RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 17a0152p.06 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

F LIGHT O PTIONS , LLC; F LEXJET , LLC; O NE S KY F LIGHT , LLC; F LIGHT O PTIONS H OLDING I, I NC ., Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants-Appellants ,

v

.

I NTERNATIONAL B ROTHERHOOD OF T EAMSTERS , L OCAL 1108; I NTERNATIONAL B ROTHERHOOD OF T EAMSTERS , A IRLINE D IVISION , Defendants/Counter-Claimants-Appellees

. ┐ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ┘ No. 16-3606

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland. No. 1:16-cv-00732—James S. Gwin, District Judge. Argued: February 1, 2017
Decided and Filed: July 17, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; C OOK and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

_________________ COUNSEL

ARGUED: W. Chris Harrison, OGLETREE, DEAKI NS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants. Jame s Petroff, BARKAN MEIZLISH, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: W. Chris Harrison, Audrey M. Calkins, Zachary W. Hoyt, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWAR T, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellants. James Petroff, Trent R. Tayl or, BARKAN MEIZLISH, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, Nicolas M. Manicone, INTERNATIONAL BROT HERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. 

### >No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 2

_________________ OPINION

_________________ HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. This action under the Railway Labor Act (RLA) concerns the merger of two airlines—an acquiring airline with unionized pilots and an acquired airline with newly unionized pi lots—and their efforts to bri ng both groups under a new, joint collective-bargaining agreement. The airlines and their pilots’ union dispute whether the creation of an integrated seniority list (ISL) of pilots is exclusively committed to the union, or whether it is subject to collective bargaining with the airlines. The union asks us to find this disagreement to be a “major” dispute under th e RLA and to affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction ordering the airlines to accept the ISL proffered to them by the union. The airlines ask us to find this dispute to be “m inor” and subject to exclus ive arbitral jurisdiction, and to vacate the preliminary injunction. The airlines assert the right not to accept a unionproffered seniority list and inst ead to participate in the seni ority-integration process through collective bargaining. Because this assertion is not arguably justified by the parties’ existing collective-bargaining agreement, the dispute is major, leading us to AFFIRM in part and
VACATE in part. 1

I

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division (Teamsters) and its Local 1108 (together, the Union) repres ent the pilots of Flight Options, LLC (Flight Options) and Flexjet, LLC (Flexjet, and together with Flight Options, the Carriers), two merged airlines that offer fractional ownership of jet aircraft. Flig ht Options and its pilots have had a collectivebargaining agreement since 2010 (the 2010 CBA), wh ile Flexjet’s pilots are newly unionized and are not yet party to a CBA.

1 The parties’ dispute over voluntary-separation prog rams (VSPs) was initially an issue on appeal. After oral argument, the parties settled the issue and stipul ated to an order dismissing with prejudice the claims related to it. Because this issue is now moot, we will not discuss it further. See Int’l Union, United Auto., Aerospace, Agr. & Implement Wor kers of America v. Dana Corp. , 697 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1983) (“We cannot reach the merits of this appeal unless we find that the parties’ Settlement Agreement did not render the case moot. Generally, the settlement of a dispute between the parties does render the case moot.”).No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 3

Flight Options is based in Cl eveland, Ohio, and is a “carrier ” for purposes of the RLA.
See 45 U.S.C. § 181. Michael Silvestro (Silvestro) is CEO of Flight Options and Kenneth Ricci (Ricci) is chairman of Flight Op tions and its parents. Fight Op tions has approximately 360 pilots who are represented by the Union and operate under the 2010 CBA.
Flexjet, another “carrier” under the RLA, ha s approximately 340 pilots and was acquired in December 2013 by a Flight Options parent. Prio r to the acquisition, Flexjet’s pilots were atwill employees. On September 30, 2015, the Nationa l Mediation Board (NMB) found that Flight Options and Flexjet were a single transportatio n system for purposes of labor representation under the RLA. 42 N.M.B. 174, 181 (2015). On December 15, 2015, the Union was certified after an election as the representative of the combined Flight Options and Flexjet pilot groups. 2 Silvestro and Ricci serve as CEO and chairman at Flexjet, too.
Although the Union was elected to represent th e Flexjet pilots, these pilots are not yet parties to the 2010 CBA (or a successor joint CBA). Section 1.5 of the 2010 CBA governs the integration of pilots from an acquired airline; parent entities of Flight Options agreed to be bound by Section 1 of the 2010 CBA on behalf of themselves and their successors.
On appeal, the parties dispute whether the integration of the pilot groups’ seniority lists 3 is solely a Union matter (in which case, the Ca rriers must accept the list the Union proffers) or
whether the Carriers should have been allo wed to participate in negotiating the list.
Section 1.5(c)(1) of the 2010 CBA governs the creation of the ISL when Flight Options acquires another carrier:
If Pilots of the acquired carrier are hire d by the Company, the seniority lists of the respective Pilot groups shall be integrated pursuant to Teamsters Merger Policy if both groups are represented by the [Teamsters ], or if the Pilots of the acquired airline are not represented by the [Teamster s], then pursuant to Sections 3 and 13

2 Flight Options pilots elect a master executive council within Local 1108. Flexjet pilots are not yet eligible to elect their own master ex ecutive council because a majority of them ar e not yet members in good standing of the Union. Until the Flexjet pilots achieve this threshold, they are represented by the Flexjet Pilots Leadership Council, which is appointed by the Local 1108 executive bo ard as an analog of a master executive council.
3 A pilot’s seniority determines his or her “promotion and demotion, retention in case of reduction in force, recall after furlough, choice of vacancies, choice of vacation and schedule bidding . . . .” 2010 CBA § 5.1, R. 8-2, PID 108.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 4

of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protectiv e Provisions. Seniority integration procedures shall be promptly initiate d following announcement of an operational merger affecting the seniority of th e pilot groups. The Company or other Successor, as appropriate, shall accept the in tegrated seniority list. There shall be no system flush or removal of Pilots from their positions as a result of seniority list integration.
2010 CBA, R. 8-2, PID 89. 4

Under this provision, there ar e two mutually exclusive pr ocesses for creating an ISL depending on whether the Union represen ts both the Flight Options pilots and the acquired pilot group, or only the former . If both pilot groups are represented by the Union, the ISL is created “pursuant to Teamsters Merger Policy,” an d the Carriers “shall accept the [ISL].” Id. Otherwise, the ISL is created “pursuant to Section 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk Labor Protective Provisions,” and again, the Carriers “sha ll accept the [ISL]” that results from that

process. Id.

4 The McCaskill-Bond Amendment (McCaskill-Bond) to th e Federal Aviation Act of 1958 regarding craftor class integration between two air carriers, 49 U.S.C. § 42112 n.(a), incorporates by reference the AlleghenyMohawk Labor Protective Provisions (Allegheny-Mohawk), 59 C.A.B. 20 (1972): Section 3. Insofar as the merger affect s the seniority rights of the carriers’ employees, provisions shall be made for the integration of seniority lists in a fair and equitable manner, including, where applicable, agreement through collective bargaining between the carriers and th e representatives of the employees affected. In the event of failure to agree, the dispute may be submitted by either party for adjustment in acc ordance with section 13. Id. at 45. . . . . Section 13. (a) In the event that any dispute or controversy (except as to matters arising under section 9) arises with respect to the protections provided herein which cannot be settled by the parties within 20 days after the controversy arises, it may be referred by any party to an arbitrator selected from a panel of seven names furnished by the National Mediation Board for consideration and determination. . . . The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. (b) The above condition shall not apply if the parties by mutual agreement determine that an alternative method fo r dispute settlement or an alternative procedure for selection of an arbitrator is appropriate in their particular dispute. No party shall be excused from complying with the above condition by reason of having suggested an alternative method or procedure unless and until that alternative method or procedure shall have been agreed to by all the parties. Id. at 49.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 5

Ricci summed up the process in a presentation he made to the pilots:
If [the Flexjet pilots vote to be repres ented by the Union], then the Union’s first job will be to integrate the seniority lis ts. That’s – that’s what they do.
If there is no Union, then it will fall upon management to integrate the seniority lists. So I understand why many people wa nt to know when it is going to happen, but I’m the last guy that gets to do it.
D. Ct. Tr., R. 43, PID 1063.
Soon after it was elected to represent the acquired pilot group, the Union appointed the Flight Options Merger Committee (FOMC) an d the Flexjet Merger Committee (FXMC)—two autonomous committees each comprised of thr ee pilots from their respective groups—and charged them with the task of creating an IS L. Laddie Hostalek, business agent for Local 1108 and a Flight Options pilot, testif ied that the members of the FOMC were appointed by the Flight Options Master Executive Council and the members of the FXMC were appointed by the Flexjet Pilots Leadership Council.
Adam Fine, a Flexjet pilot and chairman of th e FXMC, testified regarding the work of the two merger committees. According to Fine, in order to create a fair and equitable ISL, the committees reviewed precedent airline mergers and considered draft lists based on different seniority-calculation methodologies; they also conducted statistical analyses of the impact of different methodologies on pilot subgroups. Af ter evaluating the results, the committees determined that given the different founding dates of Flight Options and Fl exjet, a date-of-hire methodology would place half the Flexjet pilots at th e “extreme bottom” of the ISL. D. Ct. Tr., R. 43, PID 1159–60. They instead unanimously adopt ed an ISL based on longevity, which they believed would be fair and equitable to both groups. 5

The Union proffered the ISL to Silvestr o on February 24, 2016, st ating that it was unanimously adopted by the merger committees and requesting confirmation of its acceptance

5 They defined longevity as the time spent working for the individual airline, excluding time on furlough or personal leave-of-absence status. The ISL maintained absolute seniority within the two pilot groups, i.e., if the ISL were again split between Flight Options and Flexjet pilots, the pilots would all fall in the same order of seniority as before the integration. Thus, the practical effect of the longevity approach was that pilots who worked for both airlines and had accrued seniority with bo th were not permitted to add their serv ice together to move ahead of other pilots within their group. All of the top thirty positions on the ISL were held by Flexjet pilots.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 6

pursuant to Section 1.5(c)(1) of the 2010 CBA. Two days later, S ilvestro rejected the ISL by letter, asserting that for the ISL process to comply with McCaskil l-Bond, the Flexje t pilots must select their own negotiators and the Carriers “must be included to insure the process is fair and equitable.” 6 Verified Counterclaim, R. 6, PID 446–47. Silvestro’s le tter further justified the rejection by arguing that the ISL ap peared to be “quickly put toge ther,” that the Union lacked a Teamsters merger policy to govern the process, and that pilots w ho had taken leaves of absence from Flight Options to fly for Flexjet appeared to be adversely targeted by the longevity-based
calculation method. 7 Id. at PID 447.
The Union sent Silvestro a separate noti ce, also dated Febr uary 24, 2016, invoking Section 6 of the RLA to begin negotiations for a new, joint CBA. 8 Silvestro’s February 26 response rejecting the ISL proffered by the Union al so stated that, in a ccordance with Section 1.5(c)(4) of the 2010 CBA, joint CBA negotiations would not begin until an ISL is finalized.

6 Silvestro’s February 26 letter was not the first time the Union heard that the Carriers desired to be involved in the ISL process. Prior to the election, the Carri ers wrote to the Union stating that after its certification as representative of both pilot groups, the ISL process would need to include negotiations with the Carriers in order for the outcome to comply with Section 1.5(c)(1) of the 2 010 CBA and McCaskill-Bond. After the certification and the formation of the FOMC and FXMC, the Carriers twice comp lained, to no avail, about being excluded from the Union’s ISL process, warning that th ey would not “sit by and accept whatev er list is given to them by the [Union]. . . .” Undated Lett., R. 13-7, PID 705.
7 These pilots were allowed to choose between being treated as a Flight Options or a Flexjet pilot for purposes of seniority calculation, but they did not receive credit for both.
8 Section 6 of the RLA establishes a procedure to cause carriers and their unions to make and maintain agreements and to avoid disruptions to interstate commerce. It provides: Carriers and representatives of the employ ees shall give at least thirty days’ written notice of an intended change in agreements affecting rates of pay, rules, or working conditions, and the time and place for the beginning of conference between the representatives of the partie s interested in such intended changes shall be agreed upon within ten days af ter the receipt of said notice, and said time shall be within the thirty days prov ided in the notice. In every case where such notice of intended change has been given, or conferences are being held with reference thereto, or the services of the Mediation Board have been requested by either party, or said Board has proffered its services, rates of pay, rules, or working conditions shall not be altered by the carrier until the controversy has been finally acted upon , as required by section 155 of this title, by the Mediation Board, unless a period of ten days has elapsed after termination of conferences without request for or proffer of the services of the Mediation Board . 45 U.S.C § 156 (emphases added).No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 7

The Union responded by filing a class-action gr ievance against the Carriers under Section 1.9 of the 2010 CBA, 9 and by invoking arbitration under McCaskill-Bond 10 to resolve the ISL dispute. A week and a half after the Union filed its grievance, the Carriers filed the instant action seeking a declaratory judgment that the Union’ s ISL process violated McCaskill-Bond because the Union must collectively bargain with the Carri ers for a fair and equitable ISL, and because Flexjet pilots are “entitled to their own repres entative.” Verified Complaint, R. 1, PID 13.

The Carriers also s ought a preliminary injunction to rest rain the Union from attempting to enforce the ISL it created, and from further pursuing arbitratio n regarding the ISL, until it negotiates the list with the Ca rriers. The Carriers argued th at under McCaskill-Bond, they are entitled and obligated to negotiate with the Uni on over the ISL to ensure the list is “fair and equitable.” The Carriers specifically argued that the ISL proffered by the Union, with its longevity-based seniority calculation, is not “fai r and equitable” to Flight Options pilots who took leaves of absence to fly for Flexjet, and fu rther that the Flexjet p ilots were inadequately represented because the FXMC was comprised of Flexjet pilots who were not chosen by the Flexjet pilots, but rather by th e Flexjet Pilots Leadership Council, which was appointed by the
Local 1108 executive board instead of being popularly chosen.
After first moving to dismiss based on Federa l Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), the Union filed an answer disputing the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction on the basis that under the RLA, the Carriers’ claims are “m inor” disputes and thus subject to mandatory
arbitration. It also as serted five counterclaims, includi ng moving to compel arbitration under
Ohio state law and the Federal Arbitration Act.
In April 2016, the Union filed a motion fo r preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. After first characterizing th e dispute over the ISL as minor, the Union changed its position by seeking relief orde ring the Carriers to restore th e status quo (i.e., to accept the

9 Section 1.9 provides in relevant part: The parties agree to arbitrate any grievance filed by the Union . . . alleging a violation of Section 1 on an expedited basis. Any such grievance shall proceed directly to the System Bo ard of Adjustment sitting with a neutral arbitrator acceptable to bothparties. . . . 2010 CBA § 1.9(a), R. 8-2, PID 93.
10 See note 4 and accompanying text.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 8

ISL), a remedy available only in major disputes. 11 It also sought an order to arbitrate, a right provided by the 2010 CBA. 12 At the motion hearing, the dist rict court pressed the Carriers on why they believe they must participate in the se niority-integration proces s; they responded that they could be sued if the ISL is not “fair a nd equitable” as required by McCaskill-Bond. They asserted that the Union’s process was ad hoc a nd its longevity method wa s unfair to the pilots who split their time between the two carriers, taking leaves from F light Options to fly for Flexjet. After the Carriers asserted that they have an obligation under McCaskill-Bond to ensure a “fair and equitable” integration, the dist rict court asked counsel why th at would be wh en it is the Union—whose autonomous merger committees negot iated the ISL—that owes a duty of fair representation to its members, 13 while the Carriers do not. In response, the Carriers again argued that they have an obligation unde r McCaskill-Bond to ensure a “fai r and equitable” integration, and that they could be sued by pilots for faili ng to uphold this statutory obligation. They did not allege, however, that any pilot complained that the Union-created ISL was unfair or inequitable, or that any pilot threatened suit. The Carriers also argued that the Union lacked a “Teamsters Merger Policy,” and that accordingly, under Section 1.5(c) of the 2010 CBA, the pilot seniority integration would be conducted pu rsuant to Allegheny-Mohawk. The Union responded that it followed its unwritten internal merger policy in creating the ISL, incl uding appointing the two merger committees pursuant to the Teamsters and Local 1108 bylaws.

The district court first consid ered whether the ISL issue is a “major” or “minor” dispute under the RLA, concluding that it is a “major” dispute and that Sectio n 1.5(c)(1) of the 2010 CBA obligates the Carriers to accept the Union’s ISL. The court further concluded that the FOMC/FXMC process satisfied McCaskill-Bond, noting that th e committees had to balance multiple issues, including different-aged companies, previous seniority integrations, furloughs, personal leaves of absence, disparities in hiri ng bubbles, captain/first-officer ratios, inaccurate or

11 At varying points in this matter, both parties have taken inconsistent positions on the major/minor question.
12 See note 9 and accompanying text.
13 See Steele v. Louisville & N.R. Co. , 323 U.S. 192, 199 (1944) (establishing duty of fair representation under the RLA). This duty applies in all contexts of union activity, including contract negotiations. Williams v. Molpus , 171 F.3d 360, 364–65 (6th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by Chapman v. United Auto. Workers Local 1005 , 670 F.3d 677 (6th Cir. 2012) (en banc).No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 9

incomplete data, and pilots hired on the same date. Although any given seniority-calculation methodology might advantage or di sadvantage individual pilots, the district court explained, neither group was systemically favored, although Flexjet pilots—who the Carriers claim received inadequate representation—ge nerally received the highe r seniority rankings.

The district court noted that the Carriers presented no author ity suggesting that they owe a representational duty to their pilots, who are all represented by the Union. Considering its assessment that the Union’s ISL process and resulti ng list were objectively fair and equitable, the
district court remarked that the Carriers’ resist ance to accepting the ISL was “curious” in light of the 2010 CBA’s “clear mandate” that the “Company or other Successor, as appropriate, shall accept the integrated seniority list.” D. Ct . Tr., R. 43, PID 944 (citing 2010 CBA § 1.5(c)(1)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court granted the Union’ s motion for preliminary injunction and ordered the Carrier s to accept the proffered ISL.

II
We review the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction de novo. Watson v. Cartee , 817 F.3d 299, 302 (6th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). RLA dis putes fall into two juri sdictional categories, major and minor. Elgin, J. & E.R. Co. v. Burley , 325 U.S. 711, 723 (1945). Major disputes, predicated on Section 2, Seventh and Section 6 of the RLA, involve attempts to acquire future labor-agreement rights and carry th e greatest risk for a strike. Minor disputes, predicated on Section 2, Sixth and Section 3, First (i) of the RLA, involve grievances less likely to result in a
strike. See id. at 723–24. The core distincti on between these two types of disputes is that “major disputes seek to create contractual right s, minor disputes to enforce them.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. Ry. Labor Execs.’ Ass’n , 491 U.S. 299, 302 (1989) (citing Burley , 325 U.S. at 723).
“Major” disputes focus on “acquisition of righ ts for the future, not [the] assertion of rights claimed to have vested in the past,” Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen , 789 F.3d 681, 690 (6th Cir. 2015) (quoting Burley , 325 U.S. at 723) (alteration in original), and are su bject to federal-court jurisdiction. See Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 307 (1989). They requi re management and labor to “undergo a lengthy process of bargaining and mediation” under Sec tions 5 and 6 of the RLA before resorting to economic self-No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 10

help, such as striking. Id. at 302–03. The statutory require ments provide an “integrated, harmonious scheme for preserving the status quo from the beginning of the major dispute through the final 30-day ‘cooling-off’ period.” 14 Detroit & Toledo Shore Line R. Co. v. United Transp. Union , 396 U.S. 142, 152 (1969). The “immediate e ffect” of this status quo requirement is “to prevent the union from striking and mana gement from doing anything that would justify a
strike.” Id. at 150. This means that labor and manageme nt must maintain not only the status quo under existing CBAs, but also “those actual, objec tive working conditions and practices, broadly conceived, which were in effect prior to th e time the pending dispute arose and which are involved in or related to that dispute.” Id. at 153. Federal courts’ major-dispute jurisdiction proceeds from their equitable power to enforce the status quo. When courts exercise jurisdiction over major disputes, they enjoin the parties to “make and maintain agreements” and in so doing help thwart disruptions to interstate commerce. See 45 U.S.C. §152, First.
“Minor” disputes, in contrast , involve “interpretation or application of particular provisions of existing collec tive bargaining agreements,” United Transp. Union v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. Co. , 979 F.2d 431, 434 (6th Cir. 1992), and are committed to grievance arbitration. See Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 307. Such disputes “contemplate[] the existence of a collective agreement already conclu ded, or, at any rate, a situation in which no effort is made to bring about a formal change in terms or to create a new one.” Burley , 325 U.S. at 723.
A party to a dispute under the RLA bears a “rel atively light burden” to demonstrate that a dispute is covered by an existi ng agreement, making it minor. Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 307 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) . “[I]f there is any doubt as to whether a dispute is major or minor a court will construe the disput e to be minor.” Airline Prof’ls Ass’n, Teamster Local Union 1224 v. ABX Air, Inc. , 400 F.3d 411, 414–15 (6th Cir. 2005) ( ABX Air III ) (quoting Ry. Labor Execs. Ass’n v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. , 833 F.2d 700, 705 (7th Cir. 1987)). In assessing whether a dispute is ma jor or minor, we “look[] to whethe r a claim has been made that the terms of an existing agreement either establis h or refute the presence of a right to take the disputed action.” Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 305. “Where an employer asserts a contractual

14 The process begins once a party serves the other with a written “Section 6” notice setting a time and place for negotiations, the first step in obtain ing a new CBA or changing an existing one.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 11

right to take the contested acti on, the ensuing dispute is minor if the action is arguably justified by the terms of the parties’ collective-bargaining agreement.” Id. at 307. This presumption does not apply, however, if the contractual claim is “ obviously insubstantial or frivolous, []or made in
bad faith.” Id. at 310. This follows because “[i]f a part y asserts a contractual basis for a claim without sincerity or on insubsta ntial grounds, ‘honoring th at party’s characterization would . . . undercut the [RLA’s prohibition] against unilate ral imposition of new contractual terms.’” Wheeling , 789 F.3d at 692 (first alteration in orig inal, second alteration added) (quoting Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 306).
Whether to grant a preliminar y injunction under the RLA is left to a district court’s
discretion. Adams v. Fed. Express Corp. , 547 F.2d 319, 322 (6th Cir. 1976) (citing Virginia Ry. Co. v. Sys. Fed’n No. 40 , 300 U.S. 515, 551 (1937)). The mainte nance of the status quo may be “enforceable by whatever appropriate means mi ght be developed on a case-by-case basis.” Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. v. United Transp. Union , 402 U.S. 570, 577 (1971). We review a district court’s decision whether to grant a preliminar y injunction under the RLA for an abuse of discretion, such as the improper application of governing law, the use of erroneous legal standards, or the reliance on clearly erroneous findings of fact. See City of Pontiac Retired Emps. Ass’n v. Schimmel , 751 F.3d 427, 430 (6th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (citation omitted). In general, courts must examine four factor s in deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction: (1) whether the movant has demons trated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the movant will suffer irrepa rable injury absent injunction, (3) whether a preliminary injunction would cause substantial harm to others, and (4) whether the public interest will be served by an injunction. Overstreet v. Lexington-F ayette Urban Cty. Gov’t , 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). “These factors are not pr erequisites, but are fa ctors that are to be balanced against each other.” Id. The second factor is inapplicab le in the context of an RLA dispute, because courts may “enjoin a viola tion of the status quo pending completion of the required [Section 6] procedures , without the customary showi ng of irreparable injury.” Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 303.
Finally, as with any contract , we interpret a collective-ba rgaining agreement de novo. Salary Policy Emp. Panel v. Tennessee Valley Auth. , 149 F.3d 485, 489 (6th Cir. 1998).No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 12

III
A. The Carriers’ Complaint
The Carriers invoked the district court’s ju risdiction by asserting that they have a statutory obligation under McCa skill-Bond and the Allegheny-M ohawk provisions it codifies
that is distinct from the 2010 CBA . They argue that they have an independent obligation under McCaskill-Bond to ensure that the pilot seni ority integration is “fair and equitable.” The Carriers correctly note that McCaskill-Bond applies when there is a “transaction for the combination of multiple air carri ers 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. Id. at § 4112 n.(a). They overlook, however, that the statute also provides that when, as here, the “same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collec tive bargaining agent’s internal pol icies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supers ede the requirements” of McCaskill-Bond. Id. at § 42112 n.(a)(1). Further, when, as here, a CBA applies to “the terms of in tegration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier,” those terms “shall not be affected by the requirements of [McCaskill-Bond] as to the employees covered by that [CBA], so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.” Id. at § 42112 n.(a)(2).
Thus, as the collective-bargaining agent fo r the pilots of both carriers, the Union’s internal policies regard ing integration supersede the require ments of McCaskill-Bond. Further, because the 2010 CBA applies to th e terms of the integration, it c ontrols. Nothing in the CBA denies the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of Allegh eny-Mohawk. Those protections are that the seniority integration must be “f air and equitable” and either section 13 or an alternative agreed-upon dispute-resolution process must be provided. In this context, the protections are afforded for the benefit of th e covered employees. Th e requirement that the integration be “fair and equitable” is an ob ligation imposed by the 2010 CBA on the Union, the party to whom the 2010 CBA commits the task of creating an ISL. Furthe r, a dispute-resolution process is provided by the expe dited-grievance provision of S ection 1.9 of the 2010 CBA. Thus, because the 2010 CBA commits the integration pr ocess to the Union and continues to allowNo. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 13

employees the protections of sections 3 and 13 of Allegheny-Mohawk, the district court properly
concluded that the Carriers do not have a distinct McCaskill-Bond obligation.

B. The Union’s Counterclaim
In its counterclaim, the Union asserts that “[b]y failing to accept the [ISL], the Carrier[s] unilaterally changed the unambiguous Section 1.5(c )(1) obligation to accept the list . . . .” Verified Counterclaim, R. 9, PID 463. The Carrier s answer that this is a minor dispute over which the courts lack jurisdicti on, that their actions are consistent with the 2010 CBA, and that they do not seek to unilaterally change its term s. As with the McCa skill-Bond issue, these disputes concern whether the creation of the IS L is committed solely to the Union, or whether the Carriers must be included in that process. The pilot-integration provision of the 2010 CBA squarely addresses this question, an important point considering that a dispute’s amenability to resolution through contractual interpretation typically renders it a minor dispute, see Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 305, over which district courts have no jurisdiction. See Stephens v. Ret. Income Plan for Pilots of U.S. Air, Inc. , 464 F.3d 606, 610 (6th Cir. 2006).
When a party claims that its actions are argu ably justified by an existing labor agreement, we presume the dispute is minor “unless the [party ’s] claims of contractua l justification are so frivolous or obviously ins ubstantial as to indicate that it is attempting to circumvent the § 6 RLA major disputes resolution procedure.” See Chicago & N. W. Transp. Co. v. Ry. Labor Execs.
Ass’n , 855 F.2d 1277, 1285 (7th Cir. 1988). Here, th e express terms of the 2010 CBA and the record facts call into question our usual presum ption that a dispute governed by the CBA is
minor.

Our decision in Wheeling is instructive. In that case a railroad sought changes to its collective-bargaining agreement w ith the union representing its conductors and brakemen. The agreement provided that a train crew “shall cons ist of not less than on e (1) conductor and one (1) brakeman . . . .” Wheeling , 789 F.3d at 684 (quoting the agreem ent). On several occasions, despite the union’s objections, the railroad ran trains without the required minimum complement of crew, and later substituted management employees for union employees. Id. at 685–87. The railroad claimed that this action was arguably ju stified by the CBA because the contract did notNo. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 14

restrict it from “run[ning] tr ains without union employees.” Id. at 688. The union countered that the CBA’s crew provision had a single exception (which was ina pplicable to the dispute) and that the carrier attempted to add a new one—the use of management em ployees to run trains— that the parties had not bargained for or agreed to. Id. at 689. We concluded that the dispute was major because the railroad’s cl aim that “the [CBA] allows it to man trains without union conductors is frivolous or obviously insubstantial in light of the express language of the [CBA].”
Id. at 693 (emphasis added) (citing Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 307). A lthough the parties’ “practice, usage and custom is of signi ficance in interpreting their agreement,” Consol. Rail. Corp. , 491 U.S. at 311 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), in Wheeling we found no support in the record that there was an historical practice of management exercising the kind of discretion over crew assignments it claimed the CBA justified. See Wheeling , 789 F.3d at 694.
Collective-bargaining agreements may “include implied, as well as express, terms.” Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 311. Because the language of the Wheeling CBA was express,
we concluded that “we need not c onsider any implied terms.” 789 F.3d at 694. In ABX Air III, however, we found that an airline’s CBA arguabl y permitted the carrier to require a medical examination before allowing a pilot to return to work after a period of disability. 400 F.3d at 415. There, although the CBA did not expressly permit the carrier to require the examination, we found it meaningful that under the CBA the carri er retained “discreti on with respect to the hiring, firing, promoting, supervising, plannin g, and other management functions, except as limited by the [CBA] and public law.” Id. at 415–16 (citation and inte rnal quotation marks omitted). We also viewed the history of the parties’ prior collective bargaining, including that they considered (but did not a dopt) express terms related to medical examinations, as supporting the carrier’s argument that at the least it s medical-examination requirement was an open question. Id. at 416. Because the carrie r’s action was not in consistent with the CBA’s express terms and given the carrier’s re tention of management discreti on, we concluded that its claim that its action was arguably jus tified under the CBA was not ins ubstantial, obviously frivolous, or made in bad faith, and that, as a result, the dispute was minor. Id. at 417 (citing Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 310).No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 15

A claim is “arguably justified” if any reas onable labor arbitrator , applying appropriate principles of contract interpretation and after reviewing relevant extrinsic evidence (such as evidence of past practice), c ould find that the contract does justify a party’s claimed right to take, or to refrain from taking, an action. Cf. Wheeling , 789 F.3d at 692. When no reasonable contractual interpretation, express or implied, woul d justify a party’s claim, the dispute is major and is subject to federal courts’ jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the status quo.
Neither party relies on practice, usage, or custom to impart meaning to Section 1.5(c)(1)
of the 2010 CBA. See Consol. Rail. Corp. , 491 U.S. at 311. Here, the Union invokes the pilotintegration provision as follows: the Union represents both pilot groups; the Teamsters merger policy is applicable; the Teamsters merger polic y was followed; the Carri ers violated the CBA by refusing to accept the Union-proffered ISL; the Union pursued expedited grievance arbitration against the Carriers, the contractual remedy for th e Carriers’ refusal to accept the proffered ISL; in bringing the instant action and attempting to enjoin the expedited grievance arbitration, the Carriers assert unilaterally a new right to partic ipate in the creation of the ISL. The Carriers invoke the provision as follows: the Union repr esents both groups; the Teamsters merger policy should control the integration proc ess; there is no Teamsters merg er policy; because there is no Teamsters merger policy, the Allegh eny-Mohawk process applies.
Before we characterize the ISL dispute as mi nor because controlled by the CBA, we must satisfy ourselves that the Carriers’ assertion th at the 2010 CBA requires that they be allowed to bargain collectively with the Union over the ISL is “arguably justified.” If the Carriers in actuality seek to change an existing term in th e 2010 CBA, the dispute is major without regard to
their own characte rization of it. See Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 310.
Section 1.5(c)(1) contemplates two mutually exclusive processes for pilot integration. If both pilot groups are represented by the Teamst ers, the Teamsters merger policy applies; if not, then the parties follow the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions, which require a fair and equitable integration process that may (but need not necessarily) include collective bargaining. See 59 C.A.B. 20, 45 (1972). Regardless of which of these two processes applies, the 2010 CBA expressly provides that the Carriers “shall accept” the resulting ISL. 20 10 CBA § 1.5(c)(1), R. 8-2, PID 89.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 16

In his pilot presentation, shortly after the purchase, Ricci, the Carriers’ chairman, accurately described the seniority-integration process: if the Flexjet pilots elected the Union to represent them, then it would be the Union, and not manageme nt, that would put together the ISL. Neither party disputes that the Teamsters represent both p ilot groups. Any reasonable labor arbitrator would find that, based on the expres s language of the pilot-integration provision, the
creation of the ISL is committed to the Union and th e Carriers’ sole function with regard to it is to accept what is proffered. Because the issue is controlled by express terms that leave no ambiguity or openness to interpretation, we need not consider implied terms. Cf. Wheeling , 789 F.3d at 694.
The Carriers argue, however, that this pr ocess does not apply because there is no “Teamsters Merger Policy,” and the contract requir es the integration to be conducted pursuant to such a policy. 15 It is true that the Teamsters do not have a standalone, written document directing how pilot-seniority integr ations are to be done; the Carriers rely on this fact in asserting that no merger policy exists. However, the reco rd rebuts this assertio n. The Union explained that it followed an unwritten internal merger policy, which included appointing the FOMC and FXMC pursuant to its national and local bylaws. Although the Carriers may find this policy unsatisfactory, it is not for them to say what the “Teamsters Merger Polic y” should look like or provide; it is the Teamsters’ merger policy. In any case , appointing autonomous merger committees pursuant to Union rules, and entrusting the creation of the ISL to those committees, effected a merger policy.
Although the pilot-integration provision by its na ture does not affect ordinary operations, it nonetheless represents the st atus quo because it is what Flight Options and the Union bargained for and agreed would govern in the extraordinary case of Flight Options acquiring
another airline. The Union followed the 2010 CBA’s express terms and proffered an ISL to the Carriers for acceptance; the Carriers refused to accept the list, instead asserting a new, unbargained-for right to be involve d in the ISL process. The Carri ers may seek such a right, but

15 Although Section 1.5(c)(1) of the 2010 CBA capitalizes “Teamsters Merger Policy,” suggesting it is a defined term, it does not appe ar elsewhere in the contract.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 17

they must undergo the Section 6 ba rgaining process to do so, and, inthe interim, must maintain the contract’s status quo.
The district court did not err in finding th at the 2010 CBA does not arguably justify the Carriers’ assertion that they have a right to participate in the IS L process. The dispute is thus major. The district court properly enjoined the Carriers to honor the expr ess terms of Section 1 of the 2010 CBA. However, these express terms provi de that if the Carriers refuse to accept the Union’s proffered ISL, the Uni on may invoke an expedited grieva nce-arbitration process, which uniquely applies to disputes under Section 1 of the 2010 CBA. 16 Compare 2010 CBA § 1.9(a) (Expedited Arbitration) with § 20 (Grievance Procedures). This process is equally part of the contractual status quo, and it is the process thatthe Union sought to pursue when the Carriers
started this action. The district court’s contractual in terpretation stopped short, finding that the contract required the Carriers to accept the proffered ISL. Alt hough that is true , the 2010 CBA’s established remedy for non-compliance is that th e Carriers submit to expedited arbitration brought by the Union. Accordingly, the district c ourt shall modify the in junction to require the Carriers to either accept the Union’s proffe red ISL or to submit to expedited grievance
arbitration under Sect ion 1.9 of the 2010 CBA.

IV
The Carriers raise three additional issues on appeal.

The first issue is whether the Norris-LaGua rdia Act of 1932 (NLA), 29 U.S.C. § 101, bars the issuance of a prelimin ary injunction because it is not the “only practical, effective means” for enforcing the Union’s rights under the RLA. District courts may issue labor injunctions “when such a remedy is the only prac tical, effective means of enforcing the duty to exert every reasonable effort to ma ke and maintain agreements.” See Chicago & Nw. Ry. Co. , 402 U.S. at 583 (discussing strike injunctions). The Ca rriers do not identify any other “practical, effective means” of dispute reso lution, however. Indee d, it is they who first availed themselves
of the federal courts in lieu of grievance arbitration, invoked by the Union, which would have

16 See note 9 and accompanying text.No. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 18

directly addressed each parties’ ri ghts and obligations. Given this , the district court’s grant of preliminary injunction is not in consistent with the NLA.
The Carriers next argue that the district court misapplied the RLA by imposing its injunction on Flight Options Holdings I, Inc. an d OneSky Flight, LLC, parententities of Flight Options, as “carriers.” Both of these companies are counter-defendants and indirect holding companies of Flight Options. Flight Options Holdi ngs I, Inc. signed a side letter binding it, its affiliates (including subsidiaries and parents), an d its successors to S ection 1.5 of the 2010 CBA. OneSky Flight LLC’s parent, Dire ctional Aviation Capital, LLC, signed a similar letter. The district court did not erroneously classify these companies as “carriers” for RLA purposes; rather it referred to them by a collective part y name based on their agreed status.

The final issue is whether the district co urt failed to address all four preliminaryinjunction factors and failed to require the Union to post an in junction bond, and, if so, whether
these failures were abuses of discretion. The Carri ers argue that the distri ct court’s order should be reversed because it discusses only the movant’s likelihood of success on the merits, and does not address the other preliminary- injunction factors: irreparabl e harm to the movant absent injunction, substantial harm to ot hers, and the public interest. See Overstreet , 305 F.3d at 573 (6th Cir. 2002).
It is “generally useful for [district courts] to analyze all four of the preliminary injunction
factors.” Leary v. Daeschner , 228 F.3d 729, 739 n.3 (6th Cir. 2000). This is especially true because this court may analyze a factor di fferently than did the district court. Id. Weighing the preliminary-injunction factors is a matter of disc retion, however, and here the district court did not abuse its discretion by not conducting an explicit four-f actor analysis. See In re DeLorean
Motor Co. , 755 F.2d 1223, 1229 (6th Cir. 1985) (“[T]he f our considerations applicable to preliminary injunction decisions are factors to be balanced, not prerequisites that must be met.”). The preliminary-injunction order’s anal ysis opened with a listing of the Overstreet factors. To the extent it did not explicitly address a factor, the court’s order indirectly addresses it, or the record otherwise supports its pres ence. First, courts may “enjoi n a violation of the status quo pending completion of the require d [Section 6] procedures, wit hout the customary showing of irreparable injury.” Consol. Rail Corp. , 491 U.S. at 303. Second, the Carriers are unlikely toNo. 16-3606 Flight Options, et al. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 1108, et al. Page 19

suffer substantial harm from bei ng required to preserve the status quo: not only are they obliged by statute to do so, but their opposition to accepti ng the proffered ISL is, as the district court noted, “curious” given the express language of the 2010 CBA and their lack of a discernible
interest in what the final ISL looks like. See Op. & Order, R.33, PID 940. Further, the pilots are unlikely to be harmed by an injunction that vi ndicates their own union’s ISL process, whose
result the district court reasonabl y concluded was fair and equitable. Third, the public’s interest in uninterrupted service from the Carriers—at l east that segment of the public that relies on or benefits from their services—is protected by the maintenance of the status quo. See Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Trans portes Aereos Mercantiles Pan Americandos, S.A. , 924 F.2d 1005, 1007 (11th Cir. 1991) (explaining that th e RLA is designed to prevent disruptions to interstate commerce).
The Carriers also argue that the preliminar y injunction is jurisdictionally defective because the district court did not requir e the Union to post an injunction bond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c) (permitting preliminary injunction “only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustai ned by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained”); see also Mich. Am. Fed’n of State Cty. & Mun. Emps. Council, Local 1640 v. Matrix Human Servs. , 589 F.3d 851, 860 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that “a bond is an absolute precondition of a federal court’ s jurisdiction over labor injunctions.”). This point is moot. During the pendency of this ap peal the district court ordered, and the Union posted, a $125,000 bond.

V

For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the district court’s determination that the CBA pilot-integration provision is notin conflict with McCaskill-Bond; AFFIRM its determination that it had jurisdiction to order the Carriers to act in conformity with the CBA, which requires that they either accept the ISL or submit to e xpedited grievance arbitration;
VACATE the preliminary injunction to the extent it permits the Carriers to do the former and removes the option to do the latter; and REMAND this matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.