Colgan/Pinnacle Seniority List Merger Question

[CAPIP1998]

I would like to know why everything I read indicates that PNCL pilots believe that a list merger MUST happen. Is there any proof that a list merger is inevitable? (serious question)

[Seggy]

One list will be better for both pilot groups. It will prevent a whipsaw and combine us to be one collective bargaining group. With two separate groups, management can play off one another to get what they want, in their favor. With one united group, we hold the ACE card.

[sherpa]

That is true seg. But is there any indication that it WILL happen

[higney85]

Originally Posted by Seggy

One list will be better for both pilot groups. It will prevent a whipsaw and combine us to be one collective bargaining group. With two separate groups, management can play off one another to get what they want, in their favor. With one united group, we hold the ACE card.

Exactly

Originally Posted by sherpa

That is true seg. But is there any indication that it WILL happen

YES. An arbitrator ruling, a Union Grievance still on file, and Scope being at the top of our negotiating list should be a good indication that we want 1 true list. We WANT fences in place. We (at PNCL) are very hopeful that the ALPA drive is sucessful for the CJC folks. One union, one list (but operating seperate) keeps both sides from being pawns and allows growth and security for both sides (if there is such a thing currently in the industry). Nobody is calling for a "Staplejob" and nobody is saying "I wanna bid the Q because we bought them", the pinnacle pilots understand that the colgan pilots are just "along for the ride", but also understand that the mgmt team we are dealing with is far from the "mom and pop" setup that Colgan had before. Colgan going ALPA and both groups on a combined list with fences is the best thing for both pilot groups. ALPA may not be what it was back in the day, but in this current situation of the industry ALPA is the best thing for both groups to have. Nobody but mgmt wants a whipsaw and it should be rather obvious that a whipsaw potential is exactly what Pinnacle Corp (mgmt) wants.

[Seggy]

Originally Posted by sherpa

That is true seg. But is there any indication that it WILL happen

I want to PREVENT it from happening.

Bottom line is that if Colgan really wanted to be a separate company, the airline would never have been sold to a holding company.

Vote ALPA!

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by sherpa

That is true seg. But is there any indication that it WILL happen

Are you a fortune teller? Psychic perhaps?

Seggy is correct, you position yourself (your profession) in a position that will shield you from as many negative aspects as possible.

[L-16B]

Originally Posted by sherpa

That is true seg. But is there any indication that it WILL happen

According to Pinnacle's MEC chairman, the only way the lists can be merged is if Pinnacle Holdings wanted to do so. As of now, they don't. But they surely have no long term goals for Colgan being seperate, as it would be much more efficient to have a merger. The arbitrator said that it was a violation of scope, but that the company did not have to do anything. This is yet another solid reason to vote in ALPA. I spent a good 5 hours with ALPA and Pinnacle's MEC chairman today, and I have seen the light.

[ATN_Pilot]

Originally Posted by L-16B

I spent a good 5 hours with ALPA and Pinnacle's MEC chairman today, and I have seen the light.

Scott Erickson is the man! Glad he's making it to these events. As Seggy can tell you, during the last drive, I was the only one from the PCL MEC that ever came. Thank God that Scott is in charge now. He really does want a fair deal for both sides. You'll never hear the word "staple" out of his mouth.

[L-16B]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

Scott Erickson is the man! Glad he's making it to these events. As Seggy can tell you, during the last drive, I was the only one from the PCL MEC that ever came. Thank God that Scott is in charge now. He really does want a fair deal for both sides. You'll never hear the word "staple" out of his mouth.

Yes, he was very informative and nice. It means a lot to someone in our situation when a guy from PCL MEC showed up and took the time on his day off to come help inform. It's ashame that not more people showed up, we need to do a much better job getting the word on the street, and I'd like to help out with that.

[CAPIP1998]

Originally Posted by higney85

YES. An arbitrator ruling, a Union Grievance still on file, and Scope being at the top of our negotiating list should be a good indication that we want 1 true list. We WANT fences in place. We (at PNCL) are very hopeful that the ALPA drive is sucessful for the CJC folks. One union, one list (but operating seperate) keeps both sides from being pawns and allows growth and security for both sides (if there is such a thing currently in the industry). Nobody is calling for a "Staplejob" and nobody is saying "I wanna bid the Q because we bought them", the pinnacle pilots understand that the colgan pilots are just "along for the ride", but also understand that the mgmt team we are dealing with is far from the "mom and pop" setup that Colgan had before. Colgan going ALPA and both groups on a combined list with fences is the best thing for both pilot groups. ALPA may not be what it was back in the day, but in this current situation of the industry ALPA is the best thing for both groups to have. Nobody but mgmt wants a whipsaw and it should be rather obvious that a whipsaw potential is exactly what Pinnacle Corp (mgmt) wants.

Let me first start by saying that I mean no disrespect to the PNCL pilots or ALPA. I want nothing more than a fair and equitable working contract for BOTH PNCL and CJC.

First, I think we can all agree that each and every one of us wants what we perceive is best for us. It is very clear that the PNCL pilot's want a list merger, which is what you perceive is best for you. That does not necessarily mean that a list merger is best for CJC. As an FO here I have listened to many CA's explain what they want. Two things are clear to me. One, the colgan pilots most definitely want a union, and two, we want a union that will represent OUR interests. I think the major problem (and why we get into these much heated discussions) is that the CJC pilots (myself included) do not know that the interests of PNCL pilots are the same as the CJC pilots. They may be, they may not be (although it's highly doubtful in my opinion). The simple fact that you are so forceful in pushing ALPA is surely reason enough for many of us to doubt your good intentions.

Secondly, I have read over and over that we (CJC pilots) need to be educated on the benefits of ALPA, and that we cannot state specific reasons for not wanting ALPA represent us. To this let me say that we do not live in a vacuum, and many of us have friends and family that work for airlines that are represented by ALPA. Many people are not happy with the way that ALPA has represented them, and they have "educated" us as well.

Each and every one of us is entitled to an opinion, and I would expect that people will stand up and argue for something they believe in. In fact, I would be disappointed if they didn't. But at the end of the day, it's one man, one vote. Please respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with them.

So where do I stand on this issue? I am still trying to "educate" myself, which brings me back to my original question. Is a list merger unavoidable? To be clear, is there some way that a list merger could be forced upon us, and will it happen? I think this question goes to the heart of why so many CJC pilots fear ALPA representation.

[ATN_Pilot]

Originally Posted by CAPIP1998

It is very clear that the PNCL pilot's want a list merger, which is what you perceive is best for you. That does not necessarily mean that a list merger is best for CJC.

A list merger would be best for everyone, including you. Without a merger, a never-ending whipsaw will take place. Phildo will transfer airplanes back and forth, threaten furloughs at one while hiring at the other, etc... The only way to stop this is one list.

I think the major problem (and why we get into these much heated discussions) is that the CJC pilots (myself included) do not know that the interests of PNCL pilots are the same as the CJC pilots. They may be, they may not be (although it's highly doubtful in my opinion).

I believe your interests are absolutely the same, but for the sake of argument, let's assume they aren't. Under ALPA, who represents your interests? Your own MEC! ALPA National doesn't get involved in telling you what to do, they only provide resources that your MEC requests. So, if you have different interests than the PCL pilots, then your MEC will protect your interests while the PCL MEC protects their interests. ALPA National doesn't get involved at the local level. It is always your pilots representing you.

Secondly, I have read over and over that we (CJC pilots) need to be educated on the benefits of ALPA, and that we cannot state specific reasons for not wanting ALPA represent us. To this let me say that we do not live in a vacuum, and many of us have friends and family that work for airlines that are represented by ALPA. Many people are not happy with the way that ALPA has represented them, and they have "educated" us as well.

And the sad truth is, most of those people couldn't even tell you valid reasons that they are unhappy with ALPA. They blame ALPA for things that are caused by the Bush Administration or the NMB, they complain about ALPA not striking because they don't know that the RLA prohibits a strike, etc... The next time one of your relatives or friends starts complaining about ALPA, ask them what the difference between the RLA and NLRA is. If they can't answer the question, then they really aren't qualified to criticize the actions of their union.

To be clear, is there some way that a list merger could be forced upon us, and will it happen? I think this question goes to the heart of why so many CJC pilots fear ALPA representation.

If management decides to merge the list, then there's nothing that the Teamsters could do to stop it if they represent you. It's all up to management.

[jynxyjoe]

Originally Posted by CAPIP1998

Let me first start by saying that I mean no disrespect to the PNCL pilots or ALPA. I want nothing more than a fair and equitable working contract for BOTH PNCL and CJC.

First, I think we can all agree that each and every one of us wants what we perceive is best for us. It is very clear that the PNCL pilot's want a list merger, which is what you perceive is best for you. That does not necessarily mean that a list merger is best for CJC. As an FO here I have listened to many CA's explain what they want. Two things are clear to me. One, the colgan pilots most definitely want a union, and two, we want a union that will represent OUR interests. I think the major problem (and why we get into these much heated discussions) is that the CJC pilots (myself included) do not know that the interests of PNCL pilots are the same as the CJC pilots. They may be, they may not be (although it's highly doubtful in my opinion). The simple fact that you are so forceful in pushing ALPA is surely reason enough for many of us to doubt your good intentions.

Secondly, I have read over and over that we (CJC pilots) need to be educated on the benefits of ALPA, and that we cannot state specific reasons for not wanting ALPA represent us. To this let me say that we do not live in a vacuum, and many of us have friends and family that work for airlines that are represented by ALPA. Many people are not happy with the way that ALPA has represented them, and they have "educated" us as well.

Each and every one of us is entitled to an opinion, and I would expect that people will stand up and argue for something they believe in. In fact, I would be disappointed if they didn't. But at the end of the day, it's one man, one vote. Please respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with them.

So where do I stand on this issue? I am still trying to "educate" myself, which brings me back to my original question. Is a list merger unavoidable? To be clear, is there some way that a list merger could be forced upon us, and will it happen? I think this question goes to the heart of why so many CJC pilots fear ALPA representation.

And...... sigh.

[higney85]

Originally Posted by CAPIP1998

Let me first start by saying that I mean no disrespect to the PNCL pilots or ALPA. I want nothing more than a fair and equitable working contract for BOTH PNCL and CJC.

First, I think we can all agree that each and every one of us wants what we perceive is best for us. It is very clear that the PNCL pilot's want a list merger, which is what you perceive is best for you. That does not necessarily mean that a list merger is best for CJC. As an FO here I have listened to many CA's explain what they want. Two things are clear to me. One, the colgan pilots most definitely want a union, and two, we want a union that will represent OUR interests. I think the major problem (and why we get into these much heated discussions) is that the CJC pilots (myself included) do not know that the interests of PNCL pilots are the same as the CJC pilots. They may be, they may not be (although it's highly doubtful in my opinion). The simple fact that you are so forceful in pushing ALPA is surely reason enough for many of us to doubt your good intentions.

Secondly, I have read over and over that we (CJC pilots) need to be educated on the benefits of ALPA, and that we cannot state specific reasons for not wanting ALPA represent us. To this let me say that we do not live in a vacuum, and many of us have friends and family that work for airlines that are represented by ALPA. Many people are not happy with the way that ALPA has represented them, and they have "educated" us as well.

Each and every one of us is entitled to an opinion, and I would expect that people will stand up and argue for something they believe in. In fact, I would be disappointed if they didn't. But at the end of the day, it's one man, one vote. Please respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with them.

So where do I stand on this issue? I am still trying to "educate" myself, which brings me back to my original question. Is a list merger unavoidable? To be clear, is there some way that a list merger could be forced upon us, and will it happen? I think this question goes to the heart of why so many CJC pilots fear ALPA representation.

I respect your thoughts and understand that what the CJC folks want is different than the PNCL folks. I also grew up in the airline world. My father has been around a certain airline that has thrown out ALPA in favor of "in house" only to bring ALPA back in and have (still) the industry leading contract. I have had the speeches, and I also have MY own views that are different than his and his respected company peers. Collectively I can see both CJC and PNCL are under the same "umbrella of coverage", beyond that I think seperate is best as far as the day-to-day stuff.


As to you avoidable/unavoidable question- I don't have an answer and I will not speculate or pass on the "gossip" from our side of the fence. All I will say is the PNCL folks look at Colgan as our brothers and sisters (even though not by our choices respectively) but want the best for both sides, and a fence is I think the only aspect that both seem to want for sure regardless of unions.

You are right- you have one vote and one voice. Without going into politics we all know that even people that vote for the same person still have different hopes and ideals when they cast their vote.

[sherpa]

Originally Posted by CAPIP1998

Let me first start by saying that I mean no disrespect to the PNCL pilots or ALPA. I want nothing more than a fair and equitable working contract for BOTH PNCL and CJC.

First, I think we can all agree that each and every one of us wants what we perceive is best for us. It is very clear that the PNCL pilot's want a list merger, which is what you perceive is best for you. That does not necessarily mean that a list merger is best for CJC. As an FO here I have listened to many CA's explain what they want. Two things are clear to me. One, the colgan pilots most definitely want a union, and two, we want a union that will represent OUR interests. I think the major problem (and why we get into these much heated discussions) is that the CJC pilots (myself included) do not know that the interests of PNCL pilots are the same as the CJC pilots. They may be, they may not be (although it's highly doubtful in my opinion). The simple fact that you are so forceful in pushing ALPA is surely reason enough for many of us to doubt your good intentions.

Secondly, I have read over and over that we (CJC pilots) need to be educated on the benefits of ALPA, and that we cannot state specific reasons for not wanting ALPA represent us. To this let me say that we do not live in a vacuum, and many of us have friends and family that work for airlines that are represented by ALPA. Many people are not happy with the way that ALPA has represented them, and they have "educated" us as well.

Each and every one of us is entitled to an opinion, and I would expect that people will stand up and argue for something they believe in. In fact, I would be disappointed if they didn't. But at the end of the day, it's one man, one vote. Please respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with them.

So where do I stand on this issue? I am still trying to "educate" myself, which brings me back to my original question. Is a list merger unavoidable? To be clear, is there some way that a list merger could be forced upon us, and will it happen? I think this question goes to the heart of why so many CJC pilots fear ALPA representation.

I think your sentinment echoes those of many of the CJC group. They are afraid of the prospect of ALPA "favoring" the larger pilot group and trying to force a merged seniority list. They also site the USairways merger as an example of the ALPA merger policy gone bad. Many are also very turned off by what they feel are threatening statements and intimidation by the pinnacle pilots.

To all of that I have to ask: What does the IBT offer in terms of a scenario where a merged seniority list is imposed upon us? Will they drop the CJC group because they know that they will ulitmately lose us after the merger? What is their experience with merging pilot groups? What funds and resources do they make available to a small group like CJC in the event something like this happens?

In the end, I think right now ALPA is the best measure of protection we have in this situation. ALPA also has a vested interest in making this eventual integration a fair one as they stand to lose other pilot groups in the future if it goes bad. ALPA also is our best shot at possibly getting the FAA to change some of the rest requirements, duty limits and other schedule regulations that only pilots understand. ALPA is not just about getting better per diem etc at CJC, It is also about promoting pilots interests to the government, the public and amongst our peers.

My vote for ALPA will have as much to do with non CJC-PNCL issues as it will with it.

PS: something to think about. A friend of mine who happens to be MEC member of piedmont ALPA posed an interesting argument for integration with pncl. He said that for us to negotiate work rules as good as the poor ones pinnacle currently operates under (which are better than ours by a lot) will take years. If we merge with them we will automatically get bumped up to their level and will profit from their current contract negotiations which will close soon (esp with the prospect of a much more labor friendly administration coming into office in jan). This will result in a a substantial pay raise as well for the Q and we will have the leverage of over 2000 pilots instead of a measely 500. That is a pretty generous offer from the pncl pilots, if that were to be the case which i think it can be, considering they have worked very hard and taken many risks and did all the battling to win over better pay and workrules. I would feel indebted if that turned out to be the case.

[L-16B]

Originally Posted by CAPIP1998

Let me first start by saying that I mean no disrespect to the PNCL pilots or ALPA. I want nothing more than a fair and equitable working contract for BOTH PNCL and CJC.

First, I think we can all agree that each and every one of us wants what we perceive is best for us. It is very clear that the PNCL pilot's want a list merger, which is what you perceive is best for you. That does not necessarily mean that a list merger is best for CJC. As an FO here I have listened to many CA's explain what they want. Two things are clear to me. One, the colgan pilots most definitely want a union, and two, we want a union that will represent OUR interests. I think the major problem (and why we get into these much heated discussions) is that the CJC pilots (myself included) do not know that the interests of PNCL pilots are the same as the CJC pilots. They may be, they may not be (although it's highly doubtful in my opinion). The simple fact that you are so forceful in pushing ALPA is surely reason enough for many of us to doubt your good intentions.

Secondly, I have read over and over that we (CJC pilots) need to be educated on the benefits of ALPA, and that we cannot state specific reasons for not wanting ALPA represent us. To this let me say that we do not live in a vacuum, and many of us have friends and family that work for airlines that are represented by ALPA. Many people are not happy with the way that ALPA has represented them, and they have "educated" us as well.

Each and every one of us is entitled to an opinion, and I would expect that people will stand up and argue for something they believe in. In fact, I would be disappointed if they didn't. But at the end of the day, it's one man, one vote. Please respect other people's opinions even if you don't agree with them.

So where do I stand on this issue? I am still trying to "educate" myself, which brings me back to my original question. Is a list merger unavoidable? To be clear, is there some way that a list merger could be forced upon us, and will it happen? I think this question goes to the heart of why so many CJC pilots fear ALPA representation.

Us as the pilots apoint people that we want, and set our own agenda. Pinnacle has absolutely nothing to do with our interests. I urge you to email/call Seggy.

[Cruise]

I openly welcome the list integration. Come what may....however it shakes out, it will be better for both company's pilot groups in the long term. That, after all, should be what we are striving to achieve. Improved work rules/ conditions for everyone!!!!

[kellwolf]

Here's what happened. Our scope language in our contract says that any flying done by Pinnacle Airlines or a company in possession of Pinnacle Airlines (ie Pinnacle Holdings) must be done by pilots on the Pinnacle seniority list. That means the Colgan flying as well since it is flying done by "a company in possession of Pinnacle Airlines." Colgan is owned by Pinnacle Holdings. Thing is, we don't WANT Colgan's flying. We just want to take away the whipsaw tool management has.

[surreal1221]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/NMB08018.xml

A new sub-selection to the rules proposed by the NMB says: “Where there is a certified representative on one of the affected carriers but no certified representative on the other(s), the Board will exercise its discretion and extend the certification only where there is more than a substantial majority, as determined by the Board. Authorization cards may only be used to supplement the showing of interest necessary to trigger an election; they may not be used towards getting certification extended.” According to the TTD, this new provision would make it harder for workers to retain their union representation in a merger between two carriers where workers are represented at one carrier but not the other.

While the article talks about the DAL/NWA Merger. . .the rule change very well could affect the ability of Colganites to organize under any union banner.

Interesting rule change. . .glad someone is looking out for the interests of all unionized workers.

[CAPIP1998]

Ok, so I've spent a decent amount of time the past couple days actually looking into the pertinent case history with the NMB. What I've found is quite interesting.

First, IF Pinnacle and Colgan are determined to be a "Single Transportation System", then the PNCL ALPA certificate would be extended to include all CJC pilots. This appears that it would occur regardless whether we have the Teamster's or not. If we are represented by the Teamsters on the date of the official merger, our Teamster certification would be nullified instantly and we would instantly become ALPA represented. If we were ALPA on the date of the merger, then we would follow the ALPA rules for merger.

However, there is a BIG caveat here, and that is PNCL and CJC MUST bet determined to be a "Single Transportation System". Some of the conditions the NMB looks at to determine this are:

-Whether the two systems are held out to be a single operating system
-Whether there is substantial intergration of operations
-Whether there is common marketing, markings, insignia, scheduling, logistics, and reservations
-Whether there is common control, common officers, and centralized labor relations and personnel functions

Clearly the judgement would be up to the NMB, but it appears to me that PNCL and CJC are not a single transportation system since we share almost nothing between our two operations. In fact, the only argument that I can see to be made for a single system is the common control from Pinnacle Holdings, and that our paychecks say Pinnacle on them.

If the NMB were to determine that we are NOT a single system then there would be no reason for a merger of the lists unless Pinnacle decided to do so on their own. If we start to integrate our operations then it would be prudent for us to be represented by ALPA for the list integration. However, while we are seperate operations it seems that our choice of union shouldn't hinge on the issue of seniority list integration.

P.s. I referenced NMB cases R-6701, and R-6515. As well as a few other cases that those cases cited.

[ATN_Pilot]

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.

[CAPIP1998]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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?

[ATN_Pilot]

Originally Posted by CAPIP1998

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]

Originally Posted by PCL_128

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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