Pinnacle, Mesaba, Colgan SLI

[CptMurf]

Nice idea, but the smaller the divisions, the closer it resembles a relative method.

If you got caught on the edge of a cutoff, you could get completely screwed. It was a nice idea, but there are better ones out there.

Wouldn't it be unfortunate if a pilot that got stuck in subgroup E had more longevity than any of the pilots in subgroups C and D combined...

I ran it last night for my seniority and it is better that straight RS, but less than DOH for my position. I am on the cusp though at 21% at XJ. This put me above 9E and 9L pilots in my % group, but in straight DOH with XJ pilots in the group. The smaller division (ie. 5%) made no difference in my situation. I was still in DOH with XJ in the 20-25% group.

If there are better ideas, I would definitely like to hear and discuss them. The MECs can give direction to the negotiators before they enter negotiations, but once the door closes, the decision will be made by those 10 individuals. If we can put our ambitions aside, and come up with a fair integration method before we walk in that room, I believe we will be better off, than stuck with the arbitrators decision.

Before I'm told that I am not putting MY ambitions aside with my running of this formula... Please understand I am looking for a hybrid that would put you to as close as possible in between you DOH seniority and your RS seniority. As mentioned, the above formula stays to close to RS.

 

[suupah]

*brief intermission*After spending a few days speaking, working and partying with Mesaba pilots involved with their MEC, I will say that you guys are a really solid group with a great culture. Taking a stroll around the banquet room at the volunteers party told an interesting and dramatic story of a lot of struggle, unity and outright courage. I really hope moving forward the combined group can adopt the Mesaba culture which would make this place a pretty great place to work.

Great group of guys, looking forward to sharing a cockpit with any of you.

 

[JamesD]

What about taking the three groups and put them into two lists. One for relative and another for date of hire. Take those two list and merge them with 50% credit for each.

 

[Airscrew]

What about taking the three groups and put them into two lists. One for relative and another for date of hire. Take those two list and merge them with 50% credit for each.

What if we take all 3 lists and flip them upside down. Then split the inverted lists into 4 total lists. We next take a straight edge and make a nice border around 3 of the most senior lists. Colgan numbers get stapled to the side (but slightly bottom) of the next airline to be purchased. Everyone's happy.

 

[bri5150]

What about taking the three groups and put them into two lists. One for relative and another for date of hire. Take those two list and merge them with 50% credit for each.

Something similar to this is what is going to happen I bet. It will just be a certain percentage of each kind of integration. What that percentage will be, I have no idea.

 

[bri5150]

*brief intermission*After spending a few days speaking, working and partying with Mesaba pilots involved with their MEC, I will say that you guys are a really solid group with a great culture. Taking a stroll around the banquet room at the volunteers party told an interesting and dramatic story of a lot of struggle, unity and outright courage. I really hope moving forward the combined group can adopt the Mesaba culture which would make this place a pretty great place to work.

Great group of guys, looking forward to sharing a cockpit with any of you.

Those are very kind words. Thank you Suupah.

 

[Flyprdu]

If there are better ideas, I would definitely like to hear and discuss them.

This is FI, so I'm sure any effort I put into this will be like pissing in the wind... but this was the idea I had:

Point Based Model, (Hybrid Method)

It will be a split method to 100 points, in this illustration I would assign 65% of the point score based on longevity, and 35% of the total score coming from Relative Seniority.

The equations would go something like this:

((Days of Service / Maximum Days of Service) * 65) +
(Relative percentile * 35) = Total Score.

For simplicity sake, let's say Max DoS = 10,500. Which would be the most amount of days of any pilot served in all 3 airlines. I figure it's Mesaba with a guy hired in '82, (I believe).
Example.

• Pilot A has served @ Airline 1 for 2000 days and is in the 55th percentile of pilots.

• Pilot B has served at Airline 2 for 1400 days and is in the 60th percentile of pilots.

Pilot A = (2000/10500) * 65 = 12.38
.55 * 35 = 19.25
= 31.63 Total Score

Pilot B = (1400/10500) * 65 = 8.66
.60 * 35 = 21.00
= 29.66 Total Score

So Pilot A would be senior in the combined list over pilot B despite the fact that Pilot B has better relative at Company 2.

I think this would be a fair and uniform way to get the seniority lists taken care of.

 

[Flyprdu]

On thing I am noticing from running examples, is that the Longevity portion doesn't have much of an impact the farther you get away from DoS MAX. Which makes me think that the pilot groups should be broken up into tiers, each with its own multiplication factors for each category:

Tier I: Senior (99th - 67th percentiles) 50 pts. Longevity / 50 pts Relative
Tier II: Mid Level (66th - 34th percentiles) 65 pts Longevity / 35 pts. Relative
Tier III: Junior (33rd and below) 80 pts Longevity / 20 pts Relative.

The spreads in longevity are so narrow for the mid and junior level, the multiplication factors need to be higher in order to compensate for the small fractions created when dividing against DoS Max.

 

[Flyprdu]

On thing I am noticing from running examples, is that the Longevity portion doesn't have much of an impact the farther you get away from DoS MAX.

Either that, or cap the longevity max value to something a little closer to the majority of pilots, like 7300 days. (20 years.) That would disenfranchise any pilot over that point, but they will have maxxed out that point total anyway... and probably will not suffer for it in bidding power or schedule regardless.

 

[Yodafly]

What about taking the three groups and put them into two lists. One for relative and another for date of hire. Take those two list and merge them with 50% credit for each.

I agree, its simple and sounds fair.

 

[CptMurf]

I agree, its simple and sounds fair.

That's essentially what FlyPrdu is proposing for the top tier.

I like it FlyPrdu. Most importantly, I like that there are mechanisms (tiers and point values) that can be manipulated to prevent windfalls and keep it fair across the board.

 

[CptMurf]

I might however, advocate more tiers, 4 or 6 total. This would group the super seniors together better, and give better control over the mid seniorities to prevent large gains or losses.

 

[Flyprdu]

I might however, advocate more tiers, 4 or 6 total. This would group the super seniors together better, and give better control over the mid seniorities to prevent large gains or losses.

The only issue i have with that is that the pilot groups are so diverse in their longevities. If we start breaking people up into subgroups that they cannot escape... then we will unwittingly limit the mobility of how far people could rightfully go.

Yeah, you could be head of the class, but you're still misplaced in the remedial room.

There needs to be a mechanism for pilots to travel naturally up and down the integrated seniority list, and not be blocked by artificial and arbitrary tier limitations.

 

[xjgearbtch]

This is FI, so I'm sure any effort I put into this will be like pissing in the wind... but this was the idea I had:

Point Based Model, (Hybrid Method)

It will be a split method to 100 points, in this illustration I would assign 65% of the point score based on longevity, and 35% of the total score coming from Relative Seniority.

The equations would go something like this:

((Days of Service / Maximum Days of Service) * 65) +
(Relative percentile * 35) = Total Score.

For simplicity sake, let's say Max DoS = 10,500. Which would be the most amount of days of any pilot served in all 3 airlines. I figure it's Mesaba with a guy hired in '82, (I believe).
Example.

• Pilot A has served @ Airline 1 for 2000 days and is in the 55th percentile of pilots.

• Pilot B has served at Airline 2 for 1400 days and is in the 60th percentile of pilots.

Pilot A = (2000/10500) * 65 = 12.38
.55 * 35 = 19.25
= 31.63 Total Score

Pilot B = (1400/10500) * 65 = 8.66
.60 * 35 = 21.00
= 29.66 Total Score

So Pilot A would be senior in the combined list over pilot B despite the fact that Pilot B has better relative at Company 2.

I think this would be a fair and uniform way to get the seniority lists taken care of.

You have way too much free time http://forums.flightinfo.com/images/icons/icon24.gif

 

[Yodafly]

Why would you want to Tier. Give full credit for both Longevity and Relative.

 

[Flyprdu]

Why would you want to Tier. Give full credit for both Longevity and Relative.

What does full credit even mean?

The problem arises when you work the numbers in the formula I've devised. The fraction is so small if you divide total working days of junior pilots compared to the 25 years of working days that the most senior pilots has worked. If you multiply that small fraction, and compare it to the rather simple formula of multiplying a pilot's relative percentile by X... then the problem comes manifests in this way:

Longevity calculations become so small that they do not reflect the value you would want them to have in SLI.

So, how to fix it? Well you can lessen the max denominator which would increase the fraction... and increase the score. But that would cap any credit for seniority to a certain maximum... say 18 years.

Or you can give an added multiplier for junior folks in order to compensate for their deluded longevity numbers when compared to Max Days served.

I like the idea of capping the Max Days served to 18 years. It brings up everyone else's numbers... and the guys it might disenfranchise are: 1.) Few. 2.) Unlikely to be affected anyway.

 

[Yodafly]

This is FI, so I'm sure any effort I put into this will be like pissing in the wind... but this was the idea I had:

Point Based Model, (Hybrid Method)

It will be a split method to 100 points, in this illustration I would assign 65% of the point score based on longevity, and 35% of the total score coming from Relative Seniority.

The equations would go something like this:

((Days of Service / Maximum Days of Service) * 65) +
(Relative percentile * 35) = Total Score.

For simplicity sake, let's say Max DoS = 10,500. Which would be the most amount of days of any pilot served in all 3 airlines. I figure it's Mesaba with a guy hired in '82, (I believe).
Example.

• Pilot A has served @ Airline 1 for 2000 days and is in the 55th percentile of pilots.

• Pilot B has served at Airline 2 for 1400 days and is in the 60th percentile of pilots.

Pilot A = (2000/10500) * 65 = 12.38
.55 * 35 = 19.25
= 31.63 Total Score

Pilot B = (1400/10500) * 65 = 8.66
.60 * 35 = 21.00
= 29.66 Total Score

So Pilot A would be senior in the combined list over pilot B despite the fact that Pilot B has better relative at Company 2.

I think this would be a fair and uniform way to get the seniority lists taken care of.

I don't like your formula, I dont think it would be fair to the Colgan Pilots.

 

[i fly boxes]

i think we should merge the lists in inverse seniority. The most junior guy will now be on top. I think its the only fair way.

 

[Smarta$$]

I don't like your formula, I dont think it would be fair to the Colgan Pilots.

And what you think is fair to Colgan is not fair to Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots.

 

[Yodafly]

And what you think is fair to Colgan is not fair to Pinnacle and Mesaba pilots.

True, I doubt anyone is going to be happy with the outcome.