---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Chicago Pilots,

Over the past several months we have engaged directly with our pilots through numerous phone calls or emails, and through our vast network of P2Ps. Although opinions varied, the overwhelming message [vice chairman] and I received was that any changes to our contract would have to be without concessions, and at a bare minimum equivalent to PSA.

As a reminder, Envoy and PSA both have 2 pay bands for their Captains but the respective implementation of them is significantly different (First Officers at Envoy have a single payrate). At Envoy, movement from one Captain pay band to another is based solely on seniority and pay band size is determined by fleet composition. At PSA, their pay rates are blended into one which is based on fleet composition. This creates a problem when simply taking PSA large and small RJ rates and applying them to our Section 3 rates since 60% of our pilots would be paid considerably less than PSA and the remainder paid only slightly more. In short, PSA large and small RJ rates at Envoy would overall cause Envoy pilots to be paid less in aggregate given our present fleet mix.

In order to address this gap, additional quality of life or compensation sources were needed. The Agreement in Principle (AIP) signed earlier in June provided what we felt was an appropriate solution to bring equitability between Envoy and PSA. After the company reneged on that agreement, discussions between Envoy management and your Association continued. Finally, after several weeks, the company presented to the Association a proposal that lacked many attributes of the AIP but also contained a Protocol Agreement binding them to any changes made to our CBA.

When analyzing the merits of the company's proposal and the feedback our pilots from Chicago provided us, [vice chairman] and I felt that this proposal fell short of what was acceptable. Additionally, we felt that it was important for the pilot group to view the proposal prior to any vote for ratification so we could obtain additional focused feedback. In accordance with an MEC policy which can be waived by a 2/3rds vote of MEC, such agreements are ordinarily posted for 10 days for pilot review prior to ratification.

Last Tuesday, a special MEC meeting was held to address the proposal from the company. After a thorough briefing, a motion was made to waive the 10-day posting period. Although both [vice chairman] and I voted against waiving the 10-day posting period due to our belief that the pilots should have a chance to see the proposal and provide additional feedback to their reps, the motion ultimately passed.

Finally, the question of accepting the agreement was called and for the reasons described earlier, [vice chairman] and I both voted against the proposal. In summary, we felt it did not meet all the requirements our pilots expected. The final vote was 6-2 in favor of accepting the agreement, and on Wednesday members from Envoy, AAG, and ALPA drafted formal documents and signed the agreement.

This is not the outcome we would have preferred. Make no mistake, our pilots will now be compensated more than they would have been before this agreement and these changes do come with no contractual concessions. We are encouraged, however, that management's recognition of the need to improve pilot compensation serves as a starting point for securing additional improvements for our pilots going forward, and we recognize that much work remains.

Above all, we sincerely thank the pilots of Chicago for their engagement. We know that there are strong feelings both ways as to this recent agreement and we encourage you to continue to reach out as you have done so far.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---