GEORGE DUBYA
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 713
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
After the "foreseeable future" at Colgan
- Thread starter suupah
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
Not true. ALPA national provides help when you need it. It doesn't constantly hover over your MEC and approve/disapprove of the decisions that they make.
Not true. Do you think that Captain Woerth liked that pathetic NWA concessionary TA? Guess again. The pilots wanted it, though, so he let them have it. You control your own destiny. ALPA just provides the resources to help you.
ALPA doesn't have any set standards for CBAs. ALPA allows each MEC to determine its own priorities. The ALPA attorneys and other staff members are happy to help you out with determing priorities, but they are only there to help if you request it.
better up here
8088
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Posts
- 163
yep...
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
Ouch that really doesn't hurt me when you talk like that...
Keep up with me ok?
ALPA is not a third party. That is management anti union talk. With over 6000 hours I'd like to think you know better.
What is more representative? A democratic organization who votes policy and leaders (hint for you here: a union), or unilateral control group where you get whatever is given and you are offered no input (hint again: Corp America)
How my friend, HOW! How will the Colgan pilots represent themselves?
Choosing not to choose is a right. As I said before, if someone is not trained in law and they [try to] represent themselves in court.. I just don't see how logical or smart that is...
Are you really this way? Have you been drinking? the pilots of American, SWA and UPS purchase services from ALPA. They have to because they don't have the cost structure and the long term expierence to handle section 6 negotiations.
Any Air Line Pilot has benefited from ALPA and its 76 year history as a safety leader in this industry. Just like every worker takes for granted the 40 hour work week and two day weekend that unions fought for and won.
So yes, maybe you should join the organization that has contributed to your career and the things you don't even know that you take for granted. If you want me to school you on the safety issues alone that ALPA has addressed over 76 years I'll be happy to... BTW ALPA just testified on your behalf and on behalf of the AMR, SWAPA and UPS pilot in Congress.
Yes ALPA is a tade union but it is also a Professional Association.
ALPA is not perfect, but it is better than what you are contributing to this profession as of now. Join up, we'd love to have you...
PCL,
No, ALPA national does not have to hover over every move. BUT, it is true that the president must approve everything (Meetings, Negotiations, CBAs, LOAs, Addendums, etc). Anything that is agreed upon under the name of ALPA must be signed by the president or it does not become effective. That is from the ALPA constitution and bylaws. It does not matter if the MEC approved it, the pilot group ratifies it and the company agrees to it. If ALPA national does not agree, it doesn't get signed.
ARTICLE XVIII - AGREEMENT APPROVAL AND VALIDATION
SECTION 1 - COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Conference or negotiations shall not be initiated, carried on, or concluded in the name of ALPA by
any member, group, or groups of members thereof to make or establish employment agreements
relating to rates of pay, rules, or other conditions of employment, or any other agreements, contracts,
or documents of a similar or related character, or any other form of agreements, contracts, or
documents without the prior approval of the President. Any and all agreements, contracts, or
documents of any and every character whatsoever shall not become effective, binding or operative
unless and until they bear the signature of the President.
Everyone that is a current ALPA member and everyone that works for any airline that ALPA is trying to organize should read the constitution and bylaws. Go to www.alpa.org on the top of the page click the search button and search constitution. It will give you the link.
OK, the next part brings us back to CCAir. You say CA Woerth didn't like the NW TA, but the pilots wanted it so he signed it. Then why didn't national sign off on CCAir? Didn't thier pilots want it? Does this suggest a bias towards the "majors" or against "regionals"?
ALPA must have some sort of standard or guidelines for CBAs. For a group that has been doing this so long and is the industry leader in negotiating they must have something to work from. I'm sure they are not just haphazardly running into the negotiations. Besides, how else does the president justify not signing any CBA?
Last edited:
Rez,
First, I'm not trying to hurt you. What is the point of that? I'm just trying to be honest. Compared to what you have posted in the past, that post was weak.
Second, I'm trying to keep up, but sometimes it is hard to follow your logic and assumptions. So lets get to your latest rebuttal.
Everything that any ALPA MEC agrees to or negotiates MUST be signed by the president of ALPA national (see my post to PCL_128). In our specific case, what connection does the president have to either the Colgan pilots or Colgan Air? None really, except the president is a pilot and the Colgan pilots are pilots. How is that not a third party? And tell me exactly why this is management anti union talk. Because it doesn't agree with what you believe? I hope there is more to it. And you think I should know better? That's funny! Just because I don't believe everything ALPA (or you) is saying (or selling) doesn't mean I'm the one in the wrong.
Ok, here is one spot where I am having some problems following your logic and assumptions. Are you trying to use emotion to sell your point that ALPA is the choice? Because it has no real bearing on this discussion. We can elect all of the representatives we want (ALPA or not) and it has no bearing on what the company will give the employees. Just because we are organized under the RLA doesn't mean the company has to give us anything. The only thing they have to do is bargain in good faith. I also think you are making assumptions that all companies and corporations don't take input from their employees.
How will Colgan pilots represent themselves? Maybe the same way pilots at American, Southwest and UPS do. Or maybe with a committee like Chicago Express pilots did. Is ALPA the only answer to everything? That raises a red flag with me.
Maybe you didn't read most post thoroughly. I agree, if you have to go to court, hire a lawyer. If you need surgery, go to a surgeon. If you don't need to go to court or have surgery, why would you hire someone to help you with something you don't need. Now more specifically to our discussion, what would the Colgan pilots do to represent themselves. We would hire our own attorney/negotiator. That would be the rational thing to do. Don't you agree?
Now, I was not drinking when I wrote that post. More importantly, what way do you think I am? I was responding to your statement that strongly implied (at least to me) that it is my responsibility to join ALPA. If that is what you are getting at, I believe that is absurd. Why would joining ALPA show responsibility and joining Teamsters or an in-house not be responsible?
Just out of curiosity, I would love to know what "services" that American, Southwest and UPS groups purchase from ALPA. Furthermore, what are you implying with this anyway? Are you saying they would fall apart in negotiations without ALPAs help? Don't you think they would get the info/help/services they need if ALPA didn't help. I believe they would, but they found a way to get the "services" they need and cheaper and easier than doing it themselves. If Colgan had and in-house, would ALPA not help us with the same services (for a price of course)?
I agree that ALPA has done good things (and I'm sure they will continue). But they don't do anything that doesn't benefit their dues paying members. That is where their duty lies. But they have also done things that didn't benefit certain members (like CCAir or Jets for Jobs). If union representation is all that you claim it is, then why is only 12 percent of the workforce union. Why is less than 8 percent of the private sector (thats us) workforce union? Why has union membership steadily declined since 1983.
Thanks for the offer to school me in the safety issues that ALPA has addressed, but I'll pass this time. Its in all of the propaganda that I have received. I'm sure ALPA didn't do that (or testify in my behalf) to benefit me. I'm sure they did it to benefit their members. It just happened to spill over to other pilots. Thanks for doing it, but don't try to tell me you did it for my benefit. Also, if you are going to try and sell others on ALPA, be a little realistic. Admit some errors. It would give ALPA a little credibility.
Yes, ALPA is a union and a professional association. If it were only a professional association I believe you would have more members and a lot more muscle. I know I would most likely join. Maybe you could spin union representation into a separate organization.
I also believe that every airline pilot contributes to this profession. They do it by doing their job safely, legally, efficiently and comfortably. In this regard, the Colgan pilots contribute greatly to their profession. I feel it is very condescending and arrogant for you to say that we don't. On a positive note, I do like the fact that you are saying "maybe" we should join instead of implying that we must join. That will go a long way.
Last edited:
Colgan Pilots with ALPA representation rules the world.
ifly34, where do you want to go after Colgan? 90% chance they will be unionized. Are we that 'better' than everyone else here at Colgan that we don't need ALPA? By the time changes are put in place by management if we DON'T have ALPA we are screwed. It will be to late then.
Oh, by the way with the pay scale and our lack of work rules that guys are willing to work for, we at Colgan, ARE bringing down the rest of the industry. I am guilty of it, we all are, we have to change that.
ifly34, where do you want to go after Colgan? 90% chance they will be unionized. Are we that 'better' than everyone else here at Colgan that we don't need ALPA? By the time changes are put in place by management if we DON'T have ALPA we are screwed. It will be to late then.
Oh, by the way with the pay scale and our lack of work rules that guys are willing to work for, we at Colgan, ARE bringing down the rest of the industry. I am guilty of it, we all are, we have to change that.
Last edited:
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.
It's not the only answer, but it is the best answer. No other organization has the resources or experience in dealing with pilot issues that ALPA has. That's why most of the organizations you list above purchase services from ALPA.
You could afford to hire a single lawyer who has experience in general labor law. ALPA has a huge team of lawyers, with most of them having an area of expertise that becomes very valuable at times. ALPA's representation department also has a database of arbitration decisions that goes back decades. These cases can be presented to arbitrators and used as precedent to achieve positive results in arbitration hearing for out pilots. This database is not available to anyone outside of ALPA. To put it simply, you just can't go out and "hire" the experience that is available within ALPA.
Teamsters and in-house unions don't represent pilot issues on Capital Hill. When congress needs to know what air line pilots think, they call Captain Prater. They don't call the IBT, they don't call Captain Hunter at the APA, and they certainly won't call the Colgan Pilot Group Committee. The future of your career is highly dependent on what happens in Washington. Only ALPA carries the weight of this profession to Washington.
Economics & Financial Analysis, legal, negotiations training, media relations training, etc... There are dozens of different services that can be purchased. Each independent union negotiates their own service agreement with ALPA based on what they need at the time, and it frequently changes and they have to go back and negotiate for more services. If you think that these independent unions are able to do all of this on their own, then you're dreaming.
You'd have to ask them. They obviously feel the need to purchase services from ALPA, because I'll tell you, it certainly ain't cheap.
You couldn't afford it. The APA, IPA, SWAPA, etc... are huge pilot groups with dues revenues that far eclipse anything that you would ever be able to receive at a small regional like Colgan. They have the money to buy these services. Small pilot groups simply wouldn't be able to afford it. In fact, you'd barely be able to afford hiring a single labor attorney to help with general issues. Ask the Capital Cargo pilots why they joined ALPA recently. They had a small pilot group like yours. They simply weren't able to provide the resources that they needed with their limited dues income, and they make a hell of a lot more money than Colgan pilots do.
CCAir pilots benefited from ALPA representation as I stated in my previous post. Don't believe the management propaganda that Mikey and friends are sending out about CCAir. As for Jet4Jobs, every pilot group that has J4J agreed to it. ALPA never forced any pilot group into the J4J program. In fact, some ALPA groups rejected it. Those pilots looked at the pros and cons and decided that J4J was an overall plus.
Because anti-labor lawmakers have systematically beaten down labor for years. We're starting to make some progress on changing that. You can help by joining ALPA and contributing to ALPA-PAC. That's how we can change the labor environment in this country and put some power back in the hands of working families.
Rez O. Lewshun
Save the Profession
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2004
- Posts
- 13,422
ifly34-
PCL128 has addressed the issues quite well. In addition, everything that effcts your career is derermined on CapHill. No? Every policy and federal law is made in Washington DC and you and I are obligated to comply with it. Now, do you want laws that favor your career?
WashDC and CapHill are the National scene. It is also the speakerbox for the international scene. I've no idea how much time you've left in this career but if it is 5 or more years then internatinal law and politics is going to determine how much money, time off and work rules govern your career.
Only ALPA and and the IPA are addressing these issues. The SWA pilots are mute as well as the AMR pilots. And these guys are organized. You can image how much input the Skywest, Commutair and Colgan pilots have on these issues that will effect them.
Respectfully, you are a spectator in the stands watching others play with your career.... but you can be a player..... and I think you know how...
PCL128 has addressed the issues quite well. In addition, everything that effcts your career is derermined on CapHill. No? Every policy and federal law is made in Washington DC and you and I are obligated to comply with it. Now, do you want laws that favor your career?
WashDC and CapHill are the National scene. It is also the speakerbox for the international scene. I've no idea how much time you've left in this career but if it is 5 or more years then internatinal law and politics is going to determine how much money, time off and work rules govern your career.
Only ALPA and and the IPA are addressing these issues. The SWA pilots are mute as well as the AMR pilots. And these guys are organized. You can image how much input the Skywest, Commutair and Colgan pilots have on these issues that will effect them.
Respectfully, you are a spectator in the stands watching others play with your career.... but you can be a player..... and I think you know how...
Grey Ghost
God Bless America!
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Posts
- 757
suupah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Posts
- 1,779
of course he did. Bubba for MEC! BUBBA for MEC! Long LIVE BUBBA!!!
GEORGE DUBYA
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 713
Grey Ghost
God Bless America!
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Posts
- 757
pgcfii2002
"Uh....oh yeah...&quo
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2003
- Posts
- 1,313
Grey Ghost
God Bless America!
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Posts
- 757
Bubba needs to get his ass in gear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Fly like an eagle, johnny!" :erm:
better up here
8088
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Posts
- 163
He didn't loose them, he ate'm.
GEORGE DUBYA
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 713
Grey Ghost
God Bless America!
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Posts
- 757
So I've heard! Does he share the rent with the "Cuban National"?:smash:
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
God Bless America!
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Posts
- 757
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
This is what I am talking about "let down".
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.
Last edited:
JoeMerchant
ASA pilot
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Posts
- 6,353
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
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
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.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
