CAPIP1998

"Speculation":

guess: a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)

AxialFlow

Are you going to hang this story over the collective head of the Mesaba pilots as well? Pinnacle Corporation...not Pinnacle Airlines, purchased Colgan. Sorry your pilot group wasn't involved in the decision. Neither were we.

AxialFlow

It goes back to career expectations. I'd venture to say 18 month fences wouldn't get a "Yes" vote from the CJC pilot group. Then we're back to square one, no?

higney85

By policy and previous precedent "career expectations" is not a variable since they technically are NOT a known quantity.

lolwut

Pinnacle Corp and Pinnacle Airlines were a few pieces of paperwork away from being the same company and Airlines gave birth to Corp.

I'm not trying to hang it over anyones' heads. Its just concerning to think that in any type of relative seniority integration, a pilot hired on at Colgan to staff the Q400 would be potentially put ahead of a pilot at Pinnacle who worked to help finance Colgan's purchase.

It seems to me like date-of-hire from the date of purchase of Colgan by Pinnacle would be fair. That would result in the same seniority had the Colgan and Pinnacle have been merged or had the Q400s gone to Pinnacle. It would prevent a post-purchase Colgan pilot from going ahead of a pre-purchase Pinnacle pilot. No fences either - to allow ALL of Pinnacle Corp's pilots to benefit from growth rather than purely the Colgan pilots who have unnaturally been benefiting from growth their company could not have secured on its own, while... like the rest of the industry... Pinnacle has been stagnant and Mesaba has been going backwards.

As I said earlier, I have nothing against Colgan pilots. I simply think that these airframes should be allocated to the pilots of the company who paid for them.

AxialFlow

Apparently it is a variable since Mesaba furloughs were hired off the street and given longevity based pay because of career expectations. Which I think is great for them...

I'll vote "No" for anything with less than 3 year fences.

higney85

If you would like to dive into the MOU this thread will grow exponentially. ALPA has tried since the 1960's to have some type of seniority system with portable longevity between carriers. In this circumstance we had one group needing to hire (9E), one group with furloughs (XJ) all under the same corporate umbrella. It also happened to be a situation where ALL furloughs would be junior in both seniority (relative) and longevity compared to all current 9E pilots. It was a situation that was deemed beneficial to all 156 on furlough and the PNCL mgmt group. It also was able to set a precedent for the future as consolidation continues now, or at a later date (as in the next cycle). Their hiring had no relation to career expectations.

Fences are a topic bound to be discussed but at this point is all speculation. If we pass a JCBA (at the 3x MEC level) and you choose to vote "No" on this fact your voice is 1/3000. You get your say, but I would sincerely hope you would look at going from NO contract to a multi generation contract. The contract is 31 sections (all are important, albeit different sections to different pilots) and will be voted on prior to any seniority list discussion.

AxialFlow

Not the hiring, but the ability to retain their XJ seniority# and their longevity pay. Career expectations did play a role.

Don't all three individual pilot groups have to approve a JCBA? Then my vote would be 1/450.

AxialFlow

Thank you. I had my reasons for choosing 9L over 9E and XJ. And 9E and XJ pilots have their reasons for not choosing 9L.

jayray2

I was under the impression that once the joint contract is agreed upon and voted into place the SLI would be done by ALPA representatives from each pilot group. Individual pilots will not get to vote on the details of the SLI, only the Union representation from each group. Am I wrong?