Pinnacle Staffing Cost 9E Pilots Fence Positions

ChickenSled

Am I Evil...Yes I Am
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Posts
129
yeah I like how in the union presentation they quoted three things that ALPA merger policy takes into consideration. Two of the three I remember are Longevity and career expectations. Funny because even if the saabs would have been taken, even with the lowered flow me and 71 other 2001-2004 hires would have stayed captains (maybe, maybe a slight bump as a FO for a short time)-but instead we are now Jr to some guys with 3-4 years longevity-have 500 people shoved in senior to us even though they should not have been.

So the way I see it I was not represented as ALPA defined how their merger policy was suppose to happen. Now I have no bidding power-no QOL-and broken expectations. Will ALPA do anything about it? NO was already the answer. SHAME SHAME SHAME on you ALPA. I am not anti ALPA-I just trust ALPA about as much as anyone else who has stabbed me in the back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM
 

gnx99

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 30, 2001
Posts
556
Total Time
---
Sorry bud, my XJ equivalent DOH is 250 numbers in front of me. Seniority I gained not. I got stuffed behind a whole list of XJ S340 CAs and 9L Q400 CAs that ALL have less longevity than I do.
All sides got that in certain cases, so you're no alone. I'm a CA at XJ and the 9E DOH equivalent to me is now 560 in front of me. The Colgan DOH equivalent is at least 695 in front of me. I haven't seen exact Colgan DOHs yet to know for sure, but I'd bet the real number is well over 700 senior to me. Just 250 would have been really nice.

I got put behind all the 9E captains in MSP (I haven't seen other cities bid packs) and I have more longevity than 1/3 of them. The most junior one is over 300 senior to me.
 
Last edited:

Flyer1015

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Posts
4,502
Total Time
Moola
A pilot on Pinnacle's internal forum did this analysis. The fenced ratio is based on aircraft Captains divided by airplanes. The analysis is pretty accurate. Here it is, copy pasted:

Pinnacle needs to have a quota of 541 Captain slots on the CRJ-200. If the number is less than that, then the upgrade will go to a Pinnacle pilot before it goes to a XJ or 9L pilot. For the 900s, it's 95 Captain slots.
The point is that we have lost on this since our numbers are horrendously low, because these numbers are tied to our staffing model of Summer 2010 when the snapshot was taken. That is what Bloch used.

Summer of 2010, we had 126 CRJ-200s, and with 4.29 pilots per aircraft, the math was 541 CAs. Relatively speaking, with Mesaba's 19 CRJ-200s they bring in to the mix, their staffing was 5.26 captains per CRJ-200, so they get 100 slots protected.

Proportionately speaking, both XJ and 9L have much more fenced protections than we do simply because our staffing model was horrendous. Bloch even bolded Mesaba's staffing numbers on page 18 of the award.
The reason it hurts is because our staffing was so low in Summer 2010, and today, we have "fixed it" by a significant amount. That is to say, we have far more than 541 Captains on the CRJ-200. We have exceeded our ratios simply because management decided to increase our staffing. Had our staffing snapshot been taken NOW, we would have been much better off, because we would have protected more of our own CA slots for our own pilots.

When it comes time to upgrade, you say that we Pinnacle pilots have protected 541 slots. True, but we have protected those slots based on a staffing model of 4.29 captains per CRJ-200. Today, we stand far above that value, and have many more than 541 CRJ-200 Captains. Because our ratios are already met on both the 200s and 900s, we don't get any help by the fences. The next few upgrades will be XJ guys while they fill their ratios. And if Pinnacle guys leave, that's good, but the available slots will STILL be above 541. For us to gain any advantage, TONS of Pinnacle pilots would have to leave, to make our staffing model go from 5-6 captains per CRJ to 4.29 captains per CRJ. Then, the fenced protections would kick in, and we would get priority on the RJs while we filled to meet the quota of 541 Pinnacle RJ Captains.

But make no mistake, we have lost big time on the fenced protections, because the protections based on a staffing model that was in place at Summer 2010.

*************************************************

My comment: Before any XJ guys says (again) that you brought the staffing with a new contract: untrue. Our snapshot was taken July 2010 for these low staffing numbers. We had upgrades and newhire vacancies every month in July, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb. The JNCBA was signed Feb 18. We had already increased our staffing to come in line with "industry average" before the JCBA was signed!

I hope the merger committee disputes this fence protection, so it can raise the number of protected positions. The 60-day window is open, and time will tell.
 

bri5150

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Posts
1,115
Total Time
Enough
A pilot on Pinnacle's internal forum did this analysis. The fenced ratio is based on aircraft Captains divided by airplanes. The analysis is pretty accurate. Here it is, copy pasted:

Pinnacle needs to have a quota of 541 Captain slots on the CRJ-200. If the number is less than that, then the upgrade will go to a Pinnacle pilot before it goes to a XJ or 9L pilot. For the 900s, it's 95 Captain slots.
The point is that we have lost on this since our numbers are horrendously low, because these numbers are tied to our staffing model of Summer 2010 when the snapshot was taken. That is what Bloch used.

Summer of 2010, we had 126 CRJ-200s, and with 4.29 pilots per aircraft, the math was 541 CAs. Relatively speaking, with Mesaba's 19 CRJ-200s they bring in to the mix, their staffing was 5.26 captains per CRJ-200, so they get 100 slots protected.

Proportionately speaking, both XJ and 9L have much more fenced protections than we do simply because our staffing model was horrendous. Bloch even bolded Mesaba's staffing numbers on page 18 of the award.
The reason it hurts is because our staffing was so low in Summer 2010, and today, we have "fixed it" by a significant amount. That is to say, we have far more than 541 Captains on the CRJ-200. We have exceeded our ratios simply because management decided to increase our staffing. Had our staffing snapshot been taken NOW, we would have been much better off, because we would have protected more of our own CA slots for our own pilots.

When it comes time to upgrade, you say that we Pinnacle pilots have protected 541 slots. True, but we have protected those slots based on a staffing model of 4.29 captains per CRJ-200. Today, we stand far above that value, and have many more than 541 CRJ-200 Captains. Because our ratios are already met on both the 200s and 900s, we don't get any help by the fences. The next few upgrades will be XJ guys while they fill their ratios. And if Pinnacle guys leave, that's good, but the available slots will STILL be above 541. For us to gain any advantage, TONS of Pinnacle pilots would have to leave, to make our staffing model go from 5-6 captains per CRJ to 4.29 captains per CRJ. Then, the fenced protections would kick in, and we would get priority on the RJs while we filled to meet the quota of 541 Pinnacle RJ Captains.

But make no mistake, we have lost big time on the fenced protections, because the protections based on a staffing model that was in place at Summer 2010.

*************************************************

My comment: Before any XJ guys says (again) that you brought the staffing with a new contract: untrue. Our snapshot was taken July 2010 for these low staffing numbers. We had upgrades and newhire vacancies every month in July, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb. The JNCBA was signed Feb 18. We had already increased our staffing to come in line with "industry average" before the JCBA was signed!

I hope the merger committee disputes this fence protection, so it can raise the number of protected positions. The 60-day window is open, and time will tell.
We can go round and round on this. So now you don't want to use the "snapshot" from July 1st 2010? Great. Our furlough recalls should now be active, our LGA ops should count, and your fleet is shrinking due to poor performance. Before the announcement, you were pretty big on using the "snapshot". What happened?
 

mesaba13

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
267
Total Time
5000+
FLYER1015

You still can't figure it out? This is what the "expectation" was at 9E the day before purchase, so 541 is the number you were given. Pinnacle has always operated short so why should Bloch give you guys any more captain postions than he did? You have even said that 9E had horrendous staffing so that is what 9E brought to the table and that is what was expected from 9E in the future. It simply doesn't matter if 9E has increased staffing since.

You never acknowledge that XJ brought anything to the table, but the fact is that Bloch saw that we staffed higher than 9E in the past and that was our expectation going forward the day before the purchase. He then awarded us our number accordingly.
 
Last edited:

xjgearbtch

Living the dream
Joined
May 27, 2006
Posts
386
Total Time
12k+
FLYER1015

You still can't figure it out? This is what the "expectation" was at 9E the day before purchase, so 541 is the number you were given. Pinnacle has always operated short so why should Bloch give you guys any more captain postions than he did? You have even said that 9E had horrendous staffing so that is what 9E brought to the table and that is what was expected from 9E in the future. It simply doesn't matter if 9E has increased staffing since.

You never acknowledge that XJ brought anything to the table, but the fact is that Bloch saw that we staffed higher than 9E in the past and that was our expectation going forward the day before the purchase. He then awarded us our number accordingly.
Ding ding careful, this is FI you can't use logic here ;-)
 

Flyprdu

You Want This, Don't You.
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Posts
1,541
Total Time
Pssh..
Do you know how you can tell who had the clear victory of this ISL Decision?

The ones who are defending it and telling everyone else to shut up.

Congratulations, Mesaba.
 

mesaba13

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
267
Total Time
5000+
Mesaba is feeling plenty of pain on this. We have 01 hires that are behind people hired many years later. (4 years in some cases)
 

bri5150

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Posts
1,115
Total Time
Enough
Do you know how you can tell who had the clear victory of this ISL Decision?

The ones who are defending it and telling everyone else to shut up.

Congratulations, Mesaba.

Yeah, clear victory for me. Lost 5% relative seniority, tucked in with with pilots hired 1.5-3 years after me, and certainly far enough away from fences they won't make a differrence until there is serious attrition. Clearly victory. :rolleyes: Maybe we are giving him a hard time because we are pissed he is bitching about stuff considering the gains he made at our expense?
 

sinkrate

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2006
Posts
232
Total Time
tomuch
The 'expectation' of PCL FO's was a fast upgrade at a carrier that has a lenghty history of high turnover/quick upgrades. Bloch took that away from them and gave it to MSA FO's, that had no such expectation. Even if the PCL FO's are further up the list they won't be upgrading now any time soon. Thats going to create a lot of resentment in a lot of cockpits going forward.

The staffing per AC at any regional carrier is predominately detemined by the flying their mainline partner gives them. PCL management had already recogonized the need to expand their staffing for Delta's marketing plan long before the JCBA. As another poster noted they started a year ago. The JCBA had nothing to do with it.

An Arbitrator can modify his award. I doubt he would revisit the construction of the list itself but he can certianly, and probably should, revisit the fences.

But the PCL pilots better find an effective committee to do it.
 

jynxyjericho

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2011
Posts
795
Total Time
4k
Do you know how you can tell who had the clear victory of this ISL Decision?

The ones who are defending it and telling everyone else to shut up.

Congratulations, Mesaba.
If only the prize was getting our flow back.

I guess the real question is, who are you voting for?
 

CptMurf

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Posts
669
Total Time
10K+
I'm hearing complaints from ALL the groups... All valid point too... Could that mean anything??
 

bri5150

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Posts
1,115
Total Time
Enough
The 'expectation' of PCL FO's was a fast upgrade at a carrier that has a lenghty history of high turnover/quick upgrades. Bloch took that away from them and gave it to MSA FO's, that had no such expectation. Even if the PCL FO's are further up the list they won't be upgrading now any time soon. Thats going to create a lot of resentment in a lot of cockpits going forward.

The staffing per AC at any regional carrier is predominately detemined by the flying their mainline partner gives them. PCL management had already recogonized the need to expand their staffing for Delta's marketing plan long before the JCBA. As another poster noted they started a year ago. The JCBA had nothing to do with it.

An Arbitrator can modify his award. I doubt he would revisit the construction of the list itself but he can certianly, and probably should, revisit the fences.

But the PCL pilots better find an effective committee to do it.

Pinnacle FO's were expecting a fast upgrade? What's the most junior Captain at now? I couldn't imagine it would be all that fast without growth. In fact, if I were hired today (with no merger), I would be a little concerned about the 200's being parked shortly after I was upgrading. I had never heard about fast upgrades at Pinnacle. There were fast upgrades for about two months at Mesaba though. I guess I could be wrong though. And there is going to be resentment in cockpits for 60 or so fenced positions that you will have first crack at anyways because 3/4 of everyone else was stapled below you?
 

bri5150

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Posts
1,115
Total Time
Enough
I'm hearing complaints from ALL the groups... All valid point too... Could that mean anything??

You may be right, but the degrees of the complaints are quite different. Losing 6 years of seniority is quite different than bickering over 60 fenced positions that you can still get if your seniority (which was increased relatively for the most part) holds it.
 

DoinTime

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
What were the min days off in your last contract? What are the min days off now? Does the amount of days off now require more pilots to cover flying because people have more days off?
The only way the min day off requirement (11 instead of 10) effects staffing is for reserve coverage. More days off for junior line holders just equals less days off for more senior lineholders so that end of the equation is a wash. So at a typical 15% reserve coverage in the pre merger pinnacle group, the increase in 1 day off for reserves requires 18 more pilots system wide. Not exactly big numbers. This number could be further reduced by quantifying the degraded rules for line holder availability contained in some of the Mesaba provisions that made their way into the JCBA.
 

mesaba13

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
267
Total Time
5000+
The contract clearly states:

"The company shall staff each position with a sufficent number of Pilots to cover all known flying, vacation, normal sick leave levels scheduled training, Company-related business and known leaves of absence."

Although this does not say numbers, if it is grieved than an arbritrator will decide.
 

DoinTime

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
The contract clearly states:

"The company shall staff each position with a sufficent number of Pilots to cover all known flying, vacation, normal sick leave levels scheduled training, Company-related business and known leaves of absence."

Although this does not say numbers, if it is grieved than an arbritrator will decide.
That was pinnacle contract language.
 

bri5150

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Posts
1,115
Total Time
Enough
The only way the min day off requirement (11 instead of 10) effects staffing is for reserve coverage. More days off for junior line holders just equals less days off for more senior lineholders so that end of the equation is a wash. So at a typical 15% reserve coverage in the pre merger pinnacle group, the increase in 1 day off for reserves requires 18 more pilots system wide. Not exactly big numbers. This number could be further reduced by quantifying the degraded rules for line holder availability contained in some of the Mesaba provisions that made their way into the JCBA.
First off, that was just one example of how they need to staff better. Second, what you are seriously trying to say is that having a higher amount of minimum days off doesn't affect staffing levels? I am pretty sure that the company doesn't gift days off to the senior people. They have more days off because of 30 in 7 and 100 in the month and stuff like that. Not because the company wants to give them more time off for fun. And your 18 pilots system wide is pretty much the amount of Mesaba positions that need to be filled for the minimum, so obviously it is significant enough for that argument.
 

Flyer1015

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Posts
4,502
Total Time
Moola
Pinnacle FO's were expecting a fast upgrade? What's the most junior Captain at now? I couldn't imagine it would be all that fast without growth. In fact, if I were hired today (with no merger), I would be a little concerned about the 200's being parked shortly after I was upgrading. I had never heard about fast upgrades at Pinnacle. There were fast upgrades for about two months at Mesaba though. I guess I could be wrong though. And there is going to be resentment in cockpits for 60 or so fenced positions that you will have first crack at anyways because 3/4 of everyone else was stapled below you?
Bri, Pinnacle has hired street Captains, that's how bad it was at times. When I started at Pinnacle, I had 2 Captains junior to me, because they had the time to put in for upgrade, and I didn't. These two were subsequently displaced and then later quit. Any FO hired in 2006 got to upgrade last year, 2010, or earlier this year. The most junior FO upgrade on the last vacancy was hired (class date) March 2007. Yeah, even in this economy, a 4-year upgrade, with NO fleet growth. So it is true when the guy above said that now Mesaba pilots have taken that from Pinnacle FOs.

Next, as for bri, xjgear, and all the other guys in group 3 "stapled" under 541 Pinnacle guys and 198 Colgan gus. Look, the bottom line is that next year, once the Saabs are all parked, you will get to bid wherever your seniority allows you to go. Because it's a reduction in flying (Saabs = parked), you can bid to jet Captain positions. Mesaba has yet to meet its fence numbers, and they will soon. But since Pinnacle ONLY has 541 CAs fenced on the 200s, and 95 CAs fenced on the 900s, worse case scenario is you will get these spots, and junior Pinnacle Captains, hired in 2006 and 2007 (who you apparently "fear" or "resent" most), WILL be displaced out of their seats. Pinnacle has 600+ Captains on the CRJ-200 now. We can displace all the way out to just 541 Captains on the 200. Theoretically, because most of these 200 Captains are not in the first 541 spots at Pinnacle, all you Saab Captains could technically bid over to jet CA and displace all junior Pinnacle guys out. Our worse case scenario next year is just 541 Captains on the -200 and just 95 Captains on the 900s. That is FAR, FAR LESS than what we have now!!!!! Forget upgrades, I'm looking at parked Saabs, Mesaba Saab CAs then bidding jet CAs, and our junior 9E Captains getting displaced. Due to the high fences on the Qs, our junior Captains will have no place to go but the right seat of the RJ.

There you have. I've explained why this is a windfall for Pinnacle pilots. These fence protections need to be changed, and hopefully, the 60-day window will make it happen.
 

DoinTime

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 27, 2001
Posts
2,523
Total Time
6000+
First off, that was just one example of how they need to staff better. Second, what you are seriously trying to say is that having a higher amount of minimum days off doesn't affect staffing levels? I am pretty sure that the company doesn't gift days off to the senior people. They have more days off because of 30 in 7 and 100 in the month and stuff like that. Not because the company wants to give them more time off for fun. And your 18 pilots system wide is pretty much the amount of Mesaba positions that need to be filled for the minimum, so obviously it is significant enough for that argument.
So give us some more examples then. You were the one with the claim that some of the provisions carried in from the former Mesaba contract mandated increased staffing.
 
Top