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.

 

[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.

 

[Raskal]

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.

I agree Murf. I make no claims as to what is true or not, only what I was told when I called. I don't have the same sources/friends as you and I know there is much more to this whole thing than what any of us probably know.

I am a little frustrated from both the forums and the folks I fly with so eager to be angry with this or that when they have never actually involved themselves enough to find out what's happening (to the extent that any of us can anyway). All I can say is that the union is not as secretive as folks think they are, call your rep and ask what you want. They represent you, after all.

 

[CptMurf]

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).

Obviously you have not read it, because you don't agree with Flyer. Also, since you don't agree with Flyer, you need to call your reps. If they don't agree with Flyer, then they are lying. I gotta wonder what Flyer calls Bloch if he doesn't agree with Flyer.

 

[bri5150]

Obviously you have not read it, because you don't agree with Flyer. Also, since you don't agree with Flyer, you need to call your reps. If they don't agree with Flyer, then they are lying. I gotta wonder what Flyer calls Bloch if he doesn't agree with Flyer.

I'll admit, maybe it was from the first dispute, but then there would be two "leaked emails". I honestly don't have much fight left in me. I am just ready to be done. This he said this and she said that is getting old. I called a rep, and there is only so much they can say. Even then they could be lying to me . There is no way to prove anyones stories, and I am sure we will never know. In fact, once the list comes out, everyone will probably forget about it and look forward. At least I hope so.

 

[SEVEN]

It's already Wednesday, I'm guessing Bloch will want one last updated list from all 3 groups. Please God.....make this end!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Flyer1015]

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

I hope we do too.

How would your reps know the original intent of Letter V? Not every single rep was present on the table when the JCBA was being negotiated. I still do not understand how letter V, in its current form, can be open to misinterpretation. It states clear cut that Pinnacle will have their date of hire adjusted to the beginning of training (class date). Now, one of the side benefits I suppose you could say is that our travel bennies will use this DOH as the date of eligibility. But that is a side, moot point. The original intent was to move the hire date corrected to the class date, so every 9E pilot would be considered to have their DOH on their class date. This was done to match what Colgan and Mesaba already had. It was the #1 issue of concern for every Pinnacle pilot going into the merger, and it was clearly addressed by LOA #2 V.

 

[Flyer1015]

Not to mention, in the XJ's attempt to screw over 9E pilots on their seniority, do you realize what the other (impossible) alternative is? The only other alternative would be to align seniority date with sim date of hire. This would mean your sim date DOH would represent your seniority date, regardless of class seniority. This is the new re-alignment that would come if the XJ dispute was awarded. But think about it. The checkrides did not go in order. I went before 3 other older pilots simply because of the way training scheduling worked it out. Under the new method, you'd have to reorder the entire 9E list, and that is not allowed by ALPA bylaws. Not only that, you'd have many people jump over others they are currently junior to, because they took their sim checkride first. For example, I took mine before 3 guys did who are in my class and currently senior to me. If you XJ people want your wish and dispute to come out true, I would have to jump these 3 pilots in seniority and be considered more senior to them because of my "new" seniority being my date of hire on sim check date. This is against merger policy. You are in a catch-22.

The ONLY fair way, without having to go through the illegal mess above, is to accept Letter V and take every pilot's initial pilot newhire class date as their DOH. This is the only fair, clean way that will ensure that nothing gets ugly.

 

[CptMurf]

How would your reps know the original intent of Letter V? Not every single rep was present on the table when the JCBA was being negotiated. I still do not understand how letter V, in its current form, can be open to misinterpretation. It states clear cut that Pinnacle will have their date of hire adjusted to the beginning of training (class date). Now, one of the side benefits I suppose you could say is that our travel bennies will use this DOH as the date of eligibility. But that is a side, moot point. The original intent was to move the hire date corrected to the class date, so every 9E pilot would be considered to have their DOH on their class date. This was done to match what Colgan and Mesaba already had. It was the #1 issue of concern for every Pinnacle pilot going into the merger, and it was clearly addressed by LOA #2 V.

No, but this particular rep stated that those that negotiated the LOA were upset with the final version, researching their notes, and trying to remember specific conversations from the negotiations.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it could bring some light to the seniority/DOH dispute issues.

How do you know what the original intent was? The LOA goes against the ALPA Merger/Frag policy on DOH. I would think it would supercede it, if that was the intent of the LOA. And I'm fine with that if this is the case. But now there is question if that was the negotiated intent of the LOA. If it was not, then the ALPA policy would stand. This sounds much more like the situation described over 2 weeks of leaked emails, than a total disregard to a signed LOA.

 

[higney85]

No, but this particular rep stated that those that negotiated the LOA were upset with the final version, researching their notes, and trying to remember specific conversations from the negotiations.

I don't know if it's true or not, but it could bring some light to the seniority/DOH dispute issues.

How do you know what the original intent was? The LOA goes against the ALPA Merger/Frag policy on DOH. I would think it would supercede it, if that was the intent of the LOA. And I'm fine with that if this is the case. But now there is question if that was the negotiated intent of the LOA. If it was not, then the ALPA policy would stand. This sounds much more like the situation described over 2 weeks of leaked emails, that a total disregard to a signed LOA.

The original intent was really to remove check ride date completely and have DOH (for seniority, longevity, and benefits) adjusted to day 1 of class. The company wouldn't budge on the financial package but were willing to remove the check ride date completely. So for pass travel and seniority we all have simply class date as DOH. I was in the room for that entire process, and was a voting member on the conclusion. Everyone knew about the seniority and the JNC even presented the fact that we have the seniority and pass travel agreed to but the company was balking at pay raises 6-8 weeks earlier. We settled for seniority and pass travel as a JMEC for parity among the 3 for everything other than the raises. You have a group now grasping at whatever they can to try and help their pilots by screwing another. End result is the unity that was created is now gone.

 

[Flyer1015]

The original intent was really to remove check ride date completely and have DOH (for seniority, longevity, and benefits) adjusted to day 1 of class. The company wouldn't budge on the financial package but were willing to remove the check ride date completely. So for pass travel and seniority we all have simply class date as DOH. I was in the room for that entire process, and was a voting member on the conclusion. Everyone knew about the seniority and the JNC even presented the fact that we have the seniority and pass travel agreed to but the company was balking at pay raises 6-8 weeks earlier. We settled for seniority and pass travel as a JMEC for parity among the 3 for everything other than the raises. You have a group now grasping at whatever they can to try and help their pilots by screwing another. End result is the unity that was created is now gone.

^
|
|
|

CptMurf, yeah... that

 

[CptMurf]

The original intent was really to remove check ride date completely and have DOH (for seniority, longevity, and benefits) adjusted to day 1 of class. The company wouldn't budge on the financial package but were willing to remove the check ride date completely. So for pass travel and seniority we all have simply class date as DOH. I was in the room for that entire process, and was a voting member on the conclusion. Everyone knew about the seniority and the JNC even presented the fact that we have the seniority and pass travel agreed to but the company was balking at pay raises 6-8 weeks earlier. We settled for seniority and pass travel as a JMEC for parity among the 3 for everything other than the raises. You have a group now grasping at whatever they can to try and help their pilots by screwing another. End result is the unity that was created is now gone.

Considering one union went off the reservation with an unendorsed picketing. Then offered an integration method that was essentially a staple. And a last minute attempt to discredit XJs group with the LGA slot swap. I would say there never was any unity. You yourself said the 9E MEC/SLI was out to get the most they could for their pilots. I believe the same could be said here. And last I heard 9L was in on the dispute also.

As I said before, this is just what I've heard from a couple of reps. I am just trying to interpret their statements into the current situation. And it seems to put the dispute in a more rational situation than just saying they are trying to screw you out of seniority and disregarding the LOA.

As a 99 hire, the 6-8 weeks make no difference to me. I would like see this conclude soon. Today would be nice.