Pinnacle PIC Time

[PCL_128]

does anyone know when Pinnacle's contract is up, and if the pay scale will go up a little when they ratify it?

Our contract was amendable in May of this year. Negotiations began at the beginning of the year and are progressing at a decent pace right now. The pay scales will of course go up, hopefully by quite a bit.

 

[Lear70]

That would be about $3,600 before taxes

THAT IS ALL A CRJ captain makes? Sad, really, really sad. How they got you suckers to work there in the first place is beyond me.

Then again you guys might be thinking "WOW, I will make 40K this year!"

I believe the reference was to how much a first year F/O makes and how the person in question was willing to bet that amount.

For the record, my W-2 on 4th year CA pay should be in the $80k range but I change bases a lot (sport bidding) and that's inflated an extra $5,000 because of that; I also work 95-99 hours a month and I'll time out in November, crediting over 1,200 hours of pay for the year with two weeks of paid vacation and the month of December off with pay.

Could be better, could be worse. I'd prefer to make $85k - $95k a year at guarantee, but then I wouldn't get December off with pay.

Tony is indeed working his tail off, as are others. During the last pilot meeting with senior management in DTW they didn't seem very concerned about the issue. They've evidently hired enough pilots who DO meet the minimums and there's always more F/O's out there so... as everything else here at Pissnickle, if it's not a problem for management, it's "not their problem" and nothing will be done about it.

 

[labbats]

For the record, my W-2 on 4th year CA pay should be in the $80k range but I change bases a lot (sport bidding) and that's inflated an extra $5,000 because of that; I also work 95-99 hours a month and I'll time out in November, crediting over 1,200 hours of pay for the year with two weeks of paid vacation and the month of December off with pay.

What are you doing? Take some time to sit at home and relax. You're making the rest of us look bad.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

Dude, you seriously need to get a life. If you asked this question before this whole thread then you go right ahead and log it. Because you obviously have it in your head that this is ethical and nothing I say here is going to change that.


If you wrote to that guy after this thread started, then you are seriously lamer than I could ever have predicted. Good Luck in all that you do.

And IMHO I still disagree. My point was more about the ethics of it and how others will perceive it.

On a side note I can't believe this freaking thing went 6 pages.

You know, you keep railing on towlie like he's committing a felony when, in reality, he is 100% correct. He even backed up his answer w/ a legal interpretation. You won't even look up the 121 reg you say governs this matter! The fact is acting as, serving as, and logging PIC are all different things. Part 61, which regulates pilots and not GA aircraft (as you incorrectly stated in a previous post), allows for logging PIC at times when the pilot is not necessarily acting/serving as PIC. Now, since this is legal, how is it unethical? He's not sitting at the end of the runway w/ his logbook and Parker pen copying tail numbers... he's not making up time. It only becomes unethical if he tries to pass it off as something it is not. Every airline I've come across has an application that asks for your flight times and it defines what they will consider as PIC time. If you fill out the application using their definitions, then what does it matter what you put in logbook? If asked why my logbook doesn't match my application I would tell the interviewers that my logbook contains times as defined by 61.51 and I broke them out to meet your definition of PIC when filling out the app. If that isn't a satisfactory answer and they, to quote you, "stop the interview immediately and show you the door go into the waiting rooom and ask if anybody else did what this dumbass just did," I'm going to thank them. Why? Because they will have saved me from making the mistake of going to work for a bunch of a-holes who don't have a clue. All that said, you are entitled to your opinion and I'll respect that just as I hope you can respect my opinion... and towelie's too.

cc

 

[manitoba]

For those hopefuls who are seeking a decent job with an ok airline, Pinnacle is an ok company. The pay is not great but the company is going to be around for the next few years. For those of you who are new in this airline world, Pinacle has been around for twenty years and they have been growing almost every year and been profitable every year. There are some great airlines and there are very bad ones. Pinnacle is an ok airline. The paychecks are always on time
For those who wish to be hired at Pinnacle right now please be informed that there will be more airplanes coming. The carrot is being held as negotiations are worked through. This is fact. Just some inside information.
The hiring critera is now more difficult however there is an organization in memphis that helps candidates to be prep'd for this hiring process. I have heard lot of good things about them. They can be reached via email at mempilotinterviews.com. Give them a shot. The last class of interviewees was for ten people and only 2 were hired. Those 2 had been prep'd by the above mentioned
Have a great 4th...........PEACE

 

[Lear70]

The hiring critera is now more difficult however there is an organization in memphis that helps candidates to be prep'd for this hiring process. I have heard lot of good things about them. They can be reached via email at mempilotinterviews.com. Give them a shot. The last class of interviewees was for ten people and only 2 were hired. Those 2 had been prep'd by the above mentioned
Have a great 4th...........PEACE

*snicker* The hiring criteria is more difficult now? Well, it used to be four functioning limbs and a heartbeat, (and the ability to pass that stupid written test), so I'm glad to hear we're getting a wee bit more choosy these days.

I'm also THRILLED to hear that they're only getting a trickle of people. If they can't fill classes with people they want and they want to keep their newly-raised criteria, they'll be forced to increase the compensation offered new-hires and it will no longer be as big of a bargaining point during negotiations.

 

[DoinTime]

Don, your understanding of the situation is simply not accurate. This is not a company requirement. This is something the POI is trying to enforce. Call the DTW FO rep. He's the guy handling most of this. He can bring you up to speed on the real facts of this situation.

A quick inspection of the requirements listed on the Bid Preference form will show you that 250 PIC is a company requirement along with 3500 total time, 2000 multiengine and 1000 turbine. If the company had any intention to make this reducible they very well could just as they have done for the other requirements. Proper identification of the problem is the first step in finding resolution.

PCL128...I hope your not this susceptible to company propaganda come issues invovlving contract negotiations.

 

[DoinTime]

Attention CLECA and DoinTime:

I NEVER, and I repeat NEVER, said you could do it without the type rating. However, you CAN with a type rating. I have said that all along and that has not changed. It is not 121 PIC time, it is 61 PIC time.

Why would you cite an example that doesn't apply to anyone we are talking about? Sure...a rated SIC can log some PIC time but first officers at PCL are not rated!

 

[PCL_128]

A quick inspection of the requirements listed on the Bid Preference form will show you that 250 PIC is a company requirement along with 3500 total time, 2000 multiengine and 1000 turbine. If the company had any intention to make this reducible they very well could just as they have done for the other requirements. Proper identification of the problem is the first step in finding resolution.

PCL128...I hope your not this susceptible to company propaganda come issues invovlving contract negotiations.

The 250 PIC listed on the Bid Preference form is a result of the POI not allowing the SIC time to be counted for now. Until that changes with an interpretation from the Council General or a new POI, then that requirement will be on the form so pilots without the PIC time don't keep showing up in class when they don't meet the mins that the POI is demanding.

This has nothing to do with company propaganda, this is about a renegade POI and FSDO that think they can treat Pinnacle differently than every other airline in the country is treated. When not a single other FSDO can be found that agrees with the MEM FSDO, then there's a problem. Our POI has overstepped his bounds and needs to get in line with what is considered standard practice. Treating our airline different than all the others is just not acceptable.

I really wish all of you guys would just call one of your DTW LEC reps to get the facts on this issue instead of citing your faulty interpretations of the regs. The reps are working on this, and they should be your source of information, not the crazy rumor mill.

 

[Inconceivable]

Yes, but at least this POI can pass a type ride and not fall asleep in systems ground school like a certain affirmative-action geriatric hanger-on POI who did not fare so well in the 3701 hearings.....

 

[CLECA]

You won't even look up the 121 reg you say governs this matter!

Actually, I did quote a reg 121.385 (c) in a previous post. If you re-read my previous post. It states: The minimum pilot crew is two pilots and the certificate holder shall designate one pilot as pilot in command and the other second in command.

The fact is acting as, serving as, and logging PIC are all different things. Now, since this is legal, how is it unethical?

How can anyone log time as a PIC when not serving as one.

It only becomes unethical if he tries to pass it off as something it is not.

reference previous statement

If asked why my logbook doesn't match my application I would tell the interviewers that my logbook contains times as defined by 61.51 and I broke them out to meet your definition of PIC when filling out the app.

This I can respect, but if it is found in a logbook review and was not pointed out any interviewer would have a field day.

All that said, you are entitled to your opinion

I absolutely respect your opinion and his. My initial post was just my opinion yet he didn't hestitate to call me a dumbass so I guess there's some hypocrisy here. I never wrote anything that should have been interpreted as aggressive, yet he took it that way. Sorry, downfall of a written forum.

P.S. re-read my posts, at no time did I ever say it is illegal to use this time. What I said was there is an ethics issue. Also 61.159 as someone said in a previous post, says you can use SIC time to meet the qualification requirement for the ATP. I don't remember seeing it written anywhere that if you're short on PIC that you as an FO can just log it as PIC because you were flying. It is still SIC time.

Everybody needs to relax, this has occupied way too much of everybodys time.

 

[Lear70]

Everybody needs to relax, this has occupied way too much of everybodys time.

Welcome to Flightinfo *snicker*.

 

[Clutch_Cargo]

Actually, I did quote a reg 121.385 (c) in a previous post. If you re-read my previous post. It states: The minimum pilot crew is two pilots and the certificate holder shall designate one pilot as pilot in command and the other second in command.

My apologies... you're absolutely correct. When I wrote that I was thinking of your first (?) post where you said you weren't looking it up because you didn't care that much.

The fact is acting as, serving as, and logging PIC are all different things.

How can anyone log time as a PIC when not serving as one.

I think we covered this... 61.51 allows for logging of PIC time at times when not serving as PIC. For example, as quoted from 61.51, a pilot may log as PIC flight time during which that person "is the sole manipulator of the controls of an aircraft for which the pilot is rated or has privileges." It does not address in any way what capacity the person is serving. So an SIC could potentially log PIC if he is appropriately rated and this is what Towelie's legal interpretation concluded.

Now, if what you meant to ask was how someone can act as PIC when not serving as one, I'll admit I am splitting hairs because we use the two terms interchangeably all the time. I don't work for Webster's so bear with me but in the context that I'm using these words, "serve" implies the ability to fulfill the duties of a position whereas "act" implies the ability to function in place of someone in a particular capacity. So in order to serve as PIC and sign for the jet a pilot would have had to complete the training and check rides necessary for certification as a Part 121 PIC. But there are situations where a pilot could act as PIC and not meet those requirements. For example, international relief pilots (or RFOs or Cruise Captains or whatever name you prefer). They may or may not be able to serve as PIC (sign for the jet) but they can act as PIC. The reg covering this is 121.543 which says, in part:

(b) A required flight crewmember may leave the assigned duty station—

(1) If the crewmember's absence is necessary for the performance of duties in connection with the operation of the aircraft;

(2) If the crewmember's absence is in connection with physiological needs; or

(3) If the crewmember is taking a rest period, and relief is provided—

(i) In the case of the assigned pilot in command during the en route cruise portion of the flight, by a pilot who holds an airline transport pilot certificate and an appropriate type rating, is currently qualified as pilot in command or second in command, and is qualified as pilot in command of that aircraft during the en route cruise portion of the flight. A second in command qualified to act as a pilot in command en route need not have completed the following pilot in command requirements: The 6-month recurrent flight training required by §121.433(c)(1)(iii); the operating experience required by §121.434; the takeoffs and landings required by §121.439; the line check required by §121.440; and the 6-month proficiency check or simulator training required by §121.441(a)(1); and

(ii) In the case of the assigned second in command, by a pilot qualified to act as second in command of that aircraft during en route operations. However, the relief pilot need not meet the recent experience requirements of §121.439(b).

So here is a scenario where someone other than the pilot serving as PIC (the assigned PIC, the guy/gal who signed for the jet) is acting as PIC.

It only becomes unethical if he tries to pass it off as something it is not.

reference previous statement.

Again, I would state that the pilot has not done anything unethical to this point. He has logged what is legally able to log. If he applies for a position and uses the company's definition of PIC in calculating his times for the application, he still has not done anything unethical. However, if the company only considered FAR 1 PIC time and the pilot counted 61.51 SMOC time towards that requirement on his application then I would definitely say yes, that is unethical.

If asked why my logbook doesn't match my application I would tell the interviewers that my logbook contains times as defined by 61.51 and I broke them out to meet your definition of PIC when filling out the app.

This I can respect, but if it is found in a logbook review and was not pointed out any interviewer would have a field day.

Agreed, if the applicant tried to pass it off as something it wasn't. But I don't think the onus falls on the applicant. If the interviewer wants to know about the logbook, it is up to him to ask. Then it becomes the applicant's responsibility to explain how he has logged the time. I say this because the applicant has kept his logbook according to the law, the FARs. It is the company that is requiring something different than the FARs so, if they have a concern, it should fall to them to ask. Another reason for saying this is that the airlines all have different requirements... from defining PIC time to type of aircraft they will consider... sometimes even aircraft size. It goes on and on. Are you going to keep separate logbooks for each potential employer? Is it your responsibility to point out that the PIC time you have logged in a particular type doesn't count because that is the type designator for a recip twin under 20,000 lbs? I don't think it is. Again, if the interviewer is concerned or confused about it, he/she can ask. After all, that is why they are all there together.

P.S. re-read my posts, at no time did I ever say it is illegal to use this time. What I said was there is an ethics issue. Also 61.159 as someone said in a previous post, says you can use SIC time to meet the qualification requirement for the ATP. I don't remember seeing it written anywhere that if you're short on PIC that you as an FO can just log it as PIC because you were flying. It is still SIC time.

No, you didn't say it was illegal and I didn't mean to imply that you did. If you took it that way, I apologize. As far as 61.159 goes, you are correct. The time is not logged as PIC... it is SIC time that maybe used in lieu of the PIC time required. But, if the SIC had been appropriately rated, 61.51 would allow him/her to log the time as PIC.

Everybody needs to relax, this has occupied way too much of everybodys time.

This we can DEFINITELY agree on!

cc

 

[manitoba]

I'm also THRILLED to hear that they're only getting a trickle of people. If they can't fill classes with people they want and they want to keep their newly-raised criteria, they'll be forced to increase the compensation offered new-hires and it will no longer be as big of a bargaining point during negotiations.

Lear 70
They will be forced to bring up the rear in pay. They just will not have any choice. So hotel plus pay is something the company is already talking about


Manitoba

 

[CLECA]

This we can DEFINITELY agree on!

cc

I think the horse is dead. I think there was a lot of confusion b/c now that I re-read I see where everyone changed to 61.51 but I still had it in my head as 61.159. In any event I don't think I'll be visiting this thread anymore in an effort to reduce my QOL with my family. It has occupied way too much of my time. You make some excellent points and I can see in a sense where some of this is coming from. I still don't wholeheartedly agree because I believe 61.51 (e) (1) (iii) would superceded i and ii, but I'm with ya.