You should reconsider your tolerance for non-union airlines now

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Yep, drones. They basically fly around without any regulations to govern how they operate. We want to make sure that they're properly integrated in the NAS and have sufficient controls to keep them safe. Here's a press release from the NTSB a few years ago that highlights their concerns and recommendations:

http://securityinnovator.com/index.php?articleID=13313&sectionID=31

 

[MikeD]

While the FAA wants them kept out of the NAS.

 

[kellwolf]

Wouldn't this be contradictory to the language in the RLA? Or does this supersede the RLA and radically change Section 1 of a lot of CBAs?

Also, diggin' the new avatar there, Soul Brotha'.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

kell, the RLA has very little in it about union elections. It basically just says that the NMB will supervise elections. The exact rules for those elections, the procedures, etc. is all up to policy rules set by the NMB. In this case, Congress has decided to tell the NMB what some of those rules are going to be, which they're able to do. As far as CBA scope rules, I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I'm not aware of any CBAs that this would affect.

 

[jtrain609]

kell, the RLA has very little in it about union elections. It basically just says that the NMB will supervise elections. The exact rules for those elections, the procedures, etc. is all up to policy rules set by the NMB. In this case, Congress has decided to tell the NMB what some of those rules are going to be, which they're able to do. As far as CBA scope rules, I'm not sure what you're getting at there. I'm not aware of any CBAs that this would affect.

I think he's talking about the successorship language in the new FAA bill, which I don't think is as dire as folks are thinking. I haven't read the bill, but if I understand it correctly, if a non union airline purchases a union airline, there will still be a vote for who represents the pilots, but it'll include an option of "none" instead of which UNION is to represent the pilots. Basically, before, if say, Jetblue were to buy, say, American, there would be a vote for WHICH union would represent the pilot group. There was never an option to have no union. Now there will be.

Not that big of a deal really.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I think he's talking about the successorship language in the new FAA bill, which I don't think is as dire as folks are thinking. I haven't read the bill, but if I understand it correctly, if a non union airline purchases a union airline, there will still be a vote for who represents the pilots, but it'll include an option of "none" instead of which UNION is to represent the pilots. Basically, before, if say, Jetblue were to buy, say, American, there would be a vote for WHICH union would represent the pilot group. There was never an option to have no union. Now there will be.

Not that big of a deal really.

No, the way I read it if the non-union airline is larger than then union one (in terms of employees) there won't be any vote at all, the smaller airlines union will be dissolved and the combined airline would have to send cards out and then secure an election from the NMB, like the normal organization committee process. I hope my interpretation is the wrong one, but thats what I got out of it.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Either way, that doesn't affect anyone's Section 1. A scope section will only tell you whether a merger is required or not. It won't say anything about a union election, because that's a matter of the law, and a CBA can't supersede the law.

 

[highspeed]

Most people don't realize it, but the FAA hasn't had a funding bill in years. They've just had their old budget extended over and over again. That's finally over after years of fighting.

They'll still need an appropriations bill to fund all that was authorized, which could end up being less.

 

[kellwolf]

Either way, that doesn't affect anyone's Section 1. A scope section will only tell you whether a merger is required or not. It won't say anything about a union election, because that's a matter of the law, and a CBA can't supersede the law.

9E's Section 1 goes a little further.

1. this agreement will be binding upon any successor or merged
company or companies or any successor in control of the
company, or of any airline, regardless of the nature of the transfer
of control (including purchase, sale, merger, consolidation, acquisition, leasing of the operation, and reorganization for the benefit
of creditors) unless or until changed in accordance with the provisions of the Railway labor act, as amended. as soon as the
company or an airline becomes aware of a transaction described
in the foregoing sentence and it is legally permissible to disclose
such information, it shall provide the association with written
notice of the transaction.
2. neither the company nor an airline shall enter into or be a party
to any transaction described in paragraph d.1., above, (a “successorship transaction”) unless the successor agrees in writing,
as an irrevocable condition of the successorship transaction, to
assume and be bound by the agreement, to recognize the association as the representative of the pilots and to employ, in accordance with the provisions of the agreement, those pilots on the
pilots’ System Seniority list who are employed by the relevant
airline or airlines at the time of the closing of the successorship
transaction

Now, the way I read this is if, say, Republic or Skywest bought Pinnacle, they would be required to honor the agreement as well as recognize ALPA as the representative for the pilots. The changes in the FAA reauthorization bill, if they supersede this, make this whole section null and void.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

They'll still need an appropriations bill to fund all that was authorized, which could end up being less.

Generally, when it comes to appropriations for the FAA, Congress just makes up any shortfall from what they don't want to dedicate from the general fund by taking the money out of the aviation trust fund. Not really what it was originally intended for, but that never stops Congress.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

9E's Section 1 goes a little further.

Now, the way I read this is if, say, Republic or Skywest bought Pinnacle, they would be required to honor the agreement as well as recognize ALPA as the representative for the pilots. The changes in the FAA reauthorization bill, if they supersede this, make this whole section null and void.

Not really. Our contract has the same section, but that doesn't mean that I'll be represented by ALPA at SWA, unfortunately. At the time of any transaction, your CBA and bargaining agent would still be in effect, just like my CBA is still in effect nearly a year after our transaction date, so they would be in compliance with your scope language. However, at some point after the transaction date, the NMB will make a determination on whether the combined carrier qualifies as a "single transportation system." This is usually done at the request of the larger union. The NMB will make a determination on whether the new corporate entity is a "single transportation system," and if they decide that it is, they will have to decide on which union represents the combined craft or class, since under the RLA, only one union can represent an employee group. Under current NMB practice, that means that an election will be held if the smaller employee group is at least 35% of the combined group. If it's not, then there's no election, and the larger union takes over. Now, your CBA could still be in place for your pilots. The new union just has to administer that CBA as well as their own until a new CBA is negotiated to cover everyone.

How the new bill might affect current practice, I'm not really sure yet.