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

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
AGREEMENT
Among
PINNACLE AIRLINES CORP.
And
PINNACLE AIRLINES, INC.
And the
AIR LINE PILOTS
In the Service of
PINNACLE AIRLINES, INC.
As Represented by the
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION
Parent Agreement
THIS AGREEMENT (“Parent Agreement”) is made and entered into among Pinnacle
Airlines Corp. (“Holdings”), Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. (“Pinnacle” or the “Company”) and the Air
Line Pilots Association (the “Association”).
WHEREAS Holdings is the parent holding company of Pinnacle and of Colgan Air, Inc.
(“Colgan”), and controls Pinnacle and Colgan, and
WHEREAS Holdings did not acquire Colgan for the purpose of or in order to
circumvent collective bargaining agreements between the Company and the Association,
and
WHEREAS the parties wish to protect and preserve the flying of the pilots employed
by Pinnacle and the pilots employed by Colgan, and they also wish to protect the ability of
Holdings to expand its portfolio of air carrier operations while protecting the career
opportunities of the Pinnacle and Colgan pilots, and
WHEREAS the Company and the Association, in negotiating job security and work
preservation provisions of their new collective bargaining agreement (the “Agreement”),
have reached certain agreements to which Holdings consents and by which Holdings agrees
to be bound, and
NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that:
1. Holdings and Pinnacle recognize the importance to the Pinnacle and Colgan
pilots of professional and career security, and they also recognize that such
security is an important component of the performance by the pilots of their
difficult and demanding profession in the interest of Pinnacle and Colgan.
Holdings and Pinnacle also recognize the importance to their success of the
stable platform provided by the Agreement. Holdings and Pinnacle have
freely entered into this Parent Agreement as a necessary and material
2
component of the Agreement and as an essential component of their own
business plans.
2. Holdings is familiar with Section 1 of the Agreement and with the definitions
in Section 2 of the Agreement (which apply to this Parent Agreement).
Holdings understands that the terms of Section 1 of the Agreement provide to
the pilots of Pinnacle essential job security provisions. As a result,
a. Holdings shall require that Pinnacle at all times comply with all
provisions of Section 1 of the Agreement.
b. Holdings shall require that Colgan at all times comply with paragraphs
3 through 7 of this Parent Agreement.
c. Holdings shall require that any air carrier described in paragraph 4 of
this Parent Agreement comply with the provisions of that paragraph.
d. Holdings shall not enter into a successor transaction, and shall not
permit Pinnacle to enter into such a transaction, unless it requires the
successor to comply with the terms of Section 1.D of the Agreement.
3. If Holdings decides to merge the operations of Pinnacle and Colgan, Section
1.E. of the Agreement shall apply.
4. If Holdings maintains control of Colgan and continues to operate Colgan under
its own separate operating certificate and Colgan continues to operate only
turboprop equipment, then, upon written request by the Association, following
concurrence of the Pinnacle and Colgan MECs, Holdings will take the following
steps respecting Colgan and Pinnacle:
a. The Pinnacle and Colgan pilot seniority lists shall be merged as
provided in Section 1.E.1.a of the Agreement.
b. Upon receipt of the merged seniority list, management representatives
with authority to negotiate on behalf of Pinnacle and Colgan shall meet
promptly with the Association for the purpose of negotiating an
agreement providing for the filling of vacancies and rights in case of
reduction (i.e., displacement and furlough) based upon the merged
seniority list. If requested by the Association, with the concurrence of
the Pinnacle and Colgan MECs, the agreement will provide for full
portability of longevity for a pilot who transfers from one subsidiary to
the other. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement within
thirty (30) days following their first meeting, unresolved issues shall
be submitted to expedited binding interest arbitration.
5. If Holdings maintains control of Colgan and Colgan acquires turbojet aircraft,
or, if Colgan enters into a service agreement with Delta Air Lines and, as a
result of the flying performed by Colgan pursuant to its Delta service
agreement, the number of aircraft operated by Pinnacle pursuant to its Delta
service agreement decreases by five (5) or more aircraft (either in one (1)
3
reduction or as the cumulative result of multiple reductions) and such aircraft
are not reallocated to other flying pursuant to a service agreement with
another air carrier with a duration of one (1) year or longer, then, upon
written request by the Association following concurrence of the Pinnacle and
Colgan MECs and except as provided in paragraph 6, below, Pinnacle and
Colgan shall be merged as provided in Section 1.E.1 of the Agreement.
6. If Holdings maintains control of Colgan and paragraph 5, above, is triggered,
but a merged Pinnacle/Colgan operation, as provided in paragraph 5, above,
is unable to perform the flying Holdings wishes it to perform because of legal
or regulatory restrictions or a restriction contained in the pilot collective
bargaining agreement of the mainline carrier for whom Holdings wishes to
perform flying, then, upon written request by the Association, following
concurrence of the Pinnacle and Colgan MECs, Holdings, Colgan and Pinnacle
will take the steps set forth in paragraphs a. through c., below:
a. The Pinnacle and Colgan pilot seniority lists shall be merged as
provided in Section 1.E.1.a of the Agreement.
b. Subject to paragraph 6.c., below, the collective bargaining agreements
covering Pinnacle and Colgan pilots shall be merged into a single
agreement covering both separate operating subsidiaries as provided
in Section 1.E.1.b. of the Agreement.
c. If Colgan pilots are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement
as of the date of the written request by the Association under this
paragraph 6, such that there are not two agreements to be “merged,”
the negotiations conducted under paragraph b, above, shall be for the
purpose of establishing a single agreement covering both separate
operating subsidiaries.
7. Notwithstanding paragraph 2, above, Holdings may directly or through a
subsidiary other than Pinnacle acquire one or more existing air carriers (i.e.,
an air carrier that has provided substantial operations as such for at least the
last twelve (12) consecutive months prior to the acquisition) and establish one
or more newly-created air carriers, and operate each such air carrier under its
own separate operating certificate, subject to the following, all of which shall
be legally binding conditions of the transaction:
a. With respect to a newly-acquired existing air carrier that operates only
turboprop aircraft and whose pilots are represented by the Association,
the provisions contained in paragraph 4.a. and 4.b., above, shall apply
in the same manner in which they apply to Pinnacle and Colgan with
the concurrence of the ALPA MECs for the applicable pilot groups.
b. With respect to a newly-acquired existing air carrier that operates only
turboprop aircraft and whose pilots are not represented by the
Association:
4
i. Holdings will require that Pinnacle and each such air carrier
promptly take the actions necessary to become a single
transportation system as that term is used by the National
Mediation Board.
ii. The Association will request a determination by the National
Mediation Board that Pinnacle and the other air carrier or air
carriers constitute a single transportation system for pilots.
Holdings, Pinnacle and each such other air carrier will not
oppose such application.
iii. Upon determination of a single transportation system, as
provided in paragraph ii, above, the provisions contained in
paragraphs 4, a. and b., above, shall apply in the same manner
in which they apply to Pinnacle and Colgan.
c. With respect to a newly-acquired existing air carrier that operates one
(1) or more turbojet aircraft and whose pilots are represented by the
Association, the provisions contained in paragraphs 5 and 6, above,
shall apply in the same manner in which they apply to Pinnacle and
Colgan with the concurrence of the ALPA MECs for the applicable pilot
groups. The Association will not undertake to apply or enforce the
merged collective agreement required by paragraph 6, if applicable,
earlier than twenty-four (24) months following the closing date of a
transaction by which an air carrier was acquired by Holding or
subsidiary of Holdings.
d. With respect to a newly-acquired existing air carrier that operates one
(1) or more turbojet aircraft and whose pilots are not represented by
the Association:
i. Holdings will require that Pinnacle and each such air carrier
promptly take the actions necessary to become a single
transportation system as that term is used by the National
Mediation Board.
ii. The Association will request a determination by the National
Mediation Board that Pinnacle and the other air carrier or air
carriers constitute a single transportation system for pilots.
Holdings, Pinnacle and each such other air carrier will not
oppose such application.
iii. Upon determination of a single transportation system, as
provided in paragraph ii, above, the provisions contained in
paragraphs 5 and 6, above, shall apply in the same manner in
which they apply to Pinnacle and Colgan.
 
That's TA1 parent letter. The company is abiding by TA2's parent agreement which has some more improvements but doesn't really pertain much to our current situation with mesaba.
 
Again...XJ LOA 6 was signed at a time when there was a transition in flying from 9E to XJ subject to an RFP from NWA. There was no transfer of aircraft or purchase invovled. It strictly was one pilot group realizing that the flying they were getting was at a loss to others and offering to help, by transferring airlines with some seniority.

In 2002, the shoe was on the other foot. Large shift in flying. No aircraft, just flying. The LOA was not reciprecated though, although it could/should have been.

This situation is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Even in its definition of the situation listed in the LOA.

1-2 or 1-3 isn't going to fly here. Let the unions negotiate. Give them sometime. You'll get a vote before it goes down. I expect to lose some seniority, you should too.
 
In 2002, the shoe was on the other foot. Large shift in flying. No aircraft, just flying. The LOA was not reciprecated though, although it could/should have been.

You mean when 9E transferred 11 more Saabs to XJ? The shoe wasn't on the other foot.
 
No. I was actually talking about when 9E went from absolute zero flying in MSP and DTW to more aircraft, crews, departures, and ground serviced cities than XJ had. This was the situation that the LOA was written for, but never reciprocated.

The transfer is Saabs happened through a growth period, and the CRJ transfer happen during a time 9E was severly overstaffed. Neither caused furloughs. 9E in 97 and XJ in 2002 caused furloughs and downgrades.

I didn't read about these things, I was there and involved
 
Let's keep in mind that 9E DID NOT BUY XJ... Pinnacle Holdings bought XJ

Now, with that being said... XJ's contract has successership provisions for being bought and also for a transfer of a large portion of the fleet (>=40%).

In the being bought outright section. The purchaser must agree to and abid by the terms of our contract. XJ as a turboprop only operator will keep XJ's contract at a minimum. Which as a side note would make our Q-400 CAs higher paid than 9E's 200 CAs.

In the transfer of fleet section. It states our pilots will go with the aircraft.

So, mgmts. decision is to either
1. create one senority list with ALPA deciding integration
2. create two senority lists with integration with XJ-9E on one side and XJ-Colgan on the other.
It will be easier and cheaper to create one list.

Now as far as integration... I dunno. DOH screws 9E and Colgan guys. Percentage screws XJ and 9E guys. I'm sure there will be some multi-faceted formula to screw everyone. It's not fair unless no one is happy.

Lastly 9E contract... If I were a 9E negotiator, I would walk XJ's contract into the arbitrator and say "In an effort to streamline integration, we want this contract "as is", to include Dec. 10 snapbacks." This would aid combining us, and also give the company a 2 year window to get things straightened out. Negotiations would start next December.

So what is the scenario that doesn't screw 9E guys? The best for 9E is the LOA. What would XJ do if the shoe were on the other foot? (See 1997)
 
What is the exact wording of the scope provisions that say "the pilots go with the airplanes?" If I remember correctly (I don't have it with me, and it's been a few days), it says the acquiring company must "offer employment" to the XJ pilots. It doesn't specifically state that they go with the airplanes and retain their seniority. Having being bent over repeatedly the past 5 years, I wouldn't put it past our management to follow that to the letter. They'd offer employment as first year FOs and scream all the way to court they're complying with the terms in the contract.
 
So let me get this straight. Your using language from an LOA that was signed before you were here, in a situation you know nothing about, which was actually a good deal for those involved to screw a fellow pilot and protect yourself. Chill out. The unions are there to work this out and protect as much seniority as they can. Expect to lose some, I do.
 
What is the exact wording of the scope provisions that say "the pilots go with the airplanes?" If I remember correctly (I don't have it with me, and it's been a few days), it says the acquiring company must "offer employment" to the XJ pilots. It doesn't specifically state that they go with the airplanes and retain their seniority. Having being bent over repeatedly the past 5 years, I wouldn't put it past our management to follow that to the letter. They'd offer employment as first year FOs and scream all the way to court they're complying with the terms in the contract.
Two words: Self Help
 
Two words: Self Help


Oh, I'm all for that. Frankly, I think it's the only way to get anything fair for the three pilot groups. Unfortunately, management seems to play the NMB like a violin, and I'm not very optimistic about getting to the 30 day cooling off period much less a full on release.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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 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.
 
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'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 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.
 
Just don't be surprised when you lose a lot of battles. PCL has become good at this.
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!
 

Latest resources

Back
Top