Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgan SLI!

[Simon Says]

Sounds pretty accurate to me. The situations were not even close to being similar to the LOA situation. PCL was losing aircraft during the NWA/Mesaba bankruptcy right along with NWA and Mesaba (the aircraft that were removed from PCL were later reallocated to Mesaba). What the Mesaba MEC was trying to do was just a seniority grab.

I just wanted to point out the facts of the bankruptcy and the LOA. Mesaba's MEC thought it should be active and 9E didn't agree, but we did try to implement it during the bankruptcy. Thats all.

I didn't want to open up a debate on wheather or not it should of been active or not.

 

[Simon Says]

Does someone have the text or know where to find the LOA on the ALPA site? It's pretty clear on when the LOA is to be activated.

No it is not clear when the LOA is activated or not. It is fairly vague with sloppy language. I can't find the LOA anymore, but I know it was posted on this site sometime ago. I believe early July. It truly is no secret what is in their, if I find it I will post it.

 

[CoATP]

And why is it things before July 1st of last year didn't done (other than bitchin') and things after July 1st ARE getting done? Why didn't you guys get a single seniority list with the Colgan purchase? Why didn't you guys get a contract before July 1st? Why were you guys running so short handed before July 1st? Why were your rates so low before July 1st?

SLI with Colgan was grieved and WON. Company ignored it and "it did not apply to them as corp was not a certificate holder." Corp now wants to make Colgan name disappear to reduce bad publicity. They decided that Colgan/Mesaba would be a merger and that jet movement would be an "asset transfer." 9E MEC did not have the Cajones to stand up and use that as bargaining capital.

9E is short handed because PLAN is a four letter word to corp. Step over a dollar to pick up a penny.

 

[xjhawk]

The asset transfer was a bad idea as there is language in mesaba's contract that would have made it difficult and open to litigation- making their business strategy bogged down and unprofitable. We are three independent companies owned by a holding company. In legal terms because the holdings company shares part of a name with one of the companies does not therefore make that company the "lead" company and allow them the most in terms of SLI. Yeah it sucks but Pinnacle should have had better language in their contract to insure SLI with colgan to take advantage of that growth. But you did not. Now that there are three of us in this mess, a staple or whatever mess 9E proposed does not fit-why should you get the windfall? I think if DOH were chosen I think some fences would be practical to ensure career expectations for Colgan and XJ's 900's. But I think any future fences are not an issue because of expected movement to the majors will be increasing and any growth or new bases will allow for movement for all. Yes, I have been for DOH or even a DOH slanted relative SLI as long as it was fair for all.

Pinnacles virtual staple is ridiculous for all but Pinnacle.
Having a 9 year Colgan a few seniority numbers away from a 20 year mesaba or Pinnacle guy is also ridiculous. giving the senior Colgan pilots fences to protect their Q positions is acceptable in my eyes under that scenerio.
I also think fencing the Atlanta 900's for Pinnacle is a fine idea too. let me know if this is just too much for your ego and how it disrupts your plan to bid from the Q or 200 into the 900......................and have a XJ or Colgan guy as your gear B^&$#

 

[Carl_Spackler]

Bloch should just fence everything, aircraft, bases, seats, bidding position for 40 years. Basically a big freeze for everyone. That way no matter what the method for the ISL no one would get screwed.

 

[PCL_128]

I can assure you 100% that a request was made during bankruptcy. I was actively involved in the discussions of bankruptcy. W.G. official answer included that the LOA was not active because the situations were not similar. BTW, his answer was in writing and read to the LEC and MEC. PCL128 is not W.G so he does not know. He just knows what the reps know.

Going to W.G. is not the same thing as going to the MEC. If you only went to the MEC Chairman, then that's what should be said. The previous post said that the MSA MEC went to the PCL MEC. That never happened. If W.G. denied a request from the MSA MEC behind closed doors without ever mentioning it to the PCL MEC, then we would have had no way of knowing that, so blaming the PCL MEC is not appropriate.

 

[Simon Says]

Going to W.G. is not the same thing as going to the MEC. If you only went to the MEC Chairman, then that's what should be said. The previous post said that the MSA MEC went to the PCL MEC. That never happened. If W.G. denied a request from the MSA MEC behind closed doors without ever mentioning it to the PCL MEC, then we would have had no way of knowing that, so blaming the PCL MEC is not appropriate.

You are right. We sent the request to the 9E MEC, which WG recieved. What he did with it, I suppose I don't know. I assumed he would handle it through the voting LEC reps, but who knows.

So, before you say that "I told you so" I would have to assume any normal person would assume that if WG said no, that he was speaking on behalf of the 9E MEC. But, we did submit a proposal during bankruptcy regarding the LOA, to say otherwise is incorrect.

 

[PCL_128]

I would have to assume any normal person would assume that if WG said no, that he was speaking on behalf of the 9E MEC.

That would be a bad assumption. I'm not necessarily saying that that wouldn't have been the answer (I just don't know, since we never debated it), but the request never made it to us.

 

[DoinTime]

You are right. We sent the request to the 9E MEC, which WG recieved. What he did with it, I suppose I don't know. I assumed he would handle it through the voting LEC reps, but who knows.

So, before you say that "I told you so" I would have to assume any normal person would assume that if WG said no, that he was speaking on behalf of the 9E MEC. But, we did submit a proposal during bankruptcy regarding the LOA, to say otherwise is incorrect.

Seeing is that you were involved, what was Mesaba's MEC justification to make the request to reciprocate LOA 21 during the bankruptcy? Its already been stated that all of the Airlinks and mainline NWA were shrinking during that time and that the provisions of the LOA were not triggered by any reasonable means. I can't see that the XJ MEC was doing anything other than trying to grab some seniority for furloughed and displaced XJ pilots at PCL. If thats not correct, please state your justification for reciprocity.

 

[bri5150]

Seeing is that you were involved, what was Mesaba's MEC justification to make the request to reciprocate LOA 21 during the bankruptcy? Its already been stated that all of the Airlinks and mainline NWA were shrinking during that time and that the provisions of the LOA were not triggered by any reasonable means. I can't see that the XJ MEC was doing anything other than trying to grab some seniority for furloughed and displaced XJ pilots at PCL. If thats not correct, please state your justification for reciprocity.

If we were trying to "grab seniorty" during bankruptcy, isn't that what the original express pilots were doing when the LOA was made? The difference is we (I wasn't here yet) were kind enough to offer/accept it. Now it is being thrown in our face by the "few" at Pinnacle.