Pinnacle / Colgan Seniority List
#51
Who cares. You guys are all a bunch of high school thugs. Mesabah, Mooney, IBPilot I am saying what a bunch of people are thinking.....SHUT UP! This thread is about SLI. Not which one of you knuckle heads knows more about scope. Nobody likes know-it-alls. None of this matters. SLI is going to be done and everybody is going to move on. 10 yrs from now nobody besides you is going to remember what happened here.

now I remember why I took 2 months off away from this board......getting blamed for stating a fact and quoting my very own contract
#52
AWARD OF THE PINNACLE AIRLINES – ALPA SYSTEM BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEC Group Grievance No. 07-14
1. The acquisition of Colgan Air by PNCL was “a transaction which will or may result in the acquisition of another airline by the Company or the consolidation of the Company with another airline”’ within the meaning of that quoted phrase from §1.F¶2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
2. The Company did violate §1.F¶2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it declined ALPA’s April 2, 2007 request to meet promptly to negotiate an appropriate “fence agreement”.
3. As remedy for the proven violation, the Company is directed to comply with the mandates of CBA §1.F¶2.
4. The SBA retains jurisdiction for the sole purpose of resolving any disputes which may arise between the Parties regarding the application of interpretation of that remedy.
Dana Edward Eischen, Impartial Arbitrator and Chairman
Signed at Spencer, New York on February 1, 2008
MEC Group Grievance No. 07-14
1. The acquisition of Colgan Air by PNCL was “a transaction which will or may result in the acquisition of another airline by the Company or the consolidation of the Company with another airline”’ within the meaning of that quoted phrase from §1.F¶2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
2. The Company did violate §1.F¶2 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement when it declined ALPA’s April 2, 2007 request to meet promptly to negotiate an appropriate “fence agreement”.
3. As remedy for the proven violation, the Company is directed to comply with the mandates of CBA §1.F¶2.
4. The SBA retains jurisdiction for the sole purpose of resolving any disputes which may arise between the Parties regarding the application of interpretation of that remedy.
Dana Edward Eischen, Impartial Arbitrator and Chairman
Signed at Spencer, New York on February 1, 2008
#54
:-)
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Likes: 1
Yes you did, and the answer was: pinnacle formed an alter-ego carrier called Pinnacle corp, which they used to purchase colgan air. Then the Pinnacle MEC tried to force a merger through filing a grievance that PNCL was in violation of the contract by forming the alter ego carrier. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the pinnacle MEC, but then amended the ruling that PNCL didn't have to comply and merge the lists as long as the two companies were operated separately and Colgan didn't encroach on 9E's flying. Did that answer your question???
#56
#58
#59
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Will there by any advantage given to the acquiring airline's pilots? Without 9E taking on massive debt, none of this would be possible.
If I was on the receiving end of a purchase, I would only expect to fly a leg every now and then when I was fortunate enough to swing gear for the acquiring airlines captains.......and be happy to have a job.
Let's keep this in perspective everyone, and take a step back from any selfish desires you may have.
If I was on the receiving end of a purchase, I would only expect to fly a leg every now and then when I was fortunate enough to swing gear for the acquiring airlines captains.......and be happy to have a job.
Let's keep this in perspective everyone, and take a step back from any selfish desires you may have.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



