Yes it was signed that way. And underneath JM's name, it said MSA MEC Merger Committee Chairman. That email is no longer on another forum, it was deleted. Again, ask your committee members, any one of the three. And to be clear, I was not banned from FI because of using a name. I was banned for 10 days for creative swearing in regards to someone too fat to fly (separate thread). Now, you state that my DOH is in fact sim date, and that is no longer correct, not since JCBA was signed in with LOA #2 Transition Agreement. My DOH has been corrected to my class date. As for Mr. Bloch, he hasn't reached a decision yet on the SLI. He is too busy trying to deal with a certain group that has disputed twice since the April 15th hearings/arguments closed.
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
Delay of 9E/XJ/9L list
- Thread starter Flyer1015
- Start date
- Watchers 28
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
Okay, I will make my opinion known that I think that email is a fake (just my opinion and I have not even seen it of course). I have texted my rep and am waiting for a reply. This still isn't passing the smell test. It makes no sense to dispute something that is in black and white twice. Also, Mr. Bloch could put that dispute to rest real quick.
Oh, there is. A "leaked email" on a forum that I didn't even see isn't strong enough, I am sorry. When I start hearing from people I trust, and not strangers, I will believe the evidence. Maybe you are right. I should just trust everything on FI.com (or a post on FI about another web board). I would even accept something from one of the Mesaba guys on here honestly. If Murph, Seven, or XJhawk said they hear about that email and it was true, I would go with that. Heck, that forum he got it from was probably a Pinnacle forum. Otherwise some XJ guys would have probably seen it and spoken up as well.
Last edited:
A certain group is disputing our change of our DOH from sim date to class date. That certain group is using the ALPA Merger policy as the driving force of their dispute, and are using the two conditions that are necessary under ALPA Merger policy. One, that a date of hire is a date when a pilot first appears upon the Companys payroll as a pilot. The second point under ALPA merger policy in defining a date of hire is when a pilot begins initial operational training required to perform his duties in airline operations. The argument, of course, being that we 9E pilots were not paid on a payroll on our class date, and that we were only officially paid on a payroll system on our sim date of hire.
You can choose to ignore facts, or you can choose to talk to your reps, and then get those same facts for yourself.
You can choose to ignore facts, or you can choose to talk to your reps, and then get those same facts for yourself.
xjhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 1,617
Flyer1015-I think the point you are making is pretty much what I heard-that is just one point of fact that has not been consistent with your seniority list. The issues are how there can be so many errors AND the fact that LOA 2 was about nonREV rights and not your DOH when it comes to SLI (or pay or anything else with Pinnacle Airlines-AND ALPA)
I have stated before and will again. I think if everyone had the same point in time (class date) and that was your official DOH I would be fine with it. I was even unaware that the company you chose to accept a job with had that policy. I would have been fine with an "adjustment"-if that was agreed upon (which I have heard it was not for SLI purposes). I have, since the crappy proposal by your merger committee, changed my mind and think that you should get what you have been trying to give. I think 9E DOH should be what is on their badge and what ALPA defines as DOH and what your company defines as your DOH. I do not like hearing from your pilots here and at work that you bought us, that our jets are yours and we will be offered jobs, nor do I like some idiot captain in DTW telling me I should get 5:1 or if I am lucky 3:1 seniority. So therefore-I think until your list is correct (DOH and every other line), I will agree with my union that it needs to be looked at by Bloch.
Oh and if it were as simple as yes LOA#2 was in your favor-Bloch would have been done yesterday....so therefore he must see something that does not look right and needs more time to see what your SLI committee is up too
in the past......
I have stated before and will again. I think if everyone had the same point in time (class date) and that was your official DOH I would be fine with it. I was even unaware that the company you chose to accept a job with had that policy. I would have been fine with an "adjustment"-if that was agreed upon (which I have heard it was not for SLI purposes). I have, since the crappy proposal by your merger committee, changed my mind and think that you should get what you have been trying to give. I think 9E DOH should be what is on their badge and what ALPA defines as DOH and what your company defines as your DOH. I do not like hearing from your pilots here and at work that you bought us, that our jets are yours and we will be offered jobs, nor do I like some idiot captain in DTW telling me I should get 5:1 or if I am lucky 3:1 seniority. So therefore-I think until your list is correct (DOH and every other line), I will agree with my union that it needs to be looked at by Bloch.
Oh and if it were as simple as yes LOA#2 was in your favor-Bloch would have been done yesterday....so therefore he must see something that does not look right and needs more time to see what your SLI committee is up too
in the past......
9E hasn't talked about positions since the closing arguments. XJ proposed DOH, Colgan proposed relative, and 9E proposed status/category method of 6 groups: jet CA, jet FO, prop CA, prop FO, furloughs, 2010 newhires. Those were the final positions, and that was all. Bloch will decide the actual integration forumla. The difference is that XJ is playing dirty. The dispute window closed with closing arguments of hearings on April 15. If you had a grudge, it should have been taken care of back then. Now, they are fighting dirty and disputing twice on the same topic. The time to fight already ended, but apparently, not for XJ.
Another uneducated XJ pilot. LOA #2 had nothing to do with non-rev rights. Here is Letter V posted for you, word for word.
V. Pinnacle Pilots’ Date of Hire Correction
A Pinnacle Pilot who is hired prior to February 18, 2011 shall have his date of hire adjusted to the first day such Pilot commenced training, however, the pilot’s longevity date shall not be adjusted.
Read that again. A pilot shall have his date of hire (yes, that is DOH) adjusted to the FIRST DAY such pilot commenced training! That means class date. Where do you get anything about non-rev benefits out of this part of the contract? Somebody on the XJ side has got to be spreading lies. The intent of V. is to correct our date of hire from sim date to the day we commenced training, our class date.
Is reading comprehension not a pre-requisite to be on a merger committee?
I mostly believe you Flyer. I'm more than 50% confident that what you say is correct, which is as good as it gets on forums without official sources.
I knew our negotiating committee had there crap together and that they were going to fight as hard as they could for our group in this SLI, but I'm even more impressed with them hearing what you just said. Lets face it, your negotiating positions were pretty darn shrewed too.
It sounds like they might be drawing a distinction between that LOA applying to our joint contract (which involves management) and for SLI. Rather than just give up this DOH thing before hand, it sounds like our team wanted to use it as one more argument (ammo if you will) at the negotiating table. Sounds fair to me, your arguments in negotiations, if true, were just as shrewed. It's up to Bloch. If the XJ argument is as shaky as you say, Bloch will quickly dismiss it.
Now as to the hold up, the window for the above kind of arguments has long passed. There was a process agreement to all of this. I highly doubt Bloch would allow a whole new round of arguments long after the list was supposed to have been completed unless there was unforeseen BS with the recently submitted lists.
I'm sure that if the 9e negotiating committee had there crap together, and submitted a list that was the same as the certified July 1, 2010 list, except with some people gone in the middle from attrition and all the new hires tacked onto the end of it, we would have a joint list. Last we were told, the 9E list still had anomalies... that is not exactly hard to believe.
So if 9E keeps F'ing up the data on the list, and XJ keeps disputing it, whose fault is the delay?
I knew our negotiating committee had there crap together and that they were going to fight as hard as they could for our group in this SLI, but I'm even more impressed with them hearing what you just said. Lets face it, your negotiating positions were pretty darn shrewed too.
It sounds like they might be drawing a distinction between that LOA applying to our joint contract (which involves management) and for SLI. Rather than just give up this DOH thing before hand, it sounds like our team wanted to use it as one more argument (ammo if you will) at the negotiating table. Sounds fair to me, your arguments in negotiations, if true, were just as shrewed. It's up to Bloch. If the XJ argument is as shaky as you say, Bloch will quickly dismiss it.
Now as to the hold up, the window for the above kind of arguments has long passed. There was a process agreement to all of this. I highly doubt Bloch would allow a whole new round of arguments long after the list was supposed to have been completed unless there was unforeseen BS with the recently submitted lists.
I'm sure that if the 9e negotiating committee had there crap together, and submitted a list that was the same as the certified July 1, 2010 list, except with some people gone in the middle from attrition and all the new hires tacked onto the end of it, we would have a joint list. Last we were told, the 9E list still had anomalies... that is not exactly hard to believe.
So if 9E keeps F'ing up the data on the list, and XJ keeps disputing it, whose fault is the delay?
Yes, but when you say 9E keeps F'ing up the data, keep in mind the major heartburn to XJ. You have to as ask yourself, what was the primary data point changed from the previous list to the May 23 list? In all previous lists, Pinnacle had a list submitted with our DOH column listing by sim date. Now, I will say, at the very least I would have hoped our union would have put a tacky note on this column saying that this is only the old-contract date of hire, and the new date of of hire is class date. But they didn't, because this was a company-given seniority list. Since the original certified lists were before the JCBA was signed (lists certified late last year), our DOH was still showing as sim date.
The main data point change came on the May 23 list, when Bloch asked for an updated list. This time, the company updated our list to ensure that our class date was our hire date. Previously, class date was seniority date, because that was the definition in the old contract. So this new list submitted had the DOH sim date column missing altogether, and the seniority date column renamed date of hire column. That is the main data point change that XJ is disputing. I think it is very clear that our hire date was corrected to the day we commenced training, as quoted from Letter V of LOA #2. Our certificated list complied 100% with Letter V.
The rest of the errors were small clerical errors, name misspellings, etc. But the main 9E data point change (as is being so wonderfully quoted in our union updates) is the change of the date of hire column (sim date) disappearing altogether, and the seniority date column (class date) being shown as the new DOH column. There just isn't anything to dispute! 9E's list doesn't give any advantage to 9E pilots that XJ and 9L pilots don't already have: a pilot initial class date as DOH! Lo behold, it is being disputed. 9E pilots are being tossed in a frying pan even though the frying pan was already suppose to be outside the heated kitchen, which closed on April 15.
The main data point change came on the May 23 list, when Bloch asked for an updated list. This time, the company updated our list to ensure that our class date was our hire date. Previously, class date was seniority date, because that was the definition in the old contract. So this new list submitted had the DOH sim date column missing altogether, and the seniority date column renamed date of hire column. That is the main data point change that XJ is disputing. I think it is very clear that our hire date was corrected to the day we commenced training, as quoted from Letter V of LOA #2. Our certificated list complied 100% with Letter V.
The rest of the errors were small clerical errors, name misspellings, etc. But the main 9E data point change (as is being so wonderfully quoted in our union updates) is the change of the date of hire column (sim date) disappearing altogether, and the seniority date column (class date) being shown as the new DOH column. There just isn't anything to dispute! 9E's list doesn't give any advantage to 9E pilots that XJ and 9L pilots don't already have: a pilot initial class date as DOH! Lo behold, it is being disputed. 9E pilots are being tossed in a frying pan even though the frying pan was already suppose to be outside the heated kitchen, which closed on April 15.
Last edited:
Well, let's get this list done by the 10th.
A Pilot who holds an award for a Position as of February 18, 2011 shall continue to hold such awarded Position. Any Vacancy, Realignment, or Reduction Notice that closes prior to the announcement of the ISL will be awarded in accordance with the prior CBA as applied to the individual Airline. If the ISL is announced prior to the close of a notice, then that award will be in accordance with the JCBA as applied to all Airlines, collectively, and Pilots will be given at least ten (10) days to bid on any such notice utilizing the form described in paragraph O.4., below.
I want in on some of that vacancy action that LOA2 says I am entitled to if we get the list out before closing. It closes on the 10th, right?
:beer:
A Pilot who holds an award for a Position as of February 18, 2011 shall continue to hold such awarded Position. Any Vacancy, Realignment, or Reduction Notice that closes prior to the announcement of the ISL will be awarded in accordance with the prior CBA as applied to the individual Airline. If the ISL is announced prior to the close of a notice, then that award will be in accordance with the JCBA as applied to all Airlines, collectively, and Pilots will be given at least ten (10) days to bid on any such notice utilizing the form described in paragraph O.4., below.
I want in on some of that vacancy action that LOA2 says I am entitled to if we get the list out before closing. It closes on the 10th, right?
:beer:
Not quite. Before you jump on vacancies and bidding for new positions, you will have to read each and every single word in the conditions & restrictions section of Bloch's ISL award. Those will clearly spell what we can and cannot do. Very rarely in past historical arbitration awards have pilots been able to jump to the other carrier immediately upon the list being effective on the next vacancy. There are usually some conditions/restrictions that detail the next steps that the pilot groups can expect. For example, he could put a condition/restriction that no pilot jump across from props to jets or vice versa for 12 months. Or, that each airline keep its own pilots on their own vacancies, until the transfer of all RJs to Pinnacle and all props to Colgan (renamed Mesaba). A la US Airways / America West style. You can mix the fleets but keep pilots separate on their own bidding/vacancies/bases. This is an example of another restriction/condition that could be a possibility. No one knows until the ISL award comes out from Bloch. Until then, I wouldn't get my hopes up on upgrading or moving onto a shiny new jet (or Q) anytime soon.
Last edited:
Wait, so Mr. Bloch's award can go in direct violation of what LOA2 says? You don't say? It doesn't say anything about SLI rules there. It just says it has to follow JCBA rules.
SEVEN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2006
- Posts
- 1,563
It's okay, Flyer is just upset that we'll be 200 CA's in 3-6 months. They are short anyway. All the displaced Saab pilots will be a welcomed relief. Heck, we're already flying a bunch of their flights anyway because of staffing issues over there. That place is so disorganized!
And their planes.
General Lee
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2002
- Posts
- 20,442
Because disputing something once just isn't enough, disputing twice makes more sense.While two groups already have their DOH as the date they started their pilot class date, yet another dispute is taking place because Pinnacle is getting their pilot class date as DOH. Bloch's request of 'date of hire (seniority date)' has ticked off the same old people, who are outraged Pinnacle pilots might be considered hired on their class date (seniority) as opposed to the day they passed their sim ride. Amazingly classy XJ! Before any XJ pilot (bri5150, xjhawk especially) throws mud at 9E pilots, consider the real source of why the list is being held up: because a *certain* group just can't get over themselves, and accept that all 3 pilot groups should be at a level playing field with their pilot class date as their DOH. And you people are arrogant enough to believe you will win negotiations? Lets see, Mesaba is currently trying to destroy Pinnacle in the SLI process by screwing us out of 2-3 months seniority, while they get their class date as DOH, they are trying to force us to use our sim date. Gee, thanks! I can't wait to vote your guys in!
Good job, truly classless.
I assume Bloch knows about this, right? He's done a lot of these, he will figure it out. Don't get so bent out of shape. He will give an explanation to his award, and everyone will know exactly what he was thinking. I am sure it will be brought up. Chillax.
Bye Bye---General Lee
Help me out... what am I missing here? If you remove the DOH sim date column altogether (your current longevity date), how is Bloch to know what your longevity date is? Sounds to me like your certified list did not comply 100% with Letter V, certainly not in regards to not adjusting your longevity date.
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:
