Delay of 9E/XJ/9L list

[Andrew_VT]

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?

 

[Flyer1015]

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.

 

[bri5150]

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:

 

[Flyer1015]

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:

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.

 

[bri5150]

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.

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.

 

[xjhawk]

unless there are fences, we can cross bid. I think with regards to the delay and why the delay occurred I should assume that Mr Bloch thinks DOH data points are pretty important to his decision. soooooooo I should think......

 

[SEVEN]

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.

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!

 

[bri5150]

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]

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! Your merger committee has dug their grave as far as unity is concerned on the 9E side of things.

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

 

[Motown]

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.

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.

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.