Delay of 9E/XJ/9L list

[AiRegency]

Your confusing longevity with seniority. They are not necessarily the same.

 

[CptMurf]

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?

Just a question... Why is this in section "V" and not in section "M", which is titled seniority? Wouldn't this be the more correct section to lay out any DOH adjustments?

I too have heard (from reps) that the negotiated terms of the LOA for section "V" was only for non-reving. As written, it is assumed that the correction is for SLI, but it is not specific enough to know. I was not there, so therefore I do not know exactly how the LOA was negotiated, but several XJ reps have stated there is a discrepancy between negotiated terms vs "as written" in this section. This may be the dispute, and therefore not as clear cut as it is made out to be.

 

[higney85]

Just a question... Why is this in section "V" and not in section "M", which is titled seniority? Wouldn't this be the more correct section to lay out any DOH adjustments?

I too have heard (from reps) that the negotiated terms of the LOA for section "V" was only for non-reving. As written, it is assumed that the correction is for SLI, but it is not specific enough to know. I was not there, so therefore I do not know exactly how the LOA was negotiated, but several XJ reps have stated there is a discrepancy between negotiated terms vs "as written" in this section. This may be the dispute, and therefore not as clear cut as it is made out to be.

There would be no way in hell this was only negotiated for pass travel. This was a hot issue and it needed to be in the contract to avoid this mess. Doesn't really matter, apparently bloch has codified the fact that he only cares about our class date. Hopefully we will all have the final award by the end of the week.

 

[Raskal]

Is it just me or is the pattern on this and other threads: 9E guy: "I've seen the email, I've talked to our rep(s), call your reps and verify it" . XJ guy: "I don't believe it, but I won't actually call anyone and instead I defend our union based upon the vague email containing the word 'anomalies'."

As a Mesaba guy seeing this pattern repeated in multiple forums is embarrassing. Why are so many of us reluctant to call our reps? Is it that we're afraid the above is true? Well, for those who haven't called, you should, the response will probably stop you from posting for a while.

 

[Flyer1015]

Just a question... Why is this in section "V" and not in section "M", which is titled seniority? Wouldn't this be the more correct section to lay out any DOH adjustments?

I too have heard (from reps) that the negotiated terms of the LOA for section "V" was only for non-reving. As written, it is assumed that the correction is for SLI, but it is not specific enough to know. I was not there, so therefore I do not know exactly how the LOA was negotiated, but several XJ reps have stated there is a discrepancy between negotiated terms vs "as written" in this section. This may be the dispute, and therefore not as clear cut as it is made out to be.

It's not in M because only one group needed the adjustment. It's letter V. The ordering is not important in LOA #2. Mesaba got a no-furlough clause until the ISL comes out, and that is spelled out in letter B. As higney85 already mentioned, the original intent of the Letter V was never to adjust travel benefits. Are you kidding? They are horrible as is! Adjusting them by 6 weeks won't matter. What does matter is adjusting our seniority to beginning of pilot newhire class date. This ensures that all three groups will be on a level playing field.

As raskal said, call your XJ reps. Either they will lie to you and not tell you the truth, or they will tell you exactly what you see written above regarding DOH, sim date to class date change, and using the two rules of ALPA merger policy in defining DOH.

 

[CptMurf]

Is it just me or is the pattern on this and other threads: 9E guy: "I've seen the email, I've talked to our rep(s), call your reps and verify it" . XJ guy: "I don't believe it, but I won't actually call anyone and instead I defend our union based upon the vague email containing the word 'anomalies'."

As a Mesaba guy seeing this pattern repeated in multiple forums is embarrassing. Why are so many of us reluctant to call our reps? Is it that we're afraid the above is true? Well, for those who haven't called, you should, the response will probably stop you from posting for a while.

Problem is... Our reps have a totally different story than is being published here. Some of which stems from our reps being limited on releasing information. I've called them, texted/emailed them, and had dinner with them. There's a large backstory brewing here. Personally, I hope in the end it all comes out.

 

[bri5150]

I am going to make only one more statement about this, and then I am done. I have seen the "alleged" emails and the current dispute is NOT about using class date as DOH if what I read is correct. Important things to read to get accurate information are dates. Maybe flyer's email date was changed, or mine was (I have absolutely no reason to doubt my source), but this email talks nothing about the current dispute.

As far as going after the DOH issue to begin with, I don't mind Mesaba's commitee disputing it because everything and their mother was thrown at us. That being said, I think the attempt was made in vain. There is no way I think it will work (just my uneducated opinion).

 

[CptMurf]

There would be no way in hell this was only negotiated for pass travel. This was a hot issue and it needed to be in the contract to avoid this mess. Doesn't really matter, apparently bloch has codified the fact that he only cares about our class date. Hopefully we will all have the final award by the end of the week.

Just the messenger. The info came from reps. not my imagination.

I hope we do too.

 

[bri5150]

Just the messenger. The info came from reps. not my imagination.

I hope we do too.

Heck, I hope we have it today :beer:

 

[CptMurf]

It's not in M because only one group needed the adjustment. It's letter V. The ordering is not important in LOA #2. Mesaba got a no-furlough clause until the ISL comes out, and that is spelled out in letter B. As higney85 already mentioned, the original intent of the Letter V was never to adjust travel benefits. Are you kidding? They are horrible as is! Adjusting them by 6 weeks won't matter. What does matter is adjusting our seniority to beginning of pilot newhire class date. This ensures that all three groups will be on a level playing field.

As raskal said, call your XJ reps. Either they will lie to you and not tell you the truth, or they will tell you exactly what you see written above regarding DOH, sim date to class date change, and using the two rules of ALPA merger policy in defining DOH.

Furlough is a different animal entirely. It would have it's own section. Apples and oranges.

Info came from reps. If that was the negotiated intent, then the "exactly what you see written above regarding DOH, sim date to class date change, and using the two rules of ALPA merger policy in defining DOH" becomes more plausible.