After the "foreseeable future" at Colgan

[better up here]

No he didn't he lost his box of crayons.

He didn't loose them, he ate'm.

 

[GEORGE DUBYA]

Does he still live in a can down by the river?

 

[Grey Ghost]

Does he still live in a can down by the river?

So I've heard! Does he share the rent with the "Cuban National"?:smash:

 

[ifly34]

I agree. Every member of ALPA and every pilot group that is thinking of joining ALPA should read the Constitution and By-Laws. It always pays to be informed.

Yes, the President must sign every TA that an MEC approves in order for it to become a legally binding CBA. This is done to ensure that ALPA legal has time to verify that the contract complies with the law (no contract is valid unless it is compliant with the law), verify that the contract is not in violation of the Constitution & By-Laws, and make sure that there aren't any serious "loop-holes" that the negotiators and MEC didn't pick up on due to their lack of legal experience. In other words, this clause in the C & BLs is there to provide protection to pilot groups. It is not there to allow the President to lord over the pilots and micromanage their affairs. No President has ever acted in that manner.



Not at all. Captain Woerth didn't sign the CCAir contract because it was in violation of the C & BLs. ALPA's Constitution requires that a company provide proof of financial need before an MEC can give them concessions. The CCAir pilots passed a highly concessionary contract, but CCAir management refused to provide any proof that these concessions were needed. Because of that, Captain Woerth did not sign the contract. He can't approve an agreement that is in violation of the union's own C & BLs.

Besides, your management is trying to spin the CCAir situation to their benefit, and they're way off base. Does your management ever point out that ALPA demanded that all CCAir pilots be integrated into the single Mesa seniority list? Does your management ever mention that all of those CCAir pilots are now holding jet Captain slots at Mesa now? ALPA fought for those pilots, and they're much better off now because of it.



Well, I've already answered your last question. For the rest, NO, ALPA does not have any minimum standards or guidelines for CBAs. ALPA is happy to provide statistical analysis to an MEC to show them what the industry averages are, what the differences in work-rules are from carrier to carrier, etc..., but ALPA has no set minimum standards that a contract must have before being signed. Many pilots have fought for such standards for years, but ALPA has always rejected that philosophy and allowed MECs to set their own priorities and goals. ALPA is very much a "state's rights" organization.

PCL,
So was the wording on the addendum for the switch from Express I to Pinnacle what you were looking for? Seems to me that the first thing the Pinnacle pilots did was scream about the fact that they had it written in their contract that all flying under Pinnacle was to be done by Pinnacle pilots. Well, how did that turn out? Did the ALPA attorneys let you down on that one? From my perspective they did. So did ALPA legal not look at your addendum close enough or did they not "get" what you were going for?

That clause in not in the C & BLs to benefit the pilot groups. It is there so ALPA national can have control at what is done under their name. I don't blame them for that. If someone were using my name, I would want to have control too. But the fact is, they have the control and they can use it the way the want to!

Now, you say there are standards and guidelines. Please make up your mind. I understand the fact that ALPA would give each pilot group the ability to pursue the priorities they want on their own contract. I agree with that, but unless you have some specific guidelines in writing it would be hard to justify not signing anything.

You say the CCAir TA didn't get signed by national because it was in violation of the C & BLs. I did not see that part. Can you please give me the specific Article and Section that they violated? Thanks.

But what it boils down to, it that the pilot group wanted it and national didn't. So it didn't get signed.

Lets talk about spin on CCAir. Everyone knows that ALPA wanted one pilot group for all of MAG holdings. You even won that from the NMB. By the way just how did they get on the Mesa seniority list anyway? When the TA wasn't signed, CCAir shut down operations. CCAir pilots were then offered postions at Mesa. Where were they in seniority? And yes, those that took the "opportunity" and those that are still left at Mesa had better be CAs now. This all happened in 2002. A brand new hire in 2002 should be a CA if they bid for it. Nice try. From my viewpoint ALPA did not fight very hard (if at all) for the CCAir pilots.

Heres a theory for you. ALPA files for single carrier with the NMB. Then they sign a separate TA with one of the pilot groups. That doesn't bode well for the single carrier status claim. Why does ALPA file for single status. Because the larger group at Mesa wanted them to. I also understand why the wanted to. They were afraid MAG was going to whipsaw. But again, the wishes of the smaller group were ignored for the wishes of the larger group.

Again, if there is something in the C & BLs that can be used to justify not signing, then you do have minumum standards and/or guidelines. And again, please give me the Article and Section that falls under.

 

[Grey Ghost]

Someone needs to go down to the tin can he lives in and beat his ass until he signs the card!!!!!!

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,
So was the wording on the addendum for the switch from Express I to Pinnacle what you were looking for? Seems to me that the first thing the Pinnacle pilots did was scream about the fact that they had it written in their contract that all flying under Pinnacle was to be done by Pinnacle pilots. Well, how did that turn out? Did the ALPA attorneys let you down on that one? From my perspective they did. So did ALPA legal not look at your addendum close enough or did they not "get" what you were going for?

Not sure what you're talking about. The "addendum" that you reference is only a name-change LOA. The Scope language that you refer to is in Section 1 of our CBA. As far as being "let down," I really don't know what you're talking about.

You say the CCAir TA didn't get signed by national because it was in violation of the C & BLs. I did not see that part. Can you please give me the specific Article and Section that they violated? Thanks.

Actually, it comes from the Administrative Manual that governs all ALPA procedures. It's in Section 40 (Collective Bargaining), Part 6:

PART 1 - CRISIS AND CONCESSIONARY NEGOTIATIONS

A. GENERAL PROCEDURES

SOURCE - Board 1984; AMENDED - Board 1992
1. As a prerequisite to the initiation of negotiations deemed to be concessionary by an MEC, a Company or Holding Company seeking concessions shall provide to the MEC, at a minimum:

a. On-site financial analysis in accordance with Section 40, Part 3B above.

b. A factual, objective review of how the Company came to need relief.

c. A detailed Company recovery plan, both short and long term.

d. Documentation from the Company in the form of a detailed bankruptcy plan showing who specifically has the power to dissolve the airline and under what specific conditions.

e. A Company liquidation study, if one exists.

f. Access to pertinent corporate accounting records, operating plans and other financial documents necessary to obtain the clearest available financial picture of that Company.

But again, the wishes of the smaller group were ignored for the wishes of the larger group.

I have yet to find a single CCAir pilot that has complained about the integration with Mesa. They acheived superior job security and advancement opportunities. You're complaining on behalf of a pilot group that was actually happy with the outcome.

Again, if there is something in the C & BLs that can be used to justify not signing, then you do have minumum standards and/or guidelines. And again, please give me the Article and Section that falls under.

Again, there is no minimum standard. The policy simply states what is required in order to engage in concessionary bargaining. Once it has been determined that concessions are in order, there is nothing in the Admin Manual or the C & BLs to limit what sort of concessions you can take. That is up to the individual pilot groups to decide.

 

[ifly34]

PCL,
This is what I am talking about "let down".

01-17-2007, 22:13 #20 PCL_128 vbmenu_register("postmenu_1226015", true);
ALPA Member



Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,980
Civ/Mil: Civilian
A/C Flown: BE-1900, CL-65
Ratings: ATP, CFI, CL-65
Curr Position: CRJ Captain
Total Time: 4100+
Posts: 2,980


Quote:
Originally Posted by i fly boxes
Question for PCL 128 if you read this - If we bought another airline, does this go around our scope clause that all flying must be done by pinnacle pilots?

ALPA legal (and this MEC, of course) are of the opinion that our current scope language protects us in this sort of situation. All flying done by any Pinnacle Holdings airline is to be done by ALPA pilots on the Pinnacle Airlines seniority list under our CBA. Period. I suspect that Phil might try to force the issue, and if he does, then he'll find himself and his lawyers in court very quickly over a Section 1 (scope) grievance. Under the RLA, Section 1 grievances are expedited and don't go through the long process of a typical grievance. The issue would be resolved relatively quickly. I'm confident that ALPA would be successful.
__________________
www.alpa.org/colgan

Here is the link to the thread:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=92327&page=2

What happened?


Thank you for the quote from the Admin manual but I don't think it really helps your point. This "guideline" is just to initiate negotiations on an agreement that the MEC deems concessionary. From the C & BLs, all negotiations are to be approved by national. I have to assume that the CCAir MEC notified national before they started this. Did the MEC think it was going to be concessionary? If they did, why did national let them negotiate without the "required" info. If they didn't, this part doesn't specifically say the CBA must be rejected by national. It appears that this was used by national to promote their agenda. Which was a single seniority list.

In my opinion, the MEC probably didn't consider this concessionary. Sure they gave up pay and some work rules, but in exchange they would receive jets, more aircraft to the certificate, advancement and retain their jobs a their company.

From my perspective, I have not found a CCAir pilot that did not complain about the Mesa integration. Some were resentful that they were even bought by MAG in 1999. They were happy where they were. The new CBA was going to give them the job security and advancement that you say they got at Mesa. By the way, how were they integrated: DOH, relative seniority, other?

I'm not complaining for the CCAir pilots. That is for them to do (the ones I have met did express their objection to the situation). What I am doing is using this as an example of the control that ALPA national has over its members. ALPA is selling themselves to Colgan pilots by saying (amongst other things) that we would be an all Colgan group. Do what we want. Negotiate what we want. Where, in my opinion, that is clearly not the truth. You can do/negotiate what you want as long as national doesn't object. This example also shows, in my opinion, the control that a larger MEC can have over a smaller MEC. It is my opinion that this stemmed from the concerns that the Mesa pilots had over the possibility of whipsaw with CCAir.

 

[JoeMerchant]

Good questions about Jets4Jobs and CCAir. Here are some links to information about these issues.... Get informed.....


http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/051604up.pdf

http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/ALG_special_report.pdf

http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/ALG_letters.pdf

http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/020104up.pdf

http://www.rjdefense.com/2004/algpdt_lawsuit.pdf

http://www.rjdefense.com/070702up.pdf

http://www.rjdefense.com/kalikvalpa.pdf

 

[PCL_128]

PCL,
This is what I am talking about "let down"....
Here is the link to the thread:
http://forums.flightinfo.com/showthread.php?t=92327&page=2

What happened?

What happened? It hasn't been resolved yet. These things take time.

Thank you for the quote from the Admin manual but I don't think it really helps your point. This "guideline" is just to initiate negotiations on an agreement that the MEC deems concessionary. From the C & BLs, all negotiations are to be approved by national. I have to assume that the CCAir MEC notified national before they started this. Did the MEC think it was going to be concessionary? If they did, why did national let them negotiate without the "required" info. If they didn't, this part doesn't specifically say the CBA must be rejected by national. It appears that this was used by national to promote their agenda. Which was a single seniority list.

You're trying desperately to split hairs. The TA was concessionary in nature. No one denies that. The company didn't provide the adequate information required by ALPA policy. Therefore, no new CBA.

 

[PCL_128]

Here are some links to information about these issues.... Get informed.....

Nothing on that site will "inform" anyone.

 

[ifly34]

What happened? It hasn't been resolved yet. These things take time.



You're trying desperately to split hairs. The TA was concessionary in nature. No one denies that. The company didn't provide the adequate information required by ALPA policy. Therefore, no new CBA.

Will it ever be "resolved"? Come on, you were so confident in January and nothing has has happened yet. What happened to the lawsuit everyone was talking about?

From the exact wording of the "policy" that you posted, it all comes down to if the MEC deemed that they were going into concessionary negotiations or not. Again, if the MEC knew it was going to be concessionary, why did national allow them to continue (all the way to a point of having a TA that was ratified) without the required info. If the MEC did not think they were going into concessionary talks, I see nothing in the wording of the policy that forces national to not sign the CBA.

How exactly does ALPA define "concessionary"? By the nature of the beast, you are negotiating. That means if you want something, you may have to give up something in return. CCAir pilots wanted jets, job security, advancement, and to keep their seniority at their airline. In return they gave up some pay and work rules. What happened to "ALPA allows each MEC to determine its own priorities"(post 62) and "allowed MECs to set their own priorities and goals"(post 71)? I think the CCAir pilots did that but national had other ideas.