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

Mesaba/Colgan/Pinnacle get some facts before you speak.

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

flyn96

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 25, 2003
Posts
280
Will the pilots of all three groups please read ALPA national merger policies before spouting off in the crew room, employee bus, etc.

First off there have been no negotiations on SLI (YET). So anything you hear, ie DOH, 1:3 Ratio, relative seniority, LOA, staple are rumors.

Regardless of what Pinnacle Inc. calls this transaction ie merger, acquisition, asset transfer it does not matter. According to the ALPA policy manual:

(a “merger” is defined as a situation where there is a reasonable probability of sufficient operational integration between or among two or more ALPA airlines that there is or will be a need for an integrated seniority list).

Thus fair and equitable integration. So all current Pinnacle pilots will not be 900 captains and all Mesaba jet pilots will not be your fo's. Colgan will not be stapled etc, etc, etc. People need to think about what is fair and what continues to set precedent for "proper" SLI. You need to support your now fellow pilots because you will get nowhere with a me mentality. We need to settle for nothing less than the best of all of our contracts. If uncle phil wants this to happen he's going to have to pay to make it happen.
 
Will the pilots of all three groups please read ALPA national merger policies before spouting off in the crew room, employee bus, etc.

First off there have been no negotiations on SLI (YET). So anything you hear, ie DOH, 1:3 Ratio, relative seniority, LOA, staple are rumors.

Regardless of what Pinnacle Inc. calls this transaction ie merger, acquisition, asset transfer it does not matter. According to the ALPA policy manual:

(a “merger” is defined as a situation where there is a reasonable probability of sufficient operational integration between or among two or more ALPA airlines that there is or will be a need for an integrated seniority list).

Thus fair and equitable integration. So all current Pinnacle pilots will not be 900 captains and all Mesaba jet pilots will not be your fo's. Colgan will not be stapled etc, etc, etc. People need to think about what is fair and what continues to set precedent for "proper" SLI. You need to support your now fellow pilots because you will get nowhere with a me mentality. We need to settle for nothing less than the best of all of our contracts. If uncle phil wants this to happen he's going to have to pay to make it happen.

I'll agree they do need to 'get the facts' and perhaps learn how past mergers have worked. However - there is one 'fact' you are missing. ALPA policy is just that - an internal policy with no standing in a court dispute. A signed labor Agreement, as amended, is a binding contract enforcable by the NMB and the Federal Courts. Pinnacle and Mesaba have been through this before in 1997, when Mesaba was given the MSP hub. The Mesaba pilots insisted on long term reciprocal rights in that deal. As a result there is a binding Labor Agreement management may choose to use. If they do, it will be difficult, protracted, and risky for the Mesaba pilots to get out of.

All that said, everyone is all worked up for little reason. In the end, no matter how the SLI is worked out, everyone will be in the same seat, equipment and domicile they are now. Management won't have it any other way. The Mesaba pilots will have some difficult decisions if management attempts to take half their longevity. I doubt management will care how the SLI is done. A 'relative' seniority scheme should be acceptable to all parties. What we are really arguing over is future bidding order.

I expect the real challenge will be achieving a joint CBA. Management could tie that up in arbitration for a long time. Knowing them well, I expect they have a path to an Agreement that will have an arbitrator hand us our Agreement. Whether we like it or not.
 
However - there is one 'fact' you are missing. ALPA policy is just that - an internal policy with no standing in a court dispute.

That's not a fact at all. McCaskill-Bond, the legislation passed a couple of years ago dealing with airline mergers, codifies internal union policy as being the law of the land when a merger is to take place between two employee groups in the same union covered under the same merger policy. In the absence of an internal policy, Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs apply and are binding. In addition, the Pinnacle and Mesaba contracts both codify ALPA merger policy as being binding.

I expect the real challenge will be achieving a joint CBA. Management could tie that up in arbitration for a long time. Knowing them well, I expect they have a path to an Agreement that will have an arbitrator hand us our Agreement. Whether we like it or not.

Management has no standing, either under the law or under your contract, to take your contract dispute to arbitration. The PCL pilots and CJC pilots are both in Section 6 negotiations, which only allow for arbitration if both parties consent, and the Mesaba pilots still haven't reached the amendable date of their CBA. Worst case, you simply wait for a JCBA until management is willing to bargain over it. Best case, management bargains right away and you get a deal. But they can't force you into arbitration for a JCBA.
 
That's not a fact at all. McCaskill-Bond, the legislation passed a couple of years ago dealing with airline mergers, codifies internal union policy as being the law of the land when a merger is to take place between two employee groups in the same union covered under the same merger policy. In the absence of an internal policy, Allegheny-Mohawk LPPs apply and are binding. In addition, the Pinnacle and Mesaba contracts both codify ALPA merger policy as being binding.



Management has no standing, either under the law or under your contract, to take your contract dispute to arbitration. The PCL pilots and CJC pilots are both in Section 6 negotiations, which only allow for arbitration if both parties consent, and the Mesaba pilots still haven't reached the amendable date of their CBA. Worst case, you simply wait for a JCBA until management is willing to bargain over it. Best case, management bargains right away and you get a deal. But they can't force you into arbitration for a JCBA.

Re read my post. The SLI will comply with the applicable Federal law. Separate that from the Mesaba pilots longevity. They are two separate issues. I think the law is silent on the longevity issue. Mesaba does not own any RJ's. They do not have any routes or ground operations of their own. They are an ACMI carrier. You better read LOA 6/21 again. I don't know if management will use it but they have indicated they will. That LOA modifies section one of both Agreements, in the event of an 'asset transfer'.
 
Re read my post. The SLI will comply with the applicable Federal law. Separate that from the Mesaba pilots longevity. They are two separate issues. I think the law is silent on the longevity issue. Mesaba does not own any RJ's. They do not have any routes or ground operations of their own. They are an ACMI carrier. You better read LOA 6/21 again. I don't know if management will use it but they have indicated they will. That LOA modifies section one of both Agreements, in the event of an 'asset transfer'.

Pinnacle/Mesaba management would NEVER try that tactic. It would be the equivelant of nuclear war. Remember there are still performance requirements in the Delta agreement and they need to run a very good operation to stay in business. They cannot run any kind of operation if they alienate all the pilots.
 
Anyone reading Sinkrate's posts....Just disregard. He might sound like he knows what he is talking about, but he really doesn't know a thing about this. He uses great terms and sounds quite intellegant on the issues, but please disregard.

Since sinkrate is going to be defending himself and his vast knowledge of mergers and ALPA's policies and people may get confused of who to believe. This is what I want anyone that has worried and sick feelings that this guy knows what he is talking about.

Simply print any of his posts you may have questions on. Then call your rep and ask about it. They will be glad to not only tell you the false hoods of his words, but prove it in contract sections, paragraph, and lines.

Sinkrate is the kind of guy that likes to sound smart. I must admit that he does do that. As for the quality of his information...very, very poor.
 
Re read my post. The SLI will comply with the applicable Federal law. Separate that from the Mesaba pilots longevity. They are two separate issues. I think the law is silent on the longevity issue. Mesaba does not own any RJ's. They do not have any routes or ground operations of their own. They are an ACMI carrier. You better read LOA 6/21 again. I don't know if management will use it but they have indicated they will. That LOA modifies section one of both Agreements, in the event of an 'asset transfer'.
Read it several times lately. Even carry a copy now on my commute, so I can show those that "ARE SURE" what it says.

The LOA was a one time deal. The dates, aircraft, everything, was very specific to that deal in '97. The ONLY thing that is current in it is the last section, which was the "Reciprical Agreement", which states
"In the event that a transaction such as the one which gave rise to this Letter of Agreement occurs in the future, where such transaction involves in a net loss of pilot positions at Mesaba and a net gain of pilot positions at Express, it is hereby agreed that the parties shall enter into a Letter of Agreement to provide for the transfer of Mesaba pilots to Express, under terms and conditions no less favorable than the terms and conditions of this Letter of Agreement."
Which in itself implys new negotiations and terms for an integration method.​

Mgmt. has never brought this LOA up. In fact, when it was asked of Trenary in an XJ recurrent that he was in about 2 weeks ago, his answer was that the integration would be up to terms negotiated by ALPA. The only ones bringing it up are 9E pilots on these boards. I will be glad when they stop too. It is an ignorant (and arrogant) position to stand on, considering most that quote it, know nothing of how/why it was negotiated, implemented, or whether it was considered a good deal or not. Not to mention, if 9E pilots are truely upset on "how XJ screwed our pilots" (which they weren't), why are the same 9E pilots so intent on screwing those same individuals again.

So to anyone that thinks this LOA can be, or will be used is fooling themselves, and causing a huge rift, that may result in some hostile negotiations. I believe instead, that we need to accept that we are on the same team now. And we have to work together to preserve and capture the best of both contracts in a productive SLI agreement.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top