Program is and what the Advisory Circular says....

At ALPA, they have ONE person (he was the person who came up with a lot of the concepts in these programs and wrote parts of the Advisory Circular btw) look over ALL the ASAP/FOQA MOUs. Doesn't matter if you are at a smaller airline like CommutAir or a large one like Delta, this ONE person will tell the ALPA lawyers and pilot group what to do with the ASAP/FOQA MOUs. They have this one person in control of these ASAP/FOQA MOUs to ensure that the best practices are followed and the concepts in the Advisory Circular are followed, after all he came up with these concepts and wrote parts of the Advisory Circular.

So, while everyone may come up their opinion on what they are assuming is meant, just remember, one shouldn't assume.

I will go with what I was told by the person who came up with the concepts and wrote the Advisory Circulars with these programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top