Colgan/Pinnacle Seniority List Merger Question

[CAPIP1998]

CAPIP, a single transportation system is a completely different issue. That only becomes the issue if ALPA were to file a single carrier petition. To the best of my knowledge, ALPA has no plans to do so and hasn't even begun to work on legal paperwork that would be needed for such a filing. This isn't about that. The PCL contract contains scope language that deals with this. A single-carrier petition isn't necessary to enforce scope language. The arbitrator has already ruled that PCL Corp. is in violation of the scope clause, but the ruling on the remedy was ambiguous, so ALPA is looking for a clarification from the arbitrator. Single carrier filings and single transportation systems have absolutely nothing to do with scope language.

I just want make sure I understand you completely. Your saying that a clause in your contract could force ALPA representation on the CJC pilots without a vote or any other input from us?

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

I just want make sure I understand you completely. Your saying that a clause in your contract could force ALPA representation on the CJC pilots without a vote or any other input from us?

To clarify, it's not "my" contract anymore, as I haven't been there in over a year. I used to be a union rep there, however, and this purchase of CJC took place while I was in office.

To answer your question, it isn't really a matter of whether the union can be forced upon you, it's a matter of who the flying must be done by. According to the PCL contract, all flying for Pinnacle or any company who owns Pinnacle must be done by pilots on the PCL seniority list. The CJC pilots aren't on the PCL seniority list, so it's a violation of the PCL scope clause. The arbitrator ruled on this at the beginning of the year. The only question at this point is whether the arbitrator is going to force Pinnacle Corp to comply with the language that he's already ruled that they're violating. If he forces them to comply, then they'll either have to merge the lists or come to an agreement with PCL ALPA on a fence agreement. If the CJC pilots are smart and vote in ALPA, then PCL ALPA can work with CJC ALPA to develop a mutually beneficial fence agreement. That would allow both pilot groups to continue to prosper while eliminating a whipsaw. If the CJC pilots make the mistake of voting in the Teamsters, then it will be virtually impossible for the two groups to work together and come to a mutually beneficial agreement if the arbitrator rules that he company must comply with the scope language.

 

[CAPIP1998]

To clarify, it's not "my" contract anymore, as I haven't been there in over a year. I used to be a union rep there, however, and this purchase of CJC took place while I was in office.

To answer your question, it isn't really a matter of whether the union can be forced upon you, it's a matter of who the flying must be done by. According to the PCL contract, all flying for Pinnacle or any company who owns Pinnacle must be done by pilots on the PCL seniority list. The CJC pilots aren't on the PCL seniority list, so it's a violation of the PCL scope clause. The arbitrator ruled on this at the beginning of the year. The only question at this point is whether the arbitrator is going to force Pinnacle Corp to comply with the language that he's already ruled that they're violating. If he forces them to comply, then they'll either have to merge the lists or come to an agreement with PCL ALPA on a fence agreement. If the CJC pilots are smart and vote in ALPA, then PCL ALPA can work with CJC ALPA to develop a mutually beneficial fence agreement. That would allow both pilot groups to continue to prosper while eliminating a whipsaw. If the CJC pilots make the mistake of voting in the Teamsters, then it will be virtually impossible for the two groups to work together and come to a mutually beneficial agreement if the arbitrator rules that he company must comply with the scope language.

Sorry, I assumed you were still with PNCL. Thanks for taking the time to give a clear answer to the issue at hand. Unfortunately, it brings us back to the fact that there is no easy answer here. It would be one thing if we knew for a fact that a list merger was going to happen, or not. If so, I would think the best course of action would be to vote in ALPA. If not, then it wouldn't matter (for this issue) if we had the Teamster's or the Fraternal Guild of Landscapers representing us.

This is not an easy subject to tackle, and it can be especially difficult to see other people's side of this problem. There is a fear of ALPA among many Colgan pilots, and whether it is a justified fear or not, the fact remains that it exists. Our ALPA supporters need to recognize this or you will simply turn more people away.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I posted this in another thread but I feel the need to post it again. It seems pretty obvious that CJC management would prefer, if there has to be a union, for the union to be IBT. Ask yourself WHY management would prefer Teamsters over ALPA?

I know why they would prefer IBT over ALPA and thats why IMHO ALPA would be a much better choice.

 

[CAPIP1998]

I posted this in another thread but I feel the need to post it again. It seems pretty obvious that CJC management would prefer, if there has to be a union, for the union to be IBT. Ask yourself WHY management would prefer Teamsters over ALPA?

I know why they would prefer IBT over ALPA and thats why IMHO ALPA would be a much better choice.

That is certainly a useful piece of information. Can you say how you know this or who you heard it from?

 

[BobDDuck]

The arbitrator has already ruled that PCL Corp. is in violation of the scope clause, but the ruling on the remedy was ambiguous, so ALPA is looking for a clarification from the arbitrator.

Umm... No?

In his preliminary finding he said that, but in the final issuance he said the PNCL Holdings was not governed by the contract between 9EALPA and PNCL Airlines.

Or at least that's what I thought.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Umm... No?

In his preliminary finding he said that, but in the final issuance he said the PNCL Holdings was not governed by the contract between 9EALPA and PNCL Airlines.

Or at least that's what I thought.

The ruling is very conflicting. The latest ruling said that: 1. Pinnacle Airlines is in violation of the scope clause 2. Pinnacle Corp is operating as an "alter-ego" of Pinnacle Airlines, and 3: Pinnacle Corp is not required to bring itself in compliance with the scope clause, despite the violation

Basically it says that Pinnacle Corp is the same thing as Pinnacle Airlines, but that they don't have to comply with his own interpretation of the scope clause. The problem here is that the arbitrator doesn't seem to be quite sure whether he has jurisdiction of Pinnacle Corp. He knows they're in violation, but he doesn't seem to know whether he can force them to comply. Very strange situation. That's why ALPA is seeking a clarification to see exactly what all of this means.

 

[Seggy]

It would be one thing if we knew for a fact that a list merger was going to happen, or not.

No one knows what is going to happen. No one.

But look at the signs leading to it. Three years ago my paychecks came from an address in Manassas. Now they come from one in Memphis. The company is going to do what is cheapest for them.

 

[USMC-SSGT]

on a side note:

Why is Colgan selling dave matthews band tickets on colgan air crew?

 

[Seggy]

Look carefully, they are not selling them, they are DMB ticket requests...

Story time:

When Dave was starting out in CHOville they needed some cheap transportation. It so happened that Colgan provided nonstop service from CHOville to NYC which would increase exposure for DMB. I am going to note that the service was of course on a 19hondo.

Anywho, the band and the Colgan family made a deal. Colgan would provide free service for the band and if they made it big, Colgan would get free tickets for life for all employees. Mind you this was 15 years ago.

So the Beech19hondo and Colgan helped 'make' DMB into what they are today.

 

[surreal1221]

How indie!

 

[kellwolf]

Umm... No?

In his preliminary finding he said that, but in the final issuance he said the PNCL Holdings was not governed by the contract between 9EALPA and PNCL Airlines.

Or at least that's what I thought.

Ditto what PCL said. It was VERY confusing when the amended arbitration award came out, and the MEC was seeking clarification. That got put on the back burner when contract negotiations suddenly surged forward since any scope clause negotiated with a new contract would null and void the arbitrator's ruling anyway. Now that negotiations have stalled out again, I'd expect them to turn the heat back up on getting this clarified. Basically, the arbitrator said "You're in violation, but you don't have to do anything about it" which makes no sense.