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 Staffing Cost 9E Pilots Fence Positions

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
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
 
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:
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.
 
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?
 
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:
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 ;-)
 
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.
 
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)
 
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?
 
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.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top