Pinnacle/Mesaba/Colgan SLI!

[www.]

In Bloch we trust.

One of the better arbitrators out there. Get ready for a "hybrid" list. History does and will repeat itself.

 

[SEVEN]

One of the better arbitrators out there. Get ready for a "hybrid" list. History does and will repeat itself.

Define "hybrid" and how it pertains to this particular SLI.

 

[MACH-TUCK]

I just want my Ipad so I dont have to do Lido Revision 11-17!!!! That thing is freaking HUGE!!

 

[SEVEN]

I just want my Ipad so I dont have to do Lido Revision 11-17!!!! That thing is freaking HUGE!!

What is :uzi:Lido:smash:!!!!!!!!??????????????

 

[RJLoser]

What is :uzi:Lido:smash:!!!!!!!!??????????????

European jepps in crayon.

 

[dustrpilot]

What is :uzi:Lido:smash:!!!!!!!!??????????????

What's Lido? The most sorry excuse for approach plates known to man.

 

[Raskal]

European jepps in crayon.

:laugh:

 

[xjhawk]

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

 

[CptMurf]

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

Well said.

 

[DoinTime]

Hybrid....as in Delta/NWA is what is referenced

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.

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.