As I said before, if that's the case I apologize for the actions of our MEC. I highly doubt that is the case though.
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
First SLI thread of the day
- Thread starter Carl_Spackler
- Start date
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
As I said before, if that's the case I apologize for the actions of our MEC. I highly doubt that is the case though.
dingo222
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2004
- Posts
- 603
Im not arguing with that. But each airline agreed to the senority lists prior to this going to Bloch. Now someone is showing up to party with a list that wasn't agreed to. These things should have been ironed out before Bloch asked for the lists. Class date, DOH; they are all within a few months of each other. It just seems like the MOU and this should have been done before Bloch asked for them. In other news, we may actually have a worthwhile CEO now. The holiday weekend is approaching, I'm going to spend more of my time being thankful for those that allow us to be free and to choose the lifestyle and jobs that we have
xjhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 1,617
WHy apologize for our MEC, they are fighting over valid points and that will all come out in the end. It is not our MEC who on their own "adjusted" our DOH on our master seniority list. It is not Mesaba who defined what DOH is legally in the ALPA merger policy-we are just as I hear it, playing by the rules, not making them up as we go. You cannot just adjust the date on your badge-your company can, but Pinnacle Airlines themselves will state your DOH is on your badge. was it agreed by all the unions to allow one to just changed their DOH? That will be seen. Will the arbitrator allow the change in DOH? that is up to him
suupah
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2004
- Posts
- 1,779
how do you get these updates so quickly?
"Like" Colgan and Mesaba ALPA Facebook page.
Selfish Jackhole. You want to use a different standard of DOH for yourself, to the disadvantage of Pinnacle pilots. Why is parity not appropriate? Why should DOH not be defined the same way for all 3 properties during this important time?
Truly disgusting.
Cannot agree more strongly with the previous post about using the same DOH standard for all 3 pilot groups. I wouldn't think that this would be a big issue, and I know this sounds really corny and old-fashioned, but aren't we all supposed to be ladies and gentlemen in our dealings with our peers?
DoinTime
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 2,523
ALPA merger policy also disallows what Mesaba has proposed for Pinnacle Date of hire.
Yes, it was. Its LOA 2.V in the JCBA which unanimously ratified all three MECs and passed membership ratification by about 90%.
LOA 2 said:
It also states...
5. Upon completion of the processes outlined above, the merger representatives shall prepare a certified Flight Deck Crew Member Seniority List which shall reflect the proper relative position of each member thereon. Such list shall contain that data described in Section E 2. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)
6. Employment data verified as outlined above shall be exchanged no later than sixty (60) days following the Policy Initiation Date. For purposes of this initial exchange of data, said data need not pertain to events more recent than the date of the first Company notification of intent to merge. (AMENDED - Executive Board May 1998)
So the excuse of it was the companies seniority list was screwed up doesn't fly. It was you SLI Committees job and responsibility to prepare an accurate list, they failed. Now we must all wait because of it.
I for one, am glad this was brought up before the list was published. It needs to be correct, if that means I have to wait, then fine I'll wait.
DoinTime
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 2,523
Thats what they did last November or so. Bloch wanted an updated list on Monday and he got an accurate list from PCL on Tuesday. Thats not what we are waiting for.
NEWSOUTH
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2002
- Posts
- 172
xjhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 1,617
now that is the pot calling the kettle black-was it not the pinnacle union who proposed 4 blocks, putting their entire pilot group in the first two blocks, and pretty much stapling the Colgan and Mesaba Saab guys? Since the proposal you guys made and all the jackhole (yes I am calling you and your fellow 9E) who have said to me and my fellow pilots that You bought us or that you were getting our jets and not our pilots-or that we would be offered jobs, or that we would be stapled, or offered 5:1 seniority etc etc.....I am changed my mind and think we should use the date of hire listed on your badge-I am not sure what was agreed on-but what I have heard is that there were substantial adjustments beyond start of training that benefited your pilots-I think that one standard is fair, the date you were hired and started class. But since everything most of your pilots, including your MEC is not fair, screw you. But in the end, it will be a bunch of Attorneys who decide on what is legal and what is fair.
DoinTime
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2001
- Posts
- 2,523
From what I have been able to gather, the XJ and Colgan merger committees have refused to acknowledge that PCL hire dates were moved to a consistent benchmark with their own in the JCBA. This dispute has tied Bloch's hands on producing a list.
xjhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 1,617
Well if there are issues with the list being the same as what was ratified, the blame does not go on those who want a correct list. I also think the blame is not on Bloch-he is just reacting to disputed lists that do not correspond with what was presented before. Yeah I will admit I am a jack hole, lol. But on the flip side you MUST know that you and every one of your idiots over there who think this is an asset transfer or a staple scenario can kiss off. If Pinnacle would have presented a DOH as their final (DOH is best for more Pinnacle pilots than XJ pilots) none of this would be happening.
Yeah, I never said any of that stuff. I said DOH across the board. Try again buttercup.
DOH is fine, it is what I have been asking for all along. But we need to have one consistent standard of when we are hired. We all started class on day one. Your MEC needs to stop demanding we use a different standard for us vs. the other two groups.
xjgearbtch
Living the dream
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Posts
- 386
Wait wait wait. Where is the proof to justify this accusation???? Where is the union email regarding this? I was at the joint union meetings held in MSP and saw them discuss the fact that 9E's seniority list would be changed to reflect their DOH to = first day of INDOC. I watched one of the 9E reps address all of their pilots in the room to please spread the word that a email would be sent verifying the data and every pilot needed to respond. This was in front of all the XJ & 9L reps. It was established long ago to ensure a equal standard. My point, who the hell made up this rumor??? I think this is a bogus speculation and you all are getting riled up over something that never happened.
Seen that a few times over the last two weeks.
xjhawk
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Posts
- 1,617
I am not in on exactly what is happening but from what I hear is that there are inconsistencies with the Pinnacle seniority list and that is what is at question here. I think another matter might be that there is a definition of DOH by ALPA-a legal definition that might effect on how to determine Pinnacle's DOH. call me a jack hole but if you think you losing 3 months of seniority is worse that what I have heard from MOST of your pilots-not you in particular, but just random guys I have deadheaded with, talked with or heard on these boards-now that is a jack hole thing to hear.
I also must say what pinnacle proposed screwed over all but them. Mesaba's proposal should be looked very highly on by most pilots except some Jr XJ pilots, a few VERy senior 9E guys, and colgan FO's who would not be afforded a quick upgrade. But I must say this, the colgan CA's and their FO's have gained ALOT in QOL and pay by the new contract. I must also add that Colgan's captains will retain their positions and not many if ANY captains from MEsaba will go east or south to bid in Saabs (but maybe a few senior FO's will go to the Q )
SO if you want to talk who is offering the biggest screw job, just look at your pilot group and you will see that not only did your union propose a screw job of a deal for everyone else, but what your pilot group has in knowledge on what is happening or what other unions have proposed is screwy.
I thought that it would be fair to offer the pinnacle pilots a new adjusted DOH to reflect their first day of training-that was before I found out that your union wanted to screw a lot of Mesaba pilots and all colgan pilots, that was before I heard that some of your "adjusted" DOH dates were outright wrong (as per our union message), that was before I heard how many of your pilots to my face would say crap like "asset transfer and offer you jobs, 5:1, staple, you get furloughed while we hire and I upgrade, we bought you" SO NOW I AGREE, if the attorneys say their is language that says your DOH needs to be on your check ride, guess what? I will thank my union for screwing you-remember the old saying, "expect to be treated exactly how you treat others"
Flyprdu
You Want This, Don't You.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Posts
- 1,541
You're a jackhole..
If you want to unjustly punish the Pinnacle pilot group over some half-heard rumor about the Pinnacle proposal, then you are exactly that.. a jackhole.
Enjoy your new title.
Here's the thing... To change the list at the endgame, although legal under the terms of the accepted negotiations, is tantamount to "Dirty Pool," The SLI committee was responsible to come up with a certified accurate list (not management), and the other SLI committees used that provided lists to come up with their proposals. I can understand that a mistake can happen, but when over 100 peoples DOH changes, it affects the entire integration method. Now this rumor has spread around 9E that XJ is not letting EVERYONE use their DOH is political misinformation of the situation at hand, is being propagated my some in the 9E MEC, and is totally false. The dispute was with some of these 100 individuals DOHs changing by as much as 8 months. Those types of changes need to be validated, and should have been when the first certified lists where shared at the beginning of negotiations. If anything, those affected individuals should be happy that this dispute arose, so that their DOH was adjusted to show accurate information.
So everyone needs to calm down and stop the name calling. I would hope that the list situation was not intentional, but if it was, then the only jackholes I see are the 9E SLI committee members.
So everyone needs to calm down and stop the name calling. I would hope that the list situation was not intentional, but if it was, then the only jackholes I see are the 9E SLI committee members.
I think it's interesting that these type of comments come from a those that seem to be on the 9E "side" while the Mesaba side just presents their facts/opinions in more of an adult fashion.
p.s. Add my name to the tallest midget if ya like.
Can we say "midget" anymore? I didn't think that was PC.
Oh ********************, I guess I just said it. ;-)
I am now hearing from a reliable source that this did not just start as a Mesaba dispute and the arbitrator may be the one that opened this whole can of worms. ie. Mr. Bloch called all this into question when he got the updated lists and was very concerned over the new 9E list.
This concern for date of hire makes me think that DOH must have been at least part of his formula, otherwise he would not care about moving DOH's.
This concern for date of hire makes me think that DOH must have been at least part of his formula, otherwise he would not care about moving DOH's.
ataopsdave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Posts
- 272
From what I've heard was that his concern was about the MOU pilots. When he went down the list he saw that their order on the seniority list was all out of whack because they were brought over to 9E out of seniority order. That is just one of the several issues he is still working out
I don't know, but it seems to me one could have caused the other. Blotch raises questions about the MOU pilots over the weekend. Asks for updated lists on Monday, which once shared, raises concerns of other DOH's changing. XJ and 9L had the previous list for sometime, if they had concerns for that list, it would have already come out.
I just wonder if Blotch hadn't requested the updated lists, what would have happened to the guys affected. It's a very bad situation that was caused solely by the 9E SLI committee. Had they done their due diligence we would not be here. I'm happy the discrepancy came to light and we had the time to fix it before the ISL was published. But to blame the XJ SLI committee for disputing the list is asinine. It needed to be disputed to verify and fix the discrepancies in the 9E list, otherwise those 9E pilots would have paid the price.
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:
