First SLI thread of the day

[RJLoser]

Maybe to renegotiate the MOU since it expired. Otherwise we will need more 'updated' lists.

The MOU was extended.

 

[higney85]

I have heard as of last night that the pinnacle list still hasn't been submitted. Not saying I am right or wrong, but that is what I have just heard today. Someone is lying just don't know who.

It was submitted. Not sure what you are hearing from who, but I have spoken to the source that sent it, the merger guy we had to wait on, and a few different reps who have the latest list themselves. Not going to call anyone a liar, but Bloch has the list in his inbox with the content needed and format requested.

We can start the fodder about XJ but I'll refrain since it serves no positive purpose right now.

 

[Flyer1015]

So, is this what the Mesaba dispute was about? To purposefully stall long enough to let the 60-window expire so pilots can no longer be shown as furloughed on their list, but rather, as active pilots as LGA based? All because the 60 day window passed? A furloughed pilot is a furloughed pilot. And so far, I haven't seen any mass exodus of XJ furloughees from Pinnacle. Most are all still here, flying RJs at DTW and JFK. They are not LGA based current FOs on Mesaba's list.

 

[Flyer1015]

We can start the fodder about XJ but I'll refrain since it serves no positive purpose right now.

Well, you know, the 9E committee got plenty of mud thrown on them for changing data points to comply with LOA#2 V. Even a dispute was entered outside the dispute window of Apr 15. Now, if it's true that XJ furloughees are being shown as recalled current FOs at LGA-base on the XJ list, even though they are at 9E as furloughees, then we really are taking the higher road if we aren't saying anything or disputing this. All I know is on May 23, when it came to us changing a point on our list, a higher road was not taken.

 

[higney85]

The golden rule always applies. Treat others as you wish to be treated. I haven't run across a single XJ guy that has treated me with any disrespect and I have made every attempt to done the same. Dirty laundry has no need for center stage right now. All accusations have been dealt with by presenting facts. If political shots ring out, the cannon is loaded. That's politics. The furloughs are unfortunately pawns tied up between 4 parties. Meanwhile the entire pilot group is leveraged into the mou pilots for some improvements via LOA. This will remain until Bloch rules. Only thing we can hope is that each pilot either wanted their current spot or Saab LGA FO (those are the choices). In the end I sincerely hope the mou program doesn't die- we never know when it would be beneficial again in the future within the industry.

 

[RJLoser]

Why would we need the MOU after a single list?

 

[higney85]

Why would we need the MOU after a single list?

We don't per say but where the guys end up on the list as "mou pilots" is the question. They are flying at 9E and 9L and not at XJ but ARE XJ furloughs. XJ has them as active Saab LGA pilots when they are line holders and senior reserves system wide on all equip with HUNDREDS behind them. They shouldn't be pawns, but that's what they are becoming. They are listed as 9E and 9L pilots since that is where they are FLYING but XJ lists them as active for them. It comes down to being on 2 lists in the creation of 1. It's up to Bloch and those who want to play politics with the guys in limbo.

 

[WMUSIGPI]

It shouldn't be an issue, my understanding was they ALL were to be considered in the merger based on thier MESABA SENIORITY ONLY. The ones who chose not to take a position at 9e/9l should be treated the same as those that did for SLI purposes. And all should be merged based on the Mesaba list. That was the agreement at the start of all this mess. To credit the ones that chose to go to 9e/9l with extra seniority over those that chose to do something else while furloughed would cause leapfrogging on the Mesaba list.
The only way (and I don't know of any that did) that it wouldn't be the case is some one that went to 9e/9l and turned down recall to Mesaba would then be merged based on that hire date and lose all rights to what they had at Mesaba.

 

[Flyer1015]

It shouldn't be an issue, my understanding was they ALL were to be considered in the merger based on thier MESABA SENIORITY ONLY. The ones who chose not to take a position at 9e/9l should be treated the same as those that did for SLI purposes. And all should be merged based on the Mesaba list. That was the agreement at the start of all this mess. To credit the ones that chose to go to 9e/9l with extra seniority over those that chose to do something else while furloughed would cause leapfrogging on the Mesaba list.
The only way (and I don't know of any that did) that it wouldn't be the case is some one that went to 9e/9l and turned down recall to Mesaba would then be merged based on that hire date and lose all rights to what they had at Mesaba.

WMUSIGPI, they are on the Mesaba list. But up until now, their status had always shown as furloughee. They kept their XJ number while at Pinnacle. The reason they are pawns is that, historically, furloughees always end up at the bottom of the list. For example, it would be 1. Blochs method of integration, followed by furloughees, followed by Summer 2010 pilots by DOH. The question isn't about them being on the list at XJ or not, it's their status. Mesaba has changed them to as ACTIVE based at LGA as FOs on SF340. Meanwhile, these MOU pilots are actually still at 9E (or 9L) listed as active pilots. What it boils down to isn't the fact that the Mesaba number is used, the real meat of the matter is what is their status? Up until the June 1 list, Mesaba had shown those MOU pilots as furloughees. Now, the June 1 list has them as active (no longer furloughees). That is up to Bloch to decide. If they are furloughees, most likely they can expect to be at the bottom of the list as is the usual case in arbtiration decisions. IF he decides they are active, they will be merged in with their XJ seniority. It will be very interesting to see. Though I must say, this is a case of XJ switching a data point at the last second. Luckily, even though the other two groups aren't for this decision, 9E and 9L are letting it go to Bloch for him to decide (no dispute being officially entered like how XJ did fo 9E's data point change on May 23).

 

[bri5150]

WMUSIGPI, they are on the Mesaba list. But up until now, their status had always shown as furloughee. They kept their XJ number while at Pinnacle. The reason they are pawns is that, historically, furloughees always end up at the bottom of the list. For example, it would be 1. Blochs method of integration, followed by furloughees, followed by Summer 2010 pilots by DOH. The question isn't about them being on the list at XJ or not, it's their status. Mesaba has changed them to as ACTIVE based at LGA as FOs on SF340. Meanwhile, these MOU pilots are actually still at 9E (or 9L) listed as active pilots. What it boils down to isn't the fact that the Mesaba number is used, the real meat of the matter is what is their status? Up until the June 1 list, Mesaba had shown those MOU pilots as furloughees. Now, the June 1 list has them as active (no longer furloughees). That is up to Bloch to decide. If they are furloughees, most likely they can expect to be at the bottom of the list as is the usual case in arbtiration decisions. IF he decides they are active, they will be merged in with their XJ seniority. It will be very interesting to see. Though I must say, this is a case of XJ switching a data point at the last second. Luckily, even though the other two groups aren't for this decision, 9E and 9L are letting it go to Bloch for him to decide (no dispute being officially entered like how XJ did fo 9E's data point change on May 23).

So what is the difference between this and putting the new hires on the bottom of the Colgan, Pinnacle, and even Mesaba lists? Isn't that one of the reasons we needed to update lists? It doesn't matter where these guys are working if they are just treated as furloughed anyways, right? I seriously don't get the issue here. Bloch wanted an updated list. These guys are on our seniority list because they haven't given up their number. They got a recall notice because Mesaba wanted all their pilots back and figure out who is or isn't coming back. They aren't furloughed right now, but I am sure they will be treated as furloughed for the SLI. Where do you propose they are put on our list? They have to go somewhere. Should they be listed as currently furloughed even though everyone they were recently furloughed with accepted recall when everyone was forced to get recalled, are already done with class? If they have their "status" as furloughed right now, should they be treated differently than those that didn't take the Pinnacle deal and are now "active" in LGA for Mesaba? This is seriously semantics for these guys. Changing hire dates and removing pilots from the active list (which is rumor and conspiracy I guess) that Mr. Bloch will actually use to implement his theories...now that is a problem. The current "status" of those that were furloughed on July 1st shouldn't change anything in the final SLI. If it does, that isn't a beef with Mesaba, that is a beef with Mr. Bloch. In short, their status changed on our list because their status changed.