Kell... You are following me.. You do that too much and I put you to work! MSA CBA 1.D.1 is interesting in that it says "offer employment". The LOA #6 has a poison pill of "effective for 15 years" and was effective in 1997. I see ways both sides can maneuver with that language. I'm staying neutral on here and have already been talking with one of the MSA reps. Nobody is out to screw anybody- our biggest issue (from all carriers under the Corp umbrella) is the fact that the company wants to pay as little as possible on labor- the ability to slash XJ seniority/longevity by half is big dollar signs in their eyes. The MEC's will get together and look at all options, we are still waiting on hearing what the company's "plan" is. I put up a ton of copy/paste facts so everyone can be on the same page with actual contract language, as much as Internet forums and facts seem to want to be offset.
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
9e / XJ Integration
- Thread starter NDPILOT
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
From the MEC reps that I have talked to. Our unions are playing better than the FI fodder. The idea of staple, or 1-3 is not going to happen. No one is pushing for it. And there is a position to self help if it is imposed.
Use all that energy to integrated the list FAIRLY between all the groups, and force the best of all the contracts on them. Look at the DAL/NWA merger. List integration cost some seniority, but didn't cost huge sums of money, downgrades, or furloughs. In the end it was a smooth transition. That's what we need. If you get your panties in a wad, there will be a huge fight, and nobody wants that.
Use all that energy to integrated the list FAIRLY between all the groups, and force the best of all the contracts on them. Look at the DAL/NWA merger. List integration cost some seniority, but didn't cost huge sums of money, downgrades, or furloughs. In the end it was a smooth transition. That's what we need. If you get your panties in a wad, there will be a huge fight, and nobody wants that.
I'm following you too. Seems you want the LOA provisions to hold so you can be higher on the list and fly a larger aircraft. Again, LOA 6 did not modify Section 1. The list integration would be up to ALPA, and even with a 1-3 you'll be swinging my gear on a 900. Why don't you think of the greater good of everyone and not just yourself.
I'm all for a fair integration. The thing that really grinds my gears is that is not what was offered to our pilots. You can argue samantics about times being different but that was the agreement. The one thing that worries me is that you are forgetting who you are coming to work for. This company will walk right over you to save a buck.
Last edited:
At the time it was actually considered a courtesy. An even better one than preferential hiring (which is what most would have offered). It would be like XJ now offering Mesa seniority because we realize that they are losing NY flying and we are gaining it. There was no change of aircraft or purchase.
It grinds my gears that most that are talking about this LOA have no idea of the situation that it was used for. Also, that it wasn't reciprocated when the situation presented itself for what it was designed for (XJ 2002). I would have taken it over my downgrade and been basically a street CA. Lots of XJ guys got pink slips while 9E went from 300-1500 pilots. The stock answer then was, "We're not taking your flying. That was Northwest's flying."
It's not Mgmt. decision to impose this LOA. That is a contract between 9E and XJ pilot groups. If Mgmt. gets involved we should all walk (I know XJ will). We are not a naive pilot group. Our current MEC has felt with a NWA strike (we walked too), the 2004 contract (and pseudo strike), the BK, and the concessionary contract. I actually hope our MEC can help you guys in securing a passable TA. This process can either be mutually beneficial or it can be a huge fight. You decide.
It grinds my gears that most that are talking about this LOA have no idea of the situation that it was used for. Also, that it wasn't reciprocated when the situation presented itself for what it was designed for (XJ 2002). I would have taken it over my downgrade and been basically a street CA. Lots of XJ guys got pink slips while 9E went from 300-1500 pilots. The stock answer then was, "We're not taking your flying. That was Northwest's flying."
It's not Mgmt. decision to impose this LOA. That is a contract between 9E and XJ pilot groups. If Mgmt. gets involved we should all walk (I know XJ will). We are not a naive pilot group. Our current MEC has felt with a NWA strike (we walked too), the 2004 contract (and pseudo strike), the BK, and the concessionary contract. I actually hope our MEC can help you guys in securing a passable TA. This process can either be mutually beneficial or it can be a huge fight. You decide.
One last comment on that LOA. It was signed in 1997. That means there are about 50 people on the 9E list, about 100 on the XJ list , and maybe 5 on the 9L list that are still employed by those carriers at the time that it was signed. Don't imply how the current XJ group would do the same to you, if the shoe was on the other foot. Your position on integration reflects only on the current pilot groups. If you think a 1-2 or 1-3 is fair because you think that it is quid pro quo, your truly showing how much of a tool you are.
Easy buddie. I never suggested anything. I just think XJ needs to remember who it's dealing with. This company will gladly slash your seniority in half with a smile if it will save them a buck. I feel its time to work together. Just don't be surprised when you lose a lot of battles. PCL has become good at this.
I at no point said I favored the LOA. You don't know me and to be honest I see multiple areas of the LOA that the MSA MEC could use to debunk it's validity. Time will tell.
SEVEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,563
Uncle Phil doesn't realize who he is dealing with. Aour pilot group has been around the block a few times with management. At the end of the day, Pinnacle management might think they have the upper had, but they will be greatly misunderstood. XJ pilots will not stand for anything that is not fair and equitable. SLI with fences to protect all pilots...not just Colgan or 9E. It's hard to have backbone in a pilot group that is largely comprised of pay to fly applicants and foreign pilots who are just happy to fly a jet at any pay. Sorry to say it but it's just the way it is.....like it or not. Our MEC will take this thing to the bitter end flighting all the way down if there is some crap in the works for a 2-1 or anything close to that. We'll have to see how it plays out. I'm causiously optomistic at this point. But that could change if Phil decides to get greedy. Game on!
Moustache
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 4, 2006
- Posts
- 341
A lawyer will tell you it might. After signing it the Mesaba pilots had three subsequent opportunities, perhaps four, to bargain for the removal of this LOA. To my knowledge, they never attempted to. In fact, in 2003 or 04 they tried to use it to force Mesaba pilots onto the PCL list.
Instead of bashing each other look at the facts. PNCL Corp has a decision to make. They can try this under section one of both Agreements or under the LOA known as '6' in the Mesaba Agreement and '21' in PNCL's.
Section One will lead to two, possibly three Arbitrations. It will be dangerous for the Mesaba pilots to pursue. They may lose the argument over a seniority list integration and all go to PCL as new hires. This will no doubt be management’s position. Mesaba's scope is not very good on this issue. If the pilots prevail and the Arbitrator rules for an SLI then you must have another Arbitration for that. Once the SLI/Collective Bargaining representation is worked out attention will turn to the surviving CBA. Both current Agreements have a provision that all disputes in this process will be settled by Arbitration. Three or four years from now an Arbitrator will hand you your next Agreement. It will most likely be of short duration. Advantage to PNCL Corp - no possibility of a declaration of Impasse for 5 or 6 years but the Mesaba pilots may bring all their longevity with them. If they come to PCL as new hires it will be a big win for mangement. Second advantage - the entire process is interest Arbitration with little negotiation.
If it is done under the LOA it may or may not result in Arbitration. If the Mesaba pilots do not want to accept this they may take it to expedited Arbitration under Section one of their Agreement. If they are successful then the process above starts. If they are not - PCL will have a very angry pilot group that is still in section Six negotiations. This is a risk management will be very loath to take.
A third avenue would be to attempt to negotiate with both pilot groups. The resulting Agreement would have to be no less favorable to the company than the current agreement. They know that won't happen.
If you take what management has written at face value they do not consider this a merger or acquisition. They are going to force the Mesaba pilots to make some very tough decisions.
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
SEVEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,563
I'm not your FO yet. Lots of 9E guys are forgetting it's a union matter. If we don't get something that's fair, we walk or it goes to mediation. Is there a chance we here at XJ could get screwed really, really, bad? You bet. But I still have faith that even Phil and his management team don't want this to get ugly and drag on.......could be wrong though. The Mesaba MEC will be running the show going forward as 9E MEC has asked us to lead the way.
Have you even been paying attention with what is happening at 9E? Our union has been helpless with the NMB not moving one bit! If anything they have put us on ice, AGAIN! And YOU can't walk until the NMB releases you into self help, then you have a 30 day cooling period, and then you can strike. The only other "walk" is you quit your job or get furloughed when assets (read: CRJs only) from your airline are transferred to Pinnacle.
Faith and Phil should NEVER go in the same sentence. Your faith has been sorely misplaced. And you will regret it. 9E mgt is out to screw you. Wake up and smell the screwing! This will not drag on. Nothing stops Phil and the gang from doing an asset transfer and moving your airplanes, and then merging the props to Colgan. That union and ALPA merger policy (SLI rules) will only come into effect when it is a MERGER.
SEVEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,563
Listen, we can go back and forth all day long. The way I read the scope language as posted earlier allows Mesaba pilots to go with the airplanes in the event they are TRANSFERED (ie Asset Transfer of airplanes) to another company. It seems you are missing the find print in the language. Phil will come across some major road blocks if he tries to pull this off. Just sayn'.
WMUSIGPI
The $100,000,000 Question
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Posts
- 2,219
Bull!!!! you can all walk whenever you darn well please. See the NYC bus strike a couple years ago. The only thing you need is a group (and especially the union leaders) with a giant set of brass ones to basically tell the NMB and the government to blow them! They can't and won't throw everyone in jail. Is it risky, sure. So is everything else about this job.
City bus systems don't fall under the RLA. The American pilots tried that with a sick out in the 90's over an acquisition/merger. The monetary damages awarded by the Federal Courts essentially broke the APA. Their next contract after that was concessionary in order to satisfy the damage award. If an ALPA property tries that they will be excommunicated by ALPA so fast they won't recognize the quicksand they will be standing in. PNCL management has in the past used the Federal Court system and appears to be willing to use it again.
Last edited:
WMUSIGPI
The $100,000,000 Question
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Posts
- 2,219
SEVEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,563
Yes it will. Our lawyers are ready too.
MAIR used the Federal Court system too. Believe me, this is my 5th holdings company since I started here. XJ has been through alot, maybe more than 9E. We have been successfully released in the past. Our MEC is strong, resilient, and resourceful. They can actually be an asset to 9E negotiations and bring a signable TA to the table. Don't think we haven't dealt with a management team like this before. If we work together, we can succeed. If you (all negative posters) continue to propogate the negative, you will only cause a division in the pilot groups and we will DEFINATELY fail. Time to get on the same team here.
Do you think each pilot domicile should have it's own contract?
WMUSIGPI
The $100,000,000 Question
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2003
- Posts
- 2,219
I suppose that would be up to the individual pilot group. In some ways there are local rules in one place that aren't in others now.
machaf
L.B.C.
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Posts
- 189
So you think this is going to turn out differently than the Colgan - PCL integration arbitration? Precedent is already set bud... just saying.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
