• NC Software is having a Black Friday Sale Event thru December 4th on Logbook Pro, APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook, Cirrus Elite Binders, and more. Use coupon code BF2020 at checkout to redeem 15% off your purchase. Click here to shop now.
  • NC Software is proud to announce the release of APDL - Airline Pilot Logbook version 10.0. Click here to view APDL on the Apple App store and install now.

CC Air pilots sue ALPA

InclusiveScope

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
385
Total Time
11000+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparantly the CC Air pilots are suing ALPA because ALPA is refusing to sign their new TA. Anyone have further information on this? Word is one of the reasons it is being held up is because there are 90 seat payrates in the TA and ALPA will not allow the 90 seater to be operated at the regional level. Here is a post off another board.

----------------------------------------------"HELP WANTED !!!

The court date to fight for our contract is July 12 at 10am. It will
be held in Federal Court at the Charles Jonas Building at 401 West
Trade Street in Charlotte.

Pass the word to ALL of the employees who want CCAir to survive and
prosper.

Everyone who has a uniform should wear it, and bring the family. Show
(Judge Mullen) who ALPA is trying to hurt!

We may want to car pool from the G.O. and we may need to pick people
up from the terminal and drop them off.

We will work out the details soon. Let me know if you want to help
with that."
----
 

Tim47SIP

Serving for the USofA
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
1,157
Total Time
10,000
Anyone know why he wont sign? If it is a manipulative tactic, ALPA is hosed. If it is a genuine reason, let it out for all to hear!
 

InclusiveScope

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
385
Total Time
11000+
Tim here is an update from another message board. Anyone have anything else - sounds like ALPA is digging itself quite a hole!

============================================

It is correct to say the last T/A was approved as bullet points, but
that leaves just a little info out. The first T/A was complete, with
complete language. The MEC agreed to present it to the pilots for
ratification, but then pulled it at the last moment. A battle ensued
and ALPA national pushed for the vote on the T/A, which lost by three
votes.

With such a close vote and time running short, bullet points were
negotiated which fixed some things in the first T/A that the pilots
were concerned with, much like side letters---the initial T/A was
never changed apart from those issues addressed by the bullet points.
The bullet points were negotiated by National, endorsed by National,
presented by National in the informational meetings to pilots,
approved by National, and guaranteed to be signed by Woerth should it
be ratified by the pilots. When ratified, approved and signed by the
MEC after the vote, the ALPA attorneys and the company attorneys
worked out specific language which was signed by both parties and
presented to Woerth in May by the ALPA Executive VP that negotiated
the bullet points with Carter. So, there was no disagreement with the
MEC and Carter because it was worked out with National PRIOR to going
to the attorneys for both parties. Woerth knew about it the entire
time. There are copies of the entire, complete contract for anyone
available at the Genral Offices for the asking, although the only
signature missing is Woerth's.

Woerth is being caught up in the years of neglect of the Regional
issues in favor of mainline and is scrambling to find a solution. How
does the CCAir contract affect the industry? Does he approve a
contract that lowers pay scales and moves flying from mainline and the
wholly owneds to contract carriers? Does he delay signing and
sacrifice a small contract carrier pilot group in preference to
mainline and the wholly owneds? How does his signature or lack thereof
affect the Comair/ASA lawsuit, not to mention the CCAir suit? Then too
there is LOA 81 from the mainline MEC and Woerth's failure to sign.
Does he sign it in favor of mainline, creating MAA and causing WO's to
furlough as mainline pilots flow down? ALPA's failure to address the
RJ issue years ago coupled with U's arrogant attitude toward RJ's by
it's pilots has put us where we are today. The industry has shifted
and ALPA is ten years behind the curve. Just my opinion.
 

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
Inclusive Scope,

Could you tell us which other message board you are finding this information on?

Thank you,
Surplus1
 

ddp

Member
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Posts
6
Total Time
4500
I have felt the need to stay out of the CCAir mess but this post is so inaccurate I feel like at least some of the information should be corrected.

First ALPA never pushed for the vote on the T/A. Why would they? The only reason for the quick action was management threatening again to shut us down and furlough more pilots. The first T/A was pulled and then resumitted (not changed and got voted down by 3). The next T/A though was changed. It removed and added to the contract. We lost stock options and 1 year no furlough side letters. The bullet points were added which added a jet guarntee strickly dependent on Jet for Jobs. ( A side to this is you all better be very careful about critizing ALPA here because CCAir will take Jet for Jobs in any form. They have to. CCAir doesn't exist without it. We only have 3 dash 8's. The T/A will under cut every wholly owned and contract carrier for U even Mesa.)
The bullet point T/A was voted in favor of even though it had less than the orginal because we sold out. People got scared they were going to lose their jobs. (which all but 20 of us have anyway) You will hear that ALPA told them to sign it and this was our only hope. But as we find out no one had even read the full contract at National. When they did they found over 20 things they don't agree with. One is a 85,000 lbs weight or less pay rate. Basically the T/A is the worst contract that anyone has ever seen and now we have some pilots that believe no matter what they should get the option to work under it. To me they can't see the big picture which is. Mesa is our only hope. They have to get the single carrier suit won even if it is by a strike. Unless we get merged into their list we don't have a chance. I do think ALPA is sitting on the T/A which they should because Mesa is in contract negotiations. Is this legal? I don't know. This T/A being signed will keep them below industry average and not allow them to get what they need in a new contract. We all know how everyone dogs them out but I do believe their intentions are good and for the better of all Mesa Air Group.

Don't we want to move wages and work rules forward. If you do maybe you to can see ALPA is doing the right thing. Alpa is not sacrificing us they are just putting it on hold until they can give us the best deal. Which is one contract, one group. Why will we get it? Oreinstein has cut all his options. Freedom is not ready to fly or approved yet. CCAir has 20 pilots and 3 planes. And he flies for USAir and American West two failing companies that can't handle a strike.
 

Tim47SIP

Serving for the USofA
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
1,157
Total Time
10,000
Not to thorw dirt in anyone's face, but if CCAir really only has 3 planes and 20 pilots total, then how would a strike do anything. I am coming to the conclusion that the CCAir TA is actually under the workings of the J4J protocal and if so, then I can fully understand ALPA's hold on the TA. I am a little awed that CCAir is down to that many aircraft. That being the case, then what would US want with the company. My guess is the operating certificate to pump RJ's into them under J4J. Am I on the right track here?
As far as ALPA not signing the TA because it is below industry average, I think you are on the wrong track here. ALPA only does things to benifit ALPA. They could care less about your pay rates.
:confused:
 

tintube

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2002
Posts
54
Total Time
6500
Tim47SIP: Not to thorw dirt in anyone's face, but if CCAir really only has 3 planes and 20 pilots total, then how would a strike do anything.


I do not think ddp meant that CCAir ( w/ 20 pilots ) is in a position so strike over this, ( if that is what you meant ) but that Mesa pilots ( w/ 1300 pilots ) will be firm to make sure that CCAir's contract and senioritylist will be merged with Mesa's contract that currently is being negotiated.
The way I see it, this TA will completely ruin Mesa's change of negotiating a new fair contract. This will force Mesa's 1300 pilots to accept same conditions as this TA, (or loose airplanes? ) The bottom line: Accept to fly a 90 seater for 10% over Mesa'a current 50 seater payscale.
 
Last edited:

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
Thanks Inclusive. You do nice work.

Check your PM.
 

trainerjet

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Posts
507
Total Time
8000+
I believe that DW's failing to sign has more to do with this:

Press Release

SOURCE: Air Line Pilots Association, International

NMB Rules Single Carrier Status for Mesa Air Group; ALPA Continues to Fight Against Ornstein's Draconian Management Tactics

WASHINGTON, July 2 /PRNewswire/ -- Captain Duane Woerth, president of the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) today issued the following statement regarding the National Mediation Board's (NMB) determination that Mesa Airlines, Inc., Air Midwest, Inc. and CCAir, Inc. constitute a single transportation system:

"ALPA is extremely pleased that the NMB upheld the Association's assertion that these Mesa Air Group, Inc. subsidiaries are in fact a single carrier for collective bargaining purposes. The NMB ruling validates what our pilots have long known -- that labor relations for all Mesa Air Group carriers are controlled by Mesa Air Group President Jonathan Ornstein.
"The decision by the NMB puts Mr. Ornstein on notice that his corporate shell game of threatening to shift jobs and airplanes from one carrier to another in order to decimate wages and working conditions for all Mesa Air Group pilots and undermine the pilots' rights to representation is being closely scrutinized. Ever since Mesa Air Group purchased CCAir in 1999, Ornstein's strategy has been to divide and conquer, attempting to pit the pilots of CCAir and Mesa against each other within his corporate empire. He has systematically dismantled CCAir, stripping it to a core of only one airplane and two spares, simply to maintain a legal operating certificate.

"Under the threat of shutting down the company, CCAir management has placed unwarranted pressure on its pilots to replace their current contract with greatly concessionary working conditions in the absence of any demonstrated economic justification. Pilots should not have to choose between keeping their jobs, working under ridiculously poor conditions, or having their work transferred to an upstart non-union carrier -- yet Ornstein has subjected the pilots of CCAir to exactly this fate in hopes of pressuring Mesa pilots to accept substandard provisions in their new contract.
"ALPA has pledged its full support to battle Jonathan Ornstein's scorched earth management tactics so reminiscent of Frank Lorenzo. With the proposed start up of Freedom Air, a new non-union subsidiary of the Mesa Air Group, Jonathan Ornstein intends to transfer Mesa Airlines assets, jobs, and work opportunities to a non-union carrier to the detriment all Mesa Air Group employees, much in the way that Frank Lorenzo did under the umbrella of the Texas Air Corporation."
ALPA is the world's oldest and largest pilots union, representing 66,000 members at 43 airlines in the U.S. and Canada. Visit the ALPA Website at http://www.alpa.org.

SOURCE: Air Line Pilots Association, International
 
Last edited:

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
Originally posted by trainerjet

I believe that DW's failing to sign has more to do with this than the reasons Inclusive Scope, Surplus 1, et.al. would have you believe.

Whoa. I'll take full responsibility for what I write, but this time you're jumping the gun.

Please check the thread again. I think you'll find that all I did was ask for a link to get information. I offered no opinion on the CCAir suit anywhere and have made no effort to have anyone believe anything about it.

I very rarely jump at things I know nothing about.

You owe me one.

Surplus1
 

trainerjet

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2002
Posts
507
Total Time
8000+
Surplus 1,

You are right. I owe you one. I will re-phrase my previous post.

I believe ALPA's refusing to sign has more to do with the NMB's Single Carrier ruling, than the 90-seat payrates that Inclusive Scope alluded to in an earlier post.
 

surplus1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2002
Posts
5,649
Total Time
25K+
Not to worry, all is forgotten.


trainerjet said:
Surplus 1,

You are right. I owe you one. I will re-phrase my previous post.

I believe ALPA's refusing to sign has more to do with the NMB's Single Carrier ruling, than the 90-seat payrates that Inclusive Scope alluded to in an earlier post.

You may be correct about that. I still don't know enough to comment so I'll be quiet for now.

I have some opinions about the single carrier thing, but this isn't the time.

Thanks for your reply.
 

InclusiveScope

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2002
Posts
385
Total Time
11000+
trainerjet said:
Surplus 1,

You are right. I owe you one. I will re-phrase my previous post.

I believe ALPA's refusing to sign has more to do with the NMB's Single Carrier ruling, than the 90-seat payrates that Inclusive Scope alluded to in an earlier post.


Trainerjet,
I believe I said "word has it" that it is because of the 90 seater. Nevertheless, it still presents an interesting quandry for ALPA. ALPA will have to argue that it has the authority to overide a local MEC if it believes that the MEC's actions may damage others. This contradicts their assertion in the RJDC case that they do not control what individual MECs negotiate. As far as the single carrier petition it was done to prevent the CC Air pilots from leaving ALPA. It will be much harder now for them to leave ALPA because the entire Mesa Air Group pilot group will have to vote to leave now.
 
Top