Nevets
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2007
- Posts
- 2,431
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
Last edited: