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

Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgan SLI!

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
Register   Log in
F

fowingman

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Posts
227
So whats the deal I hear from a few pncl pilots in the airport that they feel that the pilots of Mesaba should be stapled on the bottom of the list, or a 3:1 , or a 5:1. is this the view of a lot of people at pncl?
 
Of course there is a very small group that wants a staple. I wouldn't even call them a group, more like a few random individuals. The fact of the matter is we can all want something, but it's in the arbitrators hands now and we live with the results.
 
I love how one of these threads comes up every once in a while for no reason what so ever. There are a few pinnacle pilots that want both groups stapled to the bottom

There are also a few mesaba pilots that want pinnacle stapled below them

there are also a few colgan pilots that want both groups stapled below them.

Then there is the overwelming majority of all 3 groups that just want the arbitrator to get off his behind and make the damn decision already so we can just all move on
 
i fly boxes said:
I love how one of these threads comes up every once in a while for no reason what so ever. There are a few pinnacle pilots that want both groups stapled to the bottom

There are also a few mesaba pilots that want pinnacle stapled below them

there are also a few colgan pilots that want both groups stapled below them.

Then there is the overwelming majority of all 3 groups that just want the arbitrator to get off his behind and make the damn decision already so we can just all move on
Click to expand...

Agreed
 
I heard the Pncl merger committee was dead set on a staple. Sounds like it's a larger minority in this boat than previously thought.
 
Hey Higney,
Why the discrepancy in XJ/9L releasing statement saying they were trying to organize a negotiation meeting on the 18th, but 9E was unresponsive. Then 4 days later on the 22nd 9E releases a statement saying XJ/9L were unresponsive in 9E proposal to set a meeting. Something's amiss here and someone is not stating the truth to their pilot group.
 
CptMurf said:
Hey Higney,
Why the discrepancy in XJ/9L releasing statement saying they were trying to organize a negotiation meeting on the 18th, but 9E was unresponsive. Then 4 days later on the 22nd 9E releases a statement saying XJ/9L were unresponsive in 9E proposal to set a meeting. Something's amiss here and someone is not stating the truth to their pilot group.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you are talking about with 9E releasing a statement on the 22nd. No such statement exists. I havent heard that 9L has said anything on the matter either. So far, it just looks like the XJ MEC is trying to stir the pot.
 
DoinTime said:
Not sure what you are talking about with 9E releasing a statement on the 22nd. No such statement exists. I havent heard that 9L has said anything on the matter either. So far, it just looks like the XJ MEC is trying to stir the pot.
Click to expand...


If by "stirring the pot" you mean "trying to get a deal done before one is forced upon us", then yes, they are probably "stirring the pot".
 
DoinTime said:
Not sure what you are talking about with 9E releasing a statement on the 22nd. No such statement exists. I havent heard that 9L has said anything on the matter either. So far, it just looks like the XJ MEC is trying to stir the pot.
Click to expand...

It is just hearsay, but I was told by a 9E pilot that an email was sent out to 9E pilots on April 22nd stating that they had contacted the the arbitrator and expressed interest in negotiating during arbitration, but had not had any contact with the XJ/9L negotiators. Yet XJ/9L pilots were advised 4 days earlier on the 18th via email (I got it, so this is a fact), that they had tried to contact the 9E negotiators to set a meeting date/time, but that 9E was unresponsive to their requests.

So either the 9E pilot that I got this info from is wrong, or something is amiss in communications between the 3 groups. And if the latter is true, then 9E is standing by themselves in this process.
 
CptMurf said:
It is just hearsay, but I was told by a 9E pilot that an email was sent out to 9E pilots on April 22nd stating that they had contacted the the arbitrator and expressed interest in negotiating during arbitration, but had not had any contact with the XJ/9L negotiators.
Click to expand...

That email doesn't exist.


Yet XJ/9L pilots were advised 4 days earlier on the 18th via email (I got it, so this is a fact), that they had tried to contact the 9E negotiators to set a meeting date/time, but that 9E was unresponsive to their requests.
Click to expand...

How do you know what the 9L pilots got in their email box? Either way, considering that the above email doesn't exist, the point is moot and baseless.


So either the 9E pilot that I got this info from is wrong, or something is amiss in communications between the 3 groups. And if the latter is true, then 9E is standing by themselves in this process.
Click to expand...

Your accusations are based on crew room BS and are unfounded. Why am I not surprised?
 
There are and were no talks. It's political posturing on XJ's part . 9L and 9E weren't aware of any talks according to my sources.

We all await the arbitrator, that is all.
 
What's this? Unions sending out whiny/bitchy emails about the other union(s) during seniority arbitration? Impossible I say.
 
Geeesh Seven, let's have a glass half full outlook on this. This isnt exciting for anyone. Time to move on though.
 
RJLoser said:
Geeesh Seven, let's have a glass half full outlook on this. This isnt exciting for anyone. Time to move on though.
Click to expand...

It's the fear of the unknown. The fate of ALL are in the hands of one man. Soon, 9E Peter will be silenced til age 65. P.P is only looking out for himself and not others. He is a selfish person and doesn't care about the good of all 3 pilot groups involved. Sadly, there are too many like him anticipating the demise of the XJ pilot group. What an exciting day that will be to see good triumph. However, there is still fear and anticipation that this could go the wrong way.
I, however am slightly optimistic that the right decision will be made.
 
As for the comment that any XJ pilot has said anything about staple-that is Total Bull. I do plenty of ready reserve and keep an ear to crew room talk and rumors (one in the same). Not one XJ person has said anything about this. I have heard DOH talked about by most of the senior people, but most everyone else just says some sort of "however fair can be worked out" is what they want. Heck even the DOH is not anti Pinnacle pilots as it would help more of them than Mesaba people. Most of the talk is fear of the squeaky wheel getting the attention as per the Pinnacle pete types out there. I now more fear the US Air scenario where they lawyer up when they do not get their staple. All I know is I have heard some bad things coming from the 9E MEC and how they are mistrusted by their own pilot group. I know most of our union pilots and trust them 100% when they tell me of what happened happened concerning emails.....

Lets stop fighting about this-its out of our hands. Hybrid....as in Delta/NWA is what is referenced
 
xjhawk said:
As for the comment that any XJ pilot has said anything about staple-that is Total Bull. I do plenty of ready reserve and keep an ear to crew room talk and rumors (one in the same). Not one XJ person has said anything about this. I have heard DOH talked about by most of the senior people, but most everyone else just says some sort of "however fair can be worked out" is what they want. Heck even the DOH is not anti Pinnacle pilots as it would help more of them than Mesaba people. Most of the talk is fear of the squeaky wheel getting the attention as per the Pinnacle pete types out there. I now more fear the US Air scenario where they lawyer up when they do not get their staple. All I know is I have heard some bad things coming from the 9E MEC and how they are mistrusted by their own pilot group. I know most of our union pilots and trust them 100% when they tell me of what happened happened concerning emails.....

Lets stop fighting about this-its out of our hands. Hybrid....as in Delta/NWA is what is referenced
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
xjhawk said:
Hybrid....as in Delta/NWA is what is referenced
Click to expand...

DAL/NWA was not a hybrid. It was a ratioed (read "relative seniority") status and category scheme. Date of hire was not considered at all. Status and Category is by far the most predominate way arbitrators settle seniority lists.


DAL MEC said:
After weeks of mediation and arbitration, the Panel produced a Ratioed Status and Category solution that resulted in an ISL Award. Update #02 will cover the construction of the ISL in more detail. A brief description of a Ratioed Status and Category list requires a discussion of:

• Aircraft Groupings and

• Staffing Ratios.

To create the Aircraft Groupings, a variety of factors can be used: technical specifications (range, payload, seats, etc.), similar missions, or some other construct. After analyzing several different groupings, the Panel ultimately focused on a 4-grouping list:

1. Widebody Captains (757 and above),

2. Narrowbody Captains,

3. Widebody First Officers, and

4. Narrowbody First Officers.

The next step in a Ratioed Status and Category list construction process is to establish proper Staffing Ratios. This ratio determines the number of pilots required to operate the aircraft and can be based on a calculation for each airframe or on the total number of block hours flown and the required staffing. There is a lengthy discussion in the Post-Hearing Statement on pages 22-54 that outlines the various discussions and analyses, but the essence of this discussion is covered in the excerpt below from page 23 of our Post-Hearing Statement:

First, the appropriate fleet and staffing ratio assumptions used for list-
building purposes should be based on the known information as of the
snapshot date, or a date nearby. In this case, the parties’ agree on this
principle, but not on the proper snapshot date, as explained below.

Second, the appropriate staffing ratios for crediting jobs in each status and
category are those based on each carrier’s current, pre-merger staffing
practices.

During the mediated sessions, the Panel sought a means to address the attrition differences between the two pilot groups. A concept referred to as “pull-out and plug-in” was developed to address this issue. Under this treatment, a sampling of former NWA pilots who are the closest to reaching the mandatory retirement age are identified and then pulled from their pre-merger list and placed off to the side while the ISL is constructed based on appropriate ratios. The extraction of these pilots allows all of the pilots below them on their pre-merger seniority list to move up in the initial list construction. The pilots who were pulled out are then plugged back into the list one position senior to the pilot who was junior to them on their respective pre-merger list.

As is typical in these proceedings, the arbitrators have little technical support to assist them in constructing seniority lists. At the conclusion of the hearings on November 17th, the Panel requested technical assistance from the two Merger Committees to assist the Panel in constructing a fair and equitable list. In this final phase, during which both committees only provided technical assistance, dozens of lists with various groupings, staffing assumptions, construction methods and pull-outs/plug-ins were produced for the Panel.

After months of work, the Delta MEC Merger Committee believes that the SLI Process Agreement provided for a fair process and that, by definition, produced an end product that is fair and equitable. The Award that was issued by the Panel on Monday, e-mailed to you and posted on the Delta MEC website is a Ratioed Status and Category list using the four aircraft groupings mentioned above. The Panel elected to utilize the “pull-out/plug-in” treatment using the 274 oldest former NWA pilots during the construction of the list. The Panel also followed a long established practice referred to as “constructive notice” which places any pilots who were hired after the date of the merger announcement on the bottom of the list in date-of-hire order. Delta had two classes of pilots hired after April 14, 2008 and Northwest did not have any classes hired after the merger was announced. We will discuss the constructive notice issue as well as the pull-out/plug-in attrition treatment in greater detail in Update #02. Also, a number of Conditions & Restrictions are a part of the Award, and we will cover these in detail in Update #03.
Click to expand...
 

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest resources

Latest media

Carbon Cub FX-3 Shenandoah Valley
Carbon Cub at Kittyhawk
FX-3 in the backcountry
IFR Panel in a Carbon Cub FX-3
Cub-Provo-UT-c.jpg
Back
Top Bottom