XJT or Mesa

[Autothrust Blue]

But you'd be awesomer if you did so we could ride!

Yeah, but then all of those 145 schmucks would come to the Brasilia and TERK ER DERR!

 

[2fly4ever]

I would like to know the reserve times for XJT vs Mesa. How is the QOL at Mesa when holding a line. As in would you rather be on reserve at XJT or a line holder at Mesa?

 

[Maurus]

I would like to know the reserve times for XJT vs Mesa. How is the QOL at Mesa when holding a line. As in would you rather be on reserve at XJT or a line holder at Mesa?

All I can say is that reserve has been a cake walk on the ERJ side of XJT. That is with commuting.

The ERJ side has been upgrading more and more captains which means movement. The CRJ side has been much more static. I don't blame those guys for being pissed. They are the ones that have been responding for the most part in the thread.

All I can say is we shall see. Mesa may not be able to find enough pilots to staff their new planes and turn into the next Great Lakes going from quick upgrades to captains sitting in both seats more often than not.

No matter where you go it will be a crap shoot as no one can predict the airline industry.

Pick the airline that serves you the best with base locations and such and have a better QOL as a result. The chase for a quick upgrade can hurt. Just ask some previous Colgan FOs that are now stuck at a shrinking airline where the word "upgrade" is no longer in the dictionary.

 

[Adler]

Pick the airline that serves you the best with base locations and such and have a better QOL as a result. The chase for a quick upgrade can hurt. Just ask some previous Colgan FOs that are now stuck at a shrinking airline where the word "upgrade" is no longer in the dictionary.

...you mean just ask some Pinnacle captains who are now FO's while Colgan FO's are now Pinnacle captains.

 

[Seggy]

...you mean just ask some Pinnacle captains who are now FO's while Colgan FO's are now Pinnacle captains.

And binding arbitration is binding arbitration.......

 

[SpiceWeasel]

And binding arbitration is binding arbitration.......

LOL! Except one minor detail:

Fences... seems like those don't seem to matter. @Seggy, what's fair is fair, 541:100 Pinnacle and Mesaba, before ANY Colgan.

DRC Update [toc]

On January 29th, 2013 Arbitrator Bloch heard the Company ask question #3 (below) per the DRP agreement. Arbitrator Bloch has issued his finding regarding the Company posed question #3.


Question


3) Based on your answer to #1 above, how would this be applied if the Company were to get an additional 50 900 a/c at some point within the five year time period stipulated by the Bloch award?


Answer:

Changes in fleet composition as described by the Company do not result in modifications to the Bloch Award.


If you have concerns about how this may affect your ability to bid for positions, please contact your premerger representatives. The Bloch Award stands as written.


Additionally, all of the questions asked by the company and subsequently answered by DRC are listed below for your reference.


Questions


1) Can a more senior pre-merger 9E 900 pilot displace a junior pre-merger XJ 900 pilot if XJ pilots are below their Bloch cap? Ex. Current XJ 900 pilots are 271 (8 less than cap), could a more senior 9E ATL 900 pilot displace a junior XJ 900 pilot even though XJ is 8 below their cap?


2) 2) Does this DRC agree the philosophy used in # 1 above should apply to CRJ 200 since the language is almost verbatim in the Bloch award?


3) Based on your answer to # 1 above, how would this be applied if the Company were to get an additional 50 900 a/c at some point within the five year time period stipulated by the Bloch award?


4) 4) Since we discussed this in front of the whole committee earlier today, assuming one of the parties has taken jurisdiction of the matter that the 14 day window to brief the other committees has been met so the Company could expect a resolution by no later than 12/26/12?


Answers


1) A pre-merger Pinnacle pilot may displace a junior pre-merger Mesaba CRJ-900 pilot only if pre-merger Mesaba pilots maintain at least 279 CRJ-900 Captain positions. If pre-merger Mesaba pilots would not maintain at least 279 CRJ-900 captain positions, the pre-merger Pinnacle pilot may displace the most junior Pinnacle or Colgan pilot in that position. If pre-merger Mesaba pilots cannot maintain 279 CRJ-900 captain positions and there are no junior Pinnacle or Colgan CRJ-900 captains available to displace, the pre-merger Pinnacle pilot may not displace into a CRJ-900 position.


2) Question 2. The DRC agrees the same philosophy in question 1 should apply to the CRJ-200.


3) Changes in fleet composition as described by the Company do not result in modifications to the Bloch Award.


If you have concerns about how this may affect your ability to bid for positions, please contact your premerger representatives. The Bloch Award stands as written.


4) Question 4. Yes, but only with consensus of all three group. Absent consensus by December 26, the issue will be forwarded to an arbitrator.

Convenient that it changes when we start displacing from 200s. Not Colgan line guys fault. Colgan DRC fault.

 

[Seggy]

LOL! Except one minor detail:

Fences... seems like those don't seem to matter. @Seggy, what's fair is fair, 541:100 Pinnacle and Mesaba, before ANY Colgan.

Your side proposed a staple of all the Colgan folks and are now complaining about what's 'fair is fair'?

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Your side proposed a staple of all the Colgan folks and are now complaining about what's 'fair is fair'?

Well we didn't have the brightest bulbs in the box working the merger.

If we had gone with the Mesaba idea, we would have killed Colgan (DOH, good luck). But as one of the Mesaba guys told me, once they knew we walked in with an 8.5 x 11 spiral notebook, they F'd us because they could.

Mesaba wanted DOH. I wanted DOH. Didn't happen. You said binding arbitration. So now you're trying to change the rules of the game because our side had a crappy proposal. How magnanimous of you.

Fence says 541:100:0. That's how it should be.

As you can see, the amount of aircraft does not change the fence or fence ratio.

So.... how are there Colgan CAs again?

 

[Seggy]

Well we didn't have the brightest bulbs in the box working the merger.

That isn't my problem.

They wanted to REALLY screw over the Colgan folks which was OK when it was proposed, but now as another side is facing downgrades and backwards movement in seniority, the side that wanted to do the screw job is talking about fairness?

Once again,

Now I do know you (and others) had no say in your proposal, I hope you get out of there ASAP, it is a very crummy situation for A LOT of folks from all three places that were put together.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

That isn't my problem.

They wanted to REALLY screw over the Colgan folks which was OK when it was proposed, but now as another side is facing downgrades and backwards movement in seniority, the side that wanted to do the screw job is talking about fairness?

Once again,

Now I do know you (and others) had no say in your proposal, I hope you get out of their ASAP, it is a very crummy situation for A LOT of folks from all three places that were put together.

Bottom line is I wish I was Mesaba going into the whole thing. The smartest guy at the table was ST on the MC. They had researched years and years of mergers.

ST assures me that had the Pinnacle committee not been unreasonable (thanks for nothing JH), it would have gone DOH.

Other bottom line.

You are cheering the moving of the goalposts. You said "binding arbitration". Binding arbitration states (regardless of the arguments going in, because the binding arbitration is an emotionless decision), 541:100:0.

You keep saying "but but your guys wanted to staple". It doesn't matter what anybody wanted.

We should be worried that BINDING arbitration isn't being followed. 541:100:0.

The BINDING arbitration was upheld in the ATL closure. 279:95:0

But now that the 200s are disappearing, you don't seem to think that the BINDING arbitration 541:100:0 should apply, because our side's proposal was unreasonable.....

Do you work for USAPA?

 

[Seggy]

Bottom line is I wish I was Mesaba going into the whole thing. The smartest guy at the table was ST on the MC. They had researched years and years of mergers.

ST assures me that had the Pinnacle committee not been unreasonable (thanks for nothing JH), it would have gone DOH.

I would say our guys were the smartest. They knew it was going to be very close to relative so they shaped our argument with that in mind. Our proposal was the closest to the end result.

Other bottom line.

You are cheering the moving of the goalposts. You said "binding arbitration". Binding arbitration states (regardless of the arguments going in, because the binding arbitration is an emotionless decision), 541:100:0.

I honestly haven't paid attention to much with the fences. The only thing I do know, is a lot is being made about these fences so the interpretation is different than what you and other Pinnacle folks think it states. It also only seems the Pinnacle folks are making a lot of noise about this.

You keep saying "but but your guys wanted to staple". It doesn't matter what anybody wanted.

It does to me when a side starts crying for fairness, when they wanted to screw over the Colgan folks.

We should be worried that BINDING arbitration isn't being followed. 541:100:0.

The BINDING arbitration was upheld in the ATL closure. 279:95:0

But now that the 200s are disappearing, you don't seem to think that the BINDING arbitration 541:100:0 should apply, because our side's proposal was unreasonable.....

Once again, there is more to these numbers you present. A lot of noise is being made, so it isn't as clean cut as the legacy Pinnacle folks think it is.

Do you work for USAPA?

Absolutely not.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

I would say our guys were the smartest. They knew it was going to be very close to relative so they shaped our argument with that in mind. Our proposal was the closest to the end result.

I honestly haven't paid attention to much with the fences. The only thing I do know, is a lot is being made about these fences so the interpretation is different than what you and other Pinnacle folks thinks it states. It also only seems the Pinnacle folks are making a lot of noise about this.

It does to me when a side starts crying for fairness, when they wanted to screw over the Colgan folks.

Once again, there is more to these numbers you present. A lot of noise is being made, so it isn't as clean cut as the legacy Pinnacle folks think it is.

Absolutely not.

Do I really have to quote the DRC e-mail about the 900 going away again? How much more clear cut can it be?

I'm not disputing that our MC sucked, but you guys shot for the moon:

The Colgan representatives say the only reason there were not more
furloughs by Mesaba was that Pinnacle Corporation, following the Mesaba
purchase, transferred Colgan flying (for US Airways) to Mesaba Saabs at
LaGuardia. In this way, says Colgan, Colgan Air helped save Mesaba jobs.
The Colgan group seeks to retain to all pilots the type of bidding power
they had at their pre-merger airlines. But this type of parity, an attempt to share
the enhanced conditions more equally, is achieved at the demonstrable expense
of Status and Category considerations, taken in light of reasonable pre-merger
expectations. The overwhelming majority of Colgan pilots who, pre-merger, had
career expectations limited to flying turboprop aircraft would, following the
integration, achieve bidding power into aircraft and pay scales well beyond any
that could have reasonably been contemplated prior to the merger.
As among these proposals, the Date of Hire approach comes closest to
complying with many of the Merger Policy tenets, in this particular case. The
Date of Hire methodology also commends itself in terms of maintaining some
relative balance on pre- and post-merger Status and Category considerations7, as
contrasted with the competing proposals.

Mesaba's methodology was the best.

Conditions and restrictions D:

D. Conditions and Restrictions
1.
These conditions and restrictions are an integral part of the
ISL and shall remain in full force and effect until their
expiration by their terms.
2.
Pilots hired after July 1, 2010 shall be junior to all pilots on
the ISL and shall be listed in order of date of hire consistent
with the Joint Collective Bargaining Agreement (JCBA).
3.
Neither the implementation of the ISL nor the
implementation or expiration of a condition and restriction
herein, in and of itself, shall cause the displacement of any
pilot from his or her then-current position (including pilots
who have been awarded positions but had not commenced or
completed training.
4.
For a period of five years beginning with submission of the
integrated seniority list, no pre-merger Pinnacle or Colgan
pilot may be awarded or displaced to a CRJ-900 captain
position unless Mesaba pilots maintain 279 CRJ-900 captain
positions, and no pre-merger Mesaba or Colgan pilot may be
awarded or displaced to a CRJ-900 captain position unless
Pinnacle pilots maintain 95 CRJ-900 captain positions. In
the event both Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots have less than 279
and 95 CRJ-900 captain positions, respectively, CRJ-900
captain positions shall be awarded on a ratio of 279 Mesaba
pilots to 95 Pinnacle pilots until either Mesaba or Pinnacle
reaches their minimum. Remaining vacant positions will be
awarded in accordance with system seniority.
5.
For a period of five years, beginning with the submission of
the integrated seniority list, no pre-merger Pinnacle or
Colgan pilot may be awarded or displaced to a CRJ-200
captain position unless Mesaba pilots maintain 100 CRJ-200
captain positions and no pre-merger Mesaba or Colgan pilot
may be awarded or displaced to a CRJ-200 captain position
unless Pinnacle pilots maintain 541 CRJ-200 captain
positions. In the event both Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots have
less than 100 and 541 CRJ-200 captain positions
respectively, CRJ-200 captain positions shall be awarded on
a ratio of 100 Mesaba pilots to 541 Pinnacle pilots until
either Mesaba or Pinnacle pilots reach their minimum.
Remaining vacant positions will be awarded in accordance
with system seniority under the ISL.
6.
For a period of five years beginning with submission of the
integrated seniority list, no pre-merger Pinnacle or Mesaba
pilots may be awarded or displaced to a Q-400 captain
unless Colgan pilots maintain 193 Q-400 captain positions.
7.
For a period of five years beginning with the submission of
the Integrated Seniority List, no Pinnacle pilot may be
awarded or displaced to a Saab-340 captain position, and no
pre-merger Colgan pilot may be awarded or displaced to a
Saab-340 captain position unless Mesaba pilots maintain
129 Saab-340 captains. No pre-merger Mesaba pilot may be
awarded or displaced to a Saab-340 captain position unless
Colgan pilots maintain 152 Saab-340 captains. Minimum
captain positions for Mesaba pilots will be permanently
reduced by an equal amount for any reductions in Saab
Captain positions in Minneapolis, Memphis, Detroit and
New York. Minimum captain positions for Colgan pilots will
be permanently reduced by an amount equal to any
reductions in Washington-Dulles, Boston, Charleston and
Houston.
8.
If there are insufficient bidders for one pre-merger pilot
group for a posted vacancy on one side of the fence during
the five-year period, unfilled vacancies may be filled by pilots
from the other pre-merger airline in seniority order.

Cut. And. Dry.

Oh and another fun tidbit:

The record in this case reflects at least one anomaly: The parties to this process have presented
pre-merger seniority lists that reflect differing approaches to Date of Hire calculations. All lists
reflect the hire date as the time the pilot first enters training. According to the record, however,
Pinnacle pilots, at times, were not paid until completion of the training.
Contending thiat this is
when the PCL date of hire should commence, the Mesaba and Colgan representatives direct the
Arbitrator’s attention to Part 3C2d of the ALPA merger policy, which states, in relevant part:
“The date of hire shall be the date upon which a pilot first appears upon the Company’s
payroll as a pilot and also begins initial operational training required to perform such
duties in airline operations.”
The Mesaba and Colgan groups claim that Pinnacle pilots were not “on the payroll” until after
training and that, therefore, the assumption of an earlier hire date is inconsistent with ALPA
policy. This dispute, which surfaced after the arbitration hearing and after submission of post-
hearing arguments and rebuttals, raises the precise question of whether, when the drafters of the
Merger Policy used the words “...upon the Company’s payroll” they intended that to mean the
pilot would be receiving pay. Alternatively, it is at least arguable that the drafters contemplated a
broader meaning. Thus, for example, if it was understood that a pilot was an employee as of the
first day of training whose continued tenure was contingent only upon successful completion of
the training and the check ride (notwithstanding the absence of salary during that period), one
might contend that, for all intents and purposes, the pilot had satisfied the ALPA policy
requirement that he or she be on the “payroll.”
For several reasons, the Arbitrator need not, therefore does not, resolve the interpretive
issue presented.

It's really not a surprise, or coincidence, that we are going to the "Mesaba" way of doing things. Not the Colgan way, and not the Pinnacle way. There is a reason they had 44+ years of accident free flying. I've seen it in the training department, with the new blood, and on the line, with the new procedures.

 

[Seggy]

It's really not a surprise, or coincidence, that we are going to the "Mesaba" way of doing things. Not the Colgan way, and not the Pinnacle way. There is a reason they had 44+ years of accident free flying. I've seen it in the training department, with the new blood, and on the line, with the new procedures.

All I am going to say (as I don't want to hear more about my interpretation on anything) is I hope you (and others) get out of Endeavor ASAP.

Also I am glad the culture is changing away from Pinnacle and Colgan. It was toxic and needed a change.

 

[TallFlyer]

So guys, XJT or Mesa?

 

[bronco21016]

So guys, XJT or Mesa?

Endeavor. Clearly.

 

[TallFlyer]

Endeavor. Clearly.

Great Lakes FTW!

 

[Autothrust Blue]

All I am going to say (as I don't want to hear more about my interpretation on anything) is I hope you (and others) get out of Endeavor ASAP.

Also I am glad the culture is changing away from Pinnacle and Colgan. It was toxic and needed a change.

My mom will be on a Pinnacle Endeavour flight tomorrow. I expect everyone to be on their best behaviour.

And binding arbitration is binding arbitration.......

Wait, is that what "binding" means? Paging Dr.[1] @jtrain609.

[1] Doctor of Jurisprudence. If someone has a heart attack, you should still call 911.

 

[jtrain609]

My mom will be on a Pinnacle Endeavour flight tomorrow. I expect everyone to be on their best behaviour.


Wait, is that what "binding" means? Paging Dr.[1] @jtrain609.

[1] Doctor of Jurisprudence. If someone has a heart attack, you should still call 911.

Dr is only appropriate in a few jurisdictions, none of which I'm associated with.

Nor an I licensed, so I'm not sure.

 

[SpiceWeasel]

Clearly binding arbitration applies, unless somehow you feel slighted by some previous portion of the ruling (in this case, the unreasonable position of the Pinnacle merger committee). Therefore, binding arbitration which states 541:100:0 279:95:0 (I was incorrect earlier) for the CRJ-200 and CRJ-900 respectively, do not apply to protect Pinnacle spots, since our committee's position was untenable. As was written earlier, the actual ruling does not address the loss of airframes, but when the ATL base closed, the arbitration was upheld: can a senior 9E displace an XJ? Only if the the XJ group maintains 279 positions on the CRJ-900.

Mergers suck. Now that we have binding arbitration, and it somehow favors Pinnacle guys, it's something to back out of... (because our guys wanted to staple Colgan).... Binding. Arbitration.

Binding. Arbitration.

Dear XJT/ASA/Skywest guys. You don't want to go through this. It creates a toxic atmosphere. No union in the world can save you from that.

 

[Hacker15e]

So guys, XJT or Mesa?

The APC wisdom seems to be saying Mesa.