U.S. Code
»
Title 49
» Subtitle SUBTITLE VII— AVIATION PROGRAMS › Part PART A— AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY › Subpart subpart ii— economic regulation › Chapter CHAPTER 421— LABOR-MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS AND LABOR REQUIREMENTS OF AIR CARRIERS
49 U.S.C. § 42112
Labor requirements of air carriers
(a)Definitions.—In this section—(1) “copilot” means an employee whose duties include assisting or relieving the pilot in manipulating an aircraft and who is qualified to serve as, and has in effect an airman certificate authorizing the employee to serve as, a copilot.(2) “pilot” means an employee who is—(A) responsible for manipulating or who manipulates the flight controls of an aircraft when under way, including the landing and takeoff of an aircraft; and(B) qualified to serve as, and has in effect an airman certificate authorizing the employee to serve as, a pilot.(b)Duties of Air Carriers.—An air carrier shall—(1) maintain rates of compensation, maximum hours, and other working conditions and relations for its pilots and copilots who are providing interstate air transportation in the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia to conform with decision number 83, May 10, 1934, National Labor Board, notwithstanding any limitation in that decision on the period of its effectiveness;(2) maintain rates of compensation for its pilots and copilots who are providing foreign air transportation or air transportation only in one territory or possession of the United States; and(3) comply with title II of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) as long as it holds its certificate.(c)Minimum Annual Rate of Compensation.—A minimum annual rate under subsection (b)(2) of this section may not be less than the annual rate required to be paid for comparable service to a pilot or copilot under subsection (b)(1) of this section.(d)Collective Bargaining.—This section does not prevent pilots or copilots of an air carrier from obtaining by collective bargaining higher rates of compensation or more favorable working conditions or relations.(Pub. L. 103–272, § 1(e), July 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 1160.)Historical and Revision Notes |
|---|
42112(a) | 49 App.:1371(k)(5). | Aug. 23, 1958, Pub. L. 85–726, § 401(k), 72 Stat. 756. |
42112(b), (c) | 49 App.:1371(k)(1), (2), (4). | |
42112(d) | 49 App.:1371(k)(3). | |
In subsection (a), the words “properly” and “currently” are omitted as surplus.
In subsection (b), the word “providing” is substituted for “engaged in” for consistency in the revised title. In clause (1), the words “48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia” are substituted for “the continental United States (not including Alaska)” for clarity and consistency in the revised title. In clause (2), the words “overseas or” are omitted as obsolete. The word “only” is substituted for “wholly” for consistency. In clause (3), the words “as long as it holds” are substituted for “upon the holding” for clarity.
In subsection (c), the words “under subsection (b)(1) of this section” are substituted for “said decision 83 . . . engaged in interstate air transportation within the continental United States (not including Alaska)” to eliminate unnecessary words.
In subsection (d), the words “or other employees” are omitted as unnecessary because this section only applies to pilots and copilots.
Editorial NotesReferences in TextThe Railway Labor Act, referred to in subsec. (b)(3), is act May 20, 1926, ch. 347, 44 Stat. 577. Title II of the Act was added by act Apr. 10, 1936, ch. 166, 49 Stat. 1189, and is classified generally to subchapter II (§ 181 et seq.) of chapter 8 of Title 45, Railroads. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 151 of Title 45 and Tables.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesLabor IntegrationPub. L. 110–161, div. K, title I, § 117, Dec. 26, 2007, 121 Stat. 2382, provided that:“(a)Labor Integration.—With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that—“(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and“(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.“(b)Definitions.—In this section, the following definitions apply:“(1)Air carrier.—The term ‘air carrier’ means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.“(2)Covered air carrier.—The term ‘covered air carrier’ means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.“(3)Covered employee.—The term ‘covered employee’ means an employee who—“(A) is not a temporary employee; and“(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).“(4)Covered transaction.—The term ‘covered transaction’ means—“(A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which“(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of—“(i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or“(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.“(c)Application.—This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act [Dec. 26, 2007].“(d)Effectiveness of Provision.—This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.”
Notes of Decisions
Don Addington v. US Airline Pilots Assn, 791 F.3d 967 (9th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 6× “See 49 U.S.C. § 42112 Note.1 The USAPA Board of Pilot Representatives voted to approve the MOU on January 4, 2013.”
Flight Attendants in Reunion v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 813 F.3d 468 (2d Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “In their amended complaint, they claimed that American Airlines violated its obligation under the McCaskill-Bond amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note, to provide for the integration of the American Airlines and U.”
Flight Options, LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, 863 F.3d 529 (6th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “a “transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a ■ single air carrier,” 49 U.S.C. § 42112 n.(b)(4)(A), and that, generally this means that Allegheny-Mohawk applies to the] pilot seniority integration.”
Bakos v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 3d 729 (E.D. Pa. 2017).
· cites it 4× “of both the McCaskill-Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act (“McCaskill-Bond”), 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note, and the duty of fair representation established by the -Railway Labor Act, 45 U.”
Bruce Beckington v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 926 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 2019).
“As remedies, the West Pilots sought (1) a declaratory judgment 3 The McCaskill-Bond Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 42112 Note, codified longstanding labor-protective provisions requiring that, during an airline merger, seniority lists must be combined in a “fair and equitable manner”…”
Ulysse v. AAR Aircraft Component Servs., 841 F. Supp. 2d 659 (E.D.N.Y 2012).
“See 49 U.S.C. § 42112 (b)(1). Then, the Secretary assesses the merits of the complaint and can either find it to be without merit and deny it, or, if it finds it to be meritorious, can order the abatement of the violation, reinstatement with back pay and/or compensatory damages.”
David Bakos v. Am. Airlines Inc (3rd Cir. 2018).
· cites it 3× “§§ 151-65 , and for violation of the McCaskill-Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act, 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note. They appeal the District Court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss.”
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Airline Div. v. Atlas Air, Inc. (D.D.C. 2020).
· cites it 3× “Accordingly, the Court concludes that the complaint does not plausibly allege that the Award violated the RLA. b. McCaskill-Bond Amendment The Union also alleges that the Award was inconsistent with the McCaskill-Bond Amendment to the Federal Aviation Act.”
Flight Attendants in Reunion v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (2d Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “31 Airways, the plaintiffs, who include former TWA flight attendants now 32 working for American Airlines, claimed that American Airlines violated its 33 obligation under the McCaskill‐Bond amendment to the Federal Aviation 34 Act, 49 U.S.C. § 42112 note, to provide for the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.