I agree and think alpa would be the better choice between the two for Colgan but I am guessing that a lot of the problems with colgan organizing is the fact that no one thought they would work there for more then two years. It has always been a company that you went to to get PIC and get out. They never saw the value in getting a union because they would soon have one at a new airline. a few people are dead set against alpa and organized labor but in the end the argument comes down to the lesser of two evils. Alpa may not be perfect but it does pretty good.

 

Why entertain the IBT? As you said, ALPA needs new blood. Colgan pilots need work rules and a contract. They don't need to spend a bunch of energy revitalizing ALPA.

The most important issue is that Colgan gets A union. Better the second choice than none at all.

 

[QUOTE=newarkblows;443674]I am guessing that a lot of the problems with colgan organizing is the fact that no one thought they would work there for more then two years. .....They never saw the value in getting a union because they would soon have one at a new airline. QUOTE]


With almost nobody hiring, folks are going to be staying much longer. And it is time to end the era of pay and work rules BY MEMO.

 

Just say no to Teamsters. ALPA will suit you better.

 

[quote=FlyJSH;443693]Right ON ! and that's one of the reasons that here at pinnacle we cannot settle for anything less than a fair contract. Same goes for Colgan and the other regionals.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but one seniority list is now impossible because of the reversal arbitrators ruling in the Colgan purchase saying that PNCL did not buy Colgan to create an alter ego airline...Meaning the Company as in PNCL can keep the list seperate and the Company just got a slap on the wrist...So even if Colgan did vote in ALPA it would be useless to the fact of mergering any pilot list...The only thing that would be benefical is that we would be under one Union. ALPA vs ALPA...Not ALPA vs Teamsters or something else. But I do believe the issue of mergering list is a dead one folks.

 

Found this in my email...should explain in a little more detail

2. Colgan Scope Grievance



The arbitrator has issued a new interpretation of his ruling in which he found Pinnacle Airlines in violation of the collective bargaining agreement with ALPA and found that Pinnacle Airlines Corp. was in effect, operating as an alter ego of Pinnacle Airlines Inc. in regards to the acquisition of Colgan Air.



Unfortunately, the arbitrator’s new interpretation initially appears to absolve Pinnacle Airlines Corp. of liability in regards to the Colgan Scope Grievance.



Your MEC is very disappointed with this latest development. We believe that this new interpretation contains many inconsistencies. ALPA attorneys have sent the arbitrator a letter requesting clarification of this new interpretation. This new interpretation is by no means final and your MEC continues to pursue all means necessary to reach a favorable outcome. We will notify you as soon as there are any developments.

 

There is more to the scope grievance that is not public at this time. You can expect the mec to update this soon. The scope issue as a whole is very much involved with current negotiations.

 

If there would be a seniority list merger between a unionized group and an un-unionized group, it must be fair and equitable. The union would negotiate with management of the non-unionized group to determine what fair and equitable means.

I don't know if the purchase of Colgan by PNCL could be considerred a "'covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers'" but here is the law for you to guys to decide:

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008
SEC. 117. LABOR INTEGRATION. (a) LABOR INTEGRATION- With respect to any covered transaction involving two or more covered air carriers that results in the combination of crafts or classes that are subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.), sections 3 and 13 of the labor protective provisions imposed by the Civil Aeronautics Board in the Allegheny-Mohawk merger (as published at 59 C.A.B. 45) shall apply to the integration of covered employees of the covered air carriers; except that--

* (1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent's internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section; and
(2) the requirements of any collective bargaining agreement that may be applicable to the terms of integration involving covered employees of a covered air carrier shall not be affected by the requirements of this section as to the employees covered by that agreement, so long as those provisions allow for the protections afforded by sections 3 and 13 of the Allegheny-Mohawk provisions.

(b) DEFINITIONS- In this section, the following definitions apply:

* (1) AIR CARRIER- The term `air carrier' means an air carrier that holds a certificate issued under chapter 411 of title 49, United States Code.
(2) COVERED AIR CARRIER- The term `covered air carrier' means an air carrier that is involved in a covered transaction.
(3) COVERED EMPLOYEE- The term `covered employee' means an employee who--
o (A) is not a temporary employee; and
(B) is a member of a craft or class that is subject to the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).
(4) COVERED TRANSACTION- The term `covered transaction' means--
o (A) a transaction for the combination of multiple air carriers into a single air carrier; and which
(B) involves the transfer of ownership or control of--
+ (i) 50 percent or more of the equity securities (as defined in section 101 of title 11, United States Code) of an air carrier; or
(ii) 50 percent or more (by value) of the assets of the air carrier.

(c) APPLICATION- This section shall not apply to any covered transaction involving a covered air carrier that took place before the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) EFFECTIVENESS OF PROVISION- This section shall become effective on the date of enactment of this Act and shall continue in effect in fiscal years after fiscal year 2008.
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/...10JBN0k9:e685:

 

it has to be. before a new contract can be signed and put into place, ALL outstanding grievances must be closed. Scope violation is one of those grievances.