Comair "big" announcement

Trip7 said:
I let numbers speak for themselves. What was the result of the last elections over there?
Click to expand...
Well bright spark, the union election rules have changed. However, I'm sure you knew that with as integrated with the GO and the MEC as you portray yourself.
 
Hearing that the XJT pilots have been officially informed by the MEC that they are moving forward with the merger and will begin work on a Transition agreement with whipsaw protections. Once again, excellent news
 
Trip7 said:
Hearing that the XJT pilots have been officially informed by the MEC that they are moving forward with the merger and will begin work on a Transition agreement with whipsaw protections. Once again, excellent news
Click to expand...

You heard wrong. The blastmail doesn't say anything like this.

EDIT: Nevermind about the voting thing, just had a rep set that one straight.
 
jtrain609 said:
You heard wrong. The blastmail doesn't say anything like this.

EDIT: Nevermind about the voting thing, just had a rep set that one straight.
Click to expand...

Once again, the One List or STFD opinion shared by many here on JC, is clearly in the minority in the real world. Your MEC absolutely made the right decision. You may go in kicking and screaming right now, but you will calm down as soon as you see how Inc will transform OUR airline into a top notch and growing operation.
 
kool-aidman.jpg
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Generally, opinions expressed on pilot message boards are not representative of overall pilot groups.
Click to expand...

I agree. I made my assumption thinking the XJT MEC would not make a decision that a majority of the pilot group disagrees with.
 
Trip7 said:
Once again, the One List or STFD opinion shared by many here on JC, is clearly in the minority in the real world. Your MEC absolutely made the right decision. You may go in kicking and screaming right now, but you will calm down as soon as you see how Inc will transform OUR airline into a top notch and growing operation.
Click to expand...

What decision has the MEC made that you, oh King of internet rumors, know and the rest of MY pilot group doesn't know about?
 
Trip7 said:
I agree. I made my assumption thinking the XJT MEC would not make a decision that a majority of the pilot group disagrees with.
Click to expand...

Well then you made an azz out of yourself, buddy.

XJT MEC is caving against an overwhelming majority to protect the interests of a few.
 
AirArney said:
Well then you made an azz out of yourself, buddy.

XJT MEC is caving against an overwhelming majority to protect the interests of a few.
Click to expand...

I've heard a lot of unmitigated crap about this one, but I haven't actually gotten a communication from the company or the MEC regarding this issue. Do YOU have some creditable information, coming from a rep or an MEC member, about what's going on?
 
AirArney said:
Well then you made an azz out of yourself, buddy.

XJT MEC is caving against an overwhelming majority to protect the interests of a few.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. That would show a serious representation problem over there at XJT. We had the same issue over here at ASA with PBS. The vocal minority were blasting away on the boards but when it came down to a vote the thing passed by a landslide. Over 80% yes.

Let start working on important issues like an industry leading contract. We have the leverage to do it. It'stime for all of us to get a piece of that 35 mil a year.
 
We're not getting a vote, so how in the world do you think you can find out what a majority of the pilot group wants?
 
Alrighty... I'm going to try to post the facts as we know them at this time. Each point below is factual based on past and current information directly from the MEC Meetings and information from our Reps. I will attempt to keep emotion out of it. Here goes.

  • In 2007 our pilot group prevented a buyout from SKYW based on our scope clause. In SKYW's proposal, they wanted to furlough 700 pilots, have the ability to withdraw 5 aircraft/mo within two years after the purchase which would mean potentially 50 more furloughs a month. However, they offered up preferential hiring at the bottom of their seniority list. They stated that the proposal they offered was our best opportunity to prevent us from going out of business.
  • ExpressJet did not go out of business. They gained a new 7 year contract with CAL and a new UAL contract. Post CAL/UAL merger XJT would be the largest United Express Carrier, with the opportunity to independantly pursue more flying from any other source.
  • Now, in 2010, SKYW has made a new bid for us, knowing full well about our scope clause but is choosing to ignore it in the hopes that our group does not fight it. The offer is considerably better this time with the ASA merge and an offer to negotiate pilot and aircraft protections into our new JCBA.
  • Our scope language has been reviewed by ALPA, and outside attorneys. Both sources state that our language is solid and it would force the issue at hand, which is a combined seniority list of all companies involved in the transaction of our sale/merger.
  • In a presentation to shareholders, SKYW states that the acquisition of XJT would net SKYW a new 10 year CPA with CAL/UAL, the potential for 350 to 500 million in additional income over those 10 years, allow additional replacement aircraft for the older aircraft in the fleet, and would position SKYW perfectly for when/if CAL/UAL cave on 50 seat scope.
  • In a meeting with our MEC and in other forums, SKYW management has stated that they would rather pull out from the sale than merge all 3 lists.
  • Our union sent SKYW a letter stating our requirements for the transaction to take place. Those requirements were:
  • The transaction must result in a profitable airline that provides long-term stability and progressive career potential for our pilots;
  • The transaction must fully honor the scope and successorship provisions of our collective bargaining agreement;
  • Management must commit to negotiating a joint collective bargaining agreement with all involved parties that benefits all pilots; and
  • There must be a fair and equitable seniority list integration.
Click to expand...
  • Recent news from our attornies is that we would have a strong case to fight in arbritration since our scope lanquage would most likely hold up. However, there are court precedants that would favor SKYW if the issue goes to court. That is the issue of basically "forcing" an entire workgroup to "unionize" without proper protocol being followed or a vote of the group.
  • SKYW has stated that they would be glad to sit down and negotiate scope protections "equivilent" to our scope language that would protect our pilot group and whipsaw scenarios between SKYW and XJT/ASA, so long as we don't pursue the one-list issue.
  • Our union has met in session for the past two days and has made the following statement: (bolded was done by the union)
After reviewing the proposed transaction, analyzing every alternative avenue, and discussing our options with our legal counsel, professional advisors and subject matter experts, the MEC determined that it is in the best interest of our pilots to allow the transaction and merger with ASA to move forward, provided that our requirements are met. This means that a transition and process agreement, which contains protections for our pilots equivalent to those contained in our current agreements, must first be achieved before any process involved with merging the two carriers can begin. These protections would also need to carry over to any successor airline through a joint collective bargaining agreement. We will, of course, preserve our legal rights in the event our requirements are not met and it becomes necessary to pursue an alternative option.
Click to expand...

  • The requirements they are referring to are the 4 bullet points as stated in the previous quote above.
There you have it. Those are the facts. That is where we stand right now. The problem is in the interpretation of the union message. Since they emphasized that they are willing to proceed "provided that their requirements are met" (and after reading the requirements), it appears that we are going in for the fight for "one list".

However, the language following that statement discusses "equivelant protections" and proceeding with the merging of "the two carriers" now leading us to the conclusion that we are now proceeding with the XJT/ASA option only but ensuring that protections equivelant to the "intent" of our scope language be included in any future JCBA.

As always... we are reserving our rights to follow up on any alternative options should they become necessary.

That's it folks. Facts. Not internet rumor... not aviation forum chest beating and banter. This is the real issue that we are now facing as of today.

Bob
 
Captain_Bob said:
Alrighty... I'm going to try to post the facts as we know them at this time. Each point below is factual based on past and current information directly from the MEC Meetings and information from our Reps. I will attempt to keep emotion out of it. Here goes.

  • In 2007 our pilot group prevented a buyout from SKYW based on our scope clause. In SKYW's proposal, they wanted to furlough 700 pilots, have the ability to withdraw 5 aircraft/mo within two years after the purchase which would mean potentially 50 more furloughs a month. However, they offered up preferential hiring at the bottom of their seniority list. They stated that the proposal they offered was our best opportunity to prevent us from going out of business.
  • ExpressJet did not go out of business. They gained a new 7 year contract with CAL and a new UAL contract. Post CAL/UAL merger XJT would be the largest United Express Carrier, with the opportunity to independantly pursue more flying from any other source.
  • Now, in 2010, SKYW has made a new bid for us, knowing full well about our scope clause but is choosing to ignore it in the hopes that our group does not fight it. The offer is considerably better this time with the ASA merge and an offer to negotiate pilot and aircraft protections into our new JCBA.
  • Our scope language has been reviewed by ALPA, and outside attorneys. Both sources state that our language is solid and it would force the issue at hand, which is a combined seniority list of all companies involved in the transaction of our sale/merger.
  • In a presentation to shareholders, SKYW states that the acquisition of XJT would net SKYW a new 10 year CPA with CAL/UAL, the potential for 350 to 500 million in additional income over those 10 years, allow additional replacement aircraft for the older aircraft in the fleet, and would position SKYW perfectly for when/if CAL/UAL cave on 50 seat scope.
  • In a meeting with our MEC and in other forums, SKYW management has stated that they would rather pull out from the sale than merge all 3 lists.
  • Our union sent SKYW a letter stating our requirements for the transaction to take place. Those requirements were:
  • Recent news from our attornies is that we would have a strong case to fight in arbritration since our scope lanquage would most likely hold up. However, there are court precedants that would favor SKYW if the issue goes to court. That is the issue of basically "forcing" an entire workgroup to "unionize" without proper protocol being followed or a vote of the group.
  • SKYW has stated that they would be glad to sit down and negotiate scope protections "equivilent" to our scope language that would protect our pilot group and whipsaw scenarios between SKYW and XJT/ASA, so long as we don't pursue the one-list issue.
  • Our union has met in session for the past two days and has made the following statement: (bolded was done by the union)


  • The requirements they are referring to are the 4 bullet points as stated in the previous quote above.
There you have it. Those are the facts. That is where we stand right now. The problem is in the interpretation of the union message. Since they emphasized that they are willing to proceed "provided that their requirements are met" (and after reading the requirements), it appears that we are going in for the fight for "one list".

However, the language following that statement discusses "equivelant protections" and proceeding with the merging of "the two carriers" now leading us to the conclusion that we are now proceeding with the XJT/ASA option only but ensuring that protections equivelant to the "intent" of our scope language be included in any future JCBA.

As always... we are reserving our rights to follow up on any alternative options should they become necessary.

That's it folks. Facts. Not internet rumor... not aviation forum chest beating and banter. This is the real issue that we are now facing as of today.

Bob
Click to expand...
I disagree that the statement you bolded refer to the bulletin points. I believe they refer to the next couple of sentences after the bolded statement. Meaning they are no longer going after one list.

That email completely echoes what I've been saying. Proceed with a ASA/XJT merge with
whipsaw protections.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I think your reps probably have a pretty good sense of what the majority of the pilot group wants. If not, you should find some new reps.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Jtrain for some reason thinks one list or STFD is the majority opinion. Aim for one list but at least try to make a merger work if that falls through is a more reasonable approach. And I believe the XJT MEC and a majority of the pilot groups agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top