More Colgan Management Rhetoric From Buddy

[V1cutsrfun]

November 21, 2008
ALPA IS NOT A QUICK FIX
Dear Colgan Pilot:
Many of you have never been involved with a union before and may wonder what it
would actually mean to you and the Company if ALPA wins the election. A number of you have
been told by ALPA supporters that you will get higher wages and other improvements if you
vote for ALPA. That is not necessarily the case. The Company is only under an obligation to
bargain in good faith with ALPA if it wins the election. This means you might get more than
what you presently have the same as what you presently have, or less than what you presently
have. ALPA can not guarantee you any improvements.
A number of our pilots are under the impression that ALPA would immediately achieve
gains for the Colgan pilots if they are elected. This also is not true. The average time for
achieving contracts in these examples was 24 months.
Pinnacle started negotiations with ALPA in the summer of 2004 to amend its contract. It
has now been over four years and there still is no contract at Pinnacle. The reason is that
ALPA’s economic demands at Pinnacle have been so unreasonable that the company has not
been able to agree to a new contract. We do not know how long it would take for Colgan and
ALPA to reach a contract. It would depend on the positions of both ALPA and the Company at
the bargaining table
These are the facts. We hope you will consider these points in the upcoming election.

The Above was another item my email provider labeled as junk... aka a memo from Buddy Casey... CEO of Colgan.

To all of you at PCL... Keep the faith! You have my support!

As far as Buddy's bull$hit.... sitting at a table bargaining in good faith is more then you have done so far... more then that slap in the face pilot group you started last year... which hasn't been updated the website...in Ummmm 11 months...

We most certinaly won't be working for less, oh... and if you think for one second that the PCL pilots will put up with this $hit over here, by "wanting our flying"... you are sadly mistaken. They have it better then we do now, they aren't going to go backwards!

Oh... yea ONE LAST THING! 99% That's a fact you can't ignore!

We will see at the table BUDDY!

V1​

 

[Fred Rogers]

Don't buy into their B.S. 9E pilots have the advantage that we do not have... a voice at the barganing table.

Ask one of your peers in Texas about Hurricane Ike and the "weather cancellation" policy.

Vote ALPA!!!

 

[Grinder10]

All I have to say about 9E management is uke:. Trenary, Casey, Shockey, White, Foley, Lombardo, Toy, et al can lick my balls.

 

[B52GUNNER]

I second that!!!! Glad Im outta there.

 

[suupah]

we HEART buddy!

 

[Mr Wu]

That;s the exact same, word for word, as the letter they sent out last year before the election.

 

[Nevets]

November 21, 2008

To our fellow Colgan pilots:

Yesterday, Colgan managers circulated among the pilot group an unsigned, undated flier entitled “The Pinnacle Pilots Want Your Flying”. The letter indicates that ALPA represented pilots at Pinnacle are negotiating to protect themselves and the results of these negotiations could affect us.

The letter seems to suggest that because Pinnacle pilots have the legal right to negotiate over job security and economic issues that are important to them, and are doing just that, we should reject ALPA representation. The letter goes on to imply that we should rely on management to safeguard our interests and protect us. Before considering that outcome for yourself, you should be aware that it’s not just Pinnacle pilots who have made proposals regarding Colgan flying. Pinnacle management has also proposed that the Pinnacle and Colgan seniority lists be integrated and that we work under a single contract under certain circumstances.

We are willing to put our names at the bottom of this letter because we believe the answers to certain questions are obvious to all of us and we are willing to have that discussion with every Colgan pilot. Those questions include:


Do we really want to trust our careers to, and rely on suggestions about our future from, people who won’t sign their names to a letter, aren’t able to answer our legitimate questions, and can’t be held accountable in the future?


Does Colgan’s record over the past few years provide any basis to believe that management has the power and will to protect us?


Wouldn’t it be better to have representatives we elect sit at the bargaining table, get advice from our own experts and lawyers, and argue for our pilot group’s future and best interests?


Why does management want us to forgo the same rights that Pinnacle pilots have and why are they trying to build tension and mistrust of fellow pilots?


And why, despite management’s professed desire to talk and work openly with us, do they wait until the start of an election to send unsigned letters and recycle old stories like CCAir, all while they continue to remove ALPA information from non-work areas in crew lounges?

We want to answer your questions and so does the Pinnacle pilot leadership. Neither pilot group knows or can predict the decisions that management will make except to know that the corporation’s interests will be served. They may decide to keep us separate or merge us; operate fully independently or give each pilot group the opportunity to bid vacancies at the other; combine more operational functions than have already been integrated or not. No matter what their decision is, aren’t we better off with a seat at the table and a voice in our future?

Management tried the same old CCAir story last year and we will repost the OC’s response from July 31, 2007 on our webpage.

The choice before us is clear. Do we want a seat at the bargaining table – like management has – or do we want them to speak for us? The attached handout contains additional information about the allegations made in yesterday’s letter. Pinnacle MEC Chair CA Scott Erickson has appeared at many of our events and will continue to join us at our information sessions to answer any questions you might have. You can also forward questions to him via the link on the top right of our website.

For more information about ALPA, the merger policy, or representation, please visit our website at www.alpa.org/colgan or ask any member of the Organizing Committee listed below.

In unity,

The Colgan Pilots ALPA Organizing Committee

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

Sharp letter guys... good reply to the unsigned letter! Keep it up!

The union busting playbook is old and tattered!

 

[Fred Rogers]

Sharp letter guys... good reply to the unsigned letter! Keep it up!

The union busting playbook is old and tattered!

Management has awoken from their slumber to "communicate" with the pilot group only days before an election. Don't buy it people. Ask the Godfather about CCAir (he was there). Ask an ALPA pilot what they would do in our situation. Anyone who is at all informed will tell you that representation is a MUST!

www.alpa.org/colgan

 

[Raoul Duke]

ALPA screwed the CCAir pilots anyone who claims differently has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The CCAir pilots approved a contract by 87% in favor. Duane Woerthless refused to sign it. Those are the only relevant facts. The Colgan pilots need to pay extremely close attention to how ALPA treated CCAir because the same thing will happen to them at some point. Are the PNCL pilots offering insurance against that? nope. Could they? Of Course. If the PNCL pilots wanted to they could waive any right to the aircraft types flown by Colgan. Will they do it? Not a chance in hell. Ask them, they will dance around the issue but never answer.

 

[Nevets]

ALPA screwed the CCAir pilots anyone who claims differently has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. The CCAir pilots approved a contract by 87% in favor. Duane Woerthless refused to sign it. Those are the only relevant facts. The Colgan pilots need to pay extremely close attention to how ALPA treated CCAir because the same thing will happen to them at some point. Are the PNCL pilots offering insurance against that? nope. Could they? Of Course. If the PNCL pilots wanted to they could waive any right to the aircraft types flown by Colgan. Will they do it? Not a chance in hell. Ask them, they will dance around the issue but never answer.

Do You Want the Real Story on CCAir, Mesa, and ALPA?

Here is the truth about how ALPA stood up for CCAir pilots after their company was bought by Mesa.

Mesa Air Group purchased CCAir in June 1999. CCAir management pressured its pilots to amend its existing Agreement, which was signed November 1998 and amendable in November 2002. The MEC Negotiating Committee met at management’s request to discuss financial relief on five separate occasions during 2001. A proposed amendment to the Agreement was reached, yet this midterm amendment, negotiated outside Section 6 of the Railway Labor Act, was clearly concessionary by any definition.

All of the facts and circumstances leading to the Tentative Agreement made clear that this proposed Amendment was not negotiated in a manner consistent with the Association’s collective bargaining policies.

Many of the negotiations were conducted without the presence or assistance of Representation Department staff nor did they include the required analysis or costing by Economic & Financial Analysis professionals. Management never produced any of the company’s financial records during these negotiations, a detailed company recovery plan was never provided to the Association, nor did ALPA have access to accounting records, operating plans, or other financial documents. At no time did management either document the need for economic relief from the existing Agreement or quantify how much relief was needed. Likewise, there was never any costing or quantification of how much relief the proposed amendment, in fact, actually provided to the company. CCAir was clearly trying to intimidate the pilots into accepting a concessionary agreement even though it was unable to establish that economic relief was necessary.

Why was the proposed amendment concessionary and inconsistent with ALPA’s bargaining goals? Almost every section of the Agreement was modified. Some of the more significant changes were:

? Section 1 was amended to delete merger protection and to weaken the successorship protection. It also increases the length of time that subcontracting may occur.

? Per diem was reduced by $.20/hour to $1.20 with no increases for the term of the Agreement.

? Deadhead pay was reduced from 100 percent to 50 percent.

? Premium pay for junior assignment was eliminated.

? Cancellation pay was eliminated.

? Pay changed to segment time from block or better.

? Turbo-prop seat range was extended to 20–74 seats (from 37).

? 401(k) plan providing 50 percent match to maximum 8 percent was no longer contractually guaranteed.

The proposed Agreement also provided for hourly pay rate reductions averaging 10 percent from the October 2002 turbo-prop captain rates and more than 17 percent for first officers. The pay rates for jets raised the most serious concerns—the rates were the lowest in the industry for 50–59-seat jets at 5.5 percent below the industry average at the time and more than 11 percent behind the industry leaders at that time. The proposed agreement provided a 7.5 percent pay override for jets with greater than 50 seats up to a maximum weight of 85,000 lbs. These rates were 9.5 percent below the industry average for 70-seat jets and over 13 percent below industry leaders.

The application of these pay rates to aircraft up to 85,000 lbs. was a major issue. They would have applied to CRJ-90 (90 seats) and would have been the first industry rates for those aircraft. At almost 10 percent below the industry average for 70-seat aircraft at the time, they would have presented a very significant obstacle for other pilot groups, especially Mesa, in negotiating appropriate 90-seat aircraft pay rates.

At that same time, ALPA pilot groups such as Comair (after a lengthy strike), Air Wisconsin, and Atlantic Coast had reached agreements that set a pattern for our successive “regional” carrier negotiations. Negotiations at Mesaba and the negotiations set to start at Continental Express (now Express Jet) and Atlantic Southeast would have continued to build upon this pattern.

The proposed CC Air amendment, however, was more than a step backward—it would have dramatically undercut ALPA’s objective of raising the bar for our members flying for regional airlines. Even before becoming effective, the proposed terms started to haunt us at various bargaining tables, including Piedmont, PSA, and Skyway, where management was arguing for lower rates for jet aircraft based on a lower industry average resulting from the CCAir proposal. The proposed amendment would have been an impediment to negotiations throughout the regional industry.

Based on all of the above reasons, the president did not sign the agreement and asked the Negotiating
Committee to continue negotiations.

ALPA did not abandon the CCAir pilots at this point. The Association went to federal court and to arbitration to obtain 401(k) contributions that CCAir refused to pay the CCAir pilots. ALPA protected the careers of the furloughed CCAir pilots in the Mesa negotiations. The Mesa Agreement provided all CCAir pilots the opportunity to transfer to Mesa with their proper place on the negotiated, integrated seniority list. Many CCAir pilots did, in fact, transfer to Mesa, and many are still working as pilots for Mesa on jet aircraft that CCAir never flew and was unlikely to ever obtain.

In subsequent years, the Association filed, and won, several grievances:

— Arbitrator Kasher issued a stipulated award on April 7, 2005. CCAir was ordered to pay an additional 17.5 hours (plus interest) to each pilot who was furloughed in June 2002 as a result of the company’s failure to provide 30 days’ advance written notice of furlough.

— Arbitrator Nolan issued an award on July 22, 2005, in which CCAir was ordered to pay each affected pilot 6.25 hours of pay arising from the company’s miscalculation of the value of a day.

— Arbitrator Fishgold issued a stipulated award on April 7, 2005, in which approximately 65 pilots received their company-matching contribution to their 401(k) plan with interest—amounting to approximately $100,000.
http://www.alpa.org/DesktopModules/...ew.aspx?itemid=17002&ModuleId=9065&Tabid=2223

 

[Raoul Duke]

the amount of spin that you are putting on the facts is absolutely amazing. And wrong. If you want, I will post links to the documents and court filings. I am sure you can explain to everyone that they don't actually say what they say. The CCAir TA was reached between the ALPA Natnl rep and C.L. The agreement would have protected the CCAir pilots and ALPA refused to sign it after the Mesa MEC came crying to Herndon.

 

[Nevets]

the amount of spin that you are putting on the facts is absolutely amazing. And wrong. If you want, I will post links to the documents and court filings. I am sure you can explain to everyone that they don't actually say what they say. The CCAir TA was reached between the ALPA Natnl rep and C.L. The agreement would have protected the CCAir pilots and ALPA refused to sign it after the Mesa MEC came crying to Herndon.

Sorry, should have made it clear that those were not my words. That is what the OC said last year. Anyways, what "ALPA Natnl rep" are you talking about? The ALPA president is administrator. He is required to abide by the administrative manual regardless of what "ALPA Natl rep" negotiated anything or who came crying to him.

Trust me, I know more than I wanted to know about the requirements of having assistance of the Representation Department, analysis and costing from the Economic & Financial Analysis Department, company providing financial records and recovery plan, access to company accounting records and documents and operating plan, and also the company providing documenting of the need for concessions and quantify how much was needed, and costing or quantifying how much releif the proposed amenedment would actually provide. All these thinngs, and more, are required before the president can put his signature on the agreement. Just that alone is grounds for any president to refuse to sign it.

 

[PCL_128]

The CCAir TA was reached between the ALPA Natnl rep and C.L. The agreement would have protected the CCAir pilots and ALPA refused to sign it after the Mesa MEC came crying to Herndon.

Complete lies.

 

[Poahi]

PCL128 and Nevets,

I'm curious about your take on the NWA FA union suing DAL if you have one. I know it's a tangent here, but it looks like they want a union vote before they integrate the lists. That would certainly level the playing field. Perhaps it's a olive branch to the DAL FA's.

Wouldn't it be advantageous to the NWA FA's to wait and have the upper hand during the negotiations or are they trying to unify the group first? Since DL is the buyer, aren't they the underdog right now anyway? ie What advantage does DAL mgt have by keeping the groups separate? Could DAL mgt just staple the NWA FA's to the bottom? Are they just trying to avoid unionization all as much as possible? I'm foggy on their strategy.....