D-Day: 9E, XJ, 9L SLI
05-25-2011 | 08:38 AM
#211
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
wow......is all i can say....
05-25-2011 | 08:46 AM
#212
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,499
Likes: 505
The protocol agreement already states that pilots hired after July 1 2010 at XJ/9E/9L will be ordered in DOH, below everybody else (before July 1) who will be on the ISL. Essentially, those hired after July 1 are being 'stapled' under everybody else, rightfully so because that's where they were before the merger announcement, and everyone above them is senior anyway. But I raise a good point. Where should those XJ pilots fall, now considering they had their chance to go back, and clearly, many have not. We're getting into very slippery ground here. If they didn't chose to accept recall and go back, then our updated seniority list would indicate their DOH as being whatever Summer 2010 (July, august, etc). So, they could wind up on the bottom of the list. That is why we need clarification of where they stand. If you chose to wait 60 days, then the union / company needed to come up with some agreement for these pilots to extend them their longevity credit courtesy. But nothing like that has happened. If you're a XJ furloughee, you're in a bad place to be. You've been made pawns in this game (but then again, so are the rest of us, but you are the sacrificial pawns that are moved first to be killed).
05-25-2011 | 08:52 AM
#213
Roll’n Thunder
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,156
Likes: 564
From: Pilot
It does not matter if the base list comes from Corp. The ALPA Merger policy clearly states that it is the responsibility of each Merger Committee to verify each and every pilot on the list for accuracy, not just take it on the word of Corp that it is accurate. If Corp handed me another seniority list I would reference it to the previous one I was sent and ask why there are certain discrepancies from the previous.
Also, I understand that why you reference the JCBA. The company finally changed that for their internal records. However, we go back to the ALPA Merger policy and what is defines as DOH. It does not matter what the JCBA says, this SLI follows the guidelines set forth by the ALPA Merger Policy and the defined terms in that policy.
I understand what you mean with "parity" but that is independant to what the policy dictates what DOH is. Nowhere in the policy does it state that "parity shall be permitted when their is any type difference in data." It clearly states what the definition is.
The main issue should be what is more important; parity or following the ALPA Merger policy to the letter? Im not pushing for one over the other, but that is the real question here.
Also, I understand that why you reference the JCBA. The company finally changed that for their internal records. However, we go back to the ALPA Merger policy and what is defines as DOH. It does not matter what the JCBA says, this SLI follows the guidelines set forth by the ALPA Merger Policy and the defined terms in that policy.
I understand what you mean with "parity" but that is independant to what the policy dictates what DOH is. Nowhere in the policy does it state that "parity shall be permitted when their is any type difference in data." It clearly states what the definition is.
The main issue should be what is more important; parity or following the ALPA Merger policy to the letter? Im not pushing for one over the other, but that is the real question here.
"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."
From day one if indoc, after we filled out all the requisite forms, we were in the Pinnacle HR (payroll) system. We had employment verification records and employee numbers. It has been this way for everyone hired. If you are going to argue that Pinnacle pilots should be forced to use our original DOH, how do you reconcile the fact that all checkrides were done without regard to seniority? You would have pilots jumping other pilots in their class with greater seniority simply because they finished training first. This would violate ALPA merger policy in a way more blatant fashion than your claim that using our class date as our DOH would. If you want to use our original DOH for the merger, then you would not be "following the ALPA merger policy to the letter" as you claim should be done because in the end pilots would jump ahead of other pilots after the SLI who were originally senior to them. If you are going to argue that original DOH follows ALPA merger policy, then you would end up violating ALPA merger policy in the process.
The only way to reconcile this problem is to use the start of class at our DOH. The lists that Pinnacle submitted to the other merger committees from the very beginning has shown our amended DOH to reflect the start of class. Why now, after all arguments and rebuttals were supposed to have been finished, does Mesaba bring this up? They had months to contest our methodology.
The true test of all this will be to see how Bloch interprets this. I am quite confident that when all is said and done that he will complete the SLI using Pinnacle's class date as DOH. Any other way goes against employment case law, ALPA merger policy, and just plain common sense.
05-25-2011 | 10:36 AM
#214
ULTP-Ultra Low Tier Pilot
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
nevermind....have a good day everyone
Last edited by The Juice; 05-25-2011 at 01:37 PM.
05-25-2011 | 03:28 PM
#215
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 687
Likes: 0
From ALPA merger policy:
"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."
From day one if indoc, after we filled out all the requisite forms, we were in the Pinnacle HR (payroll) system. We had employment verification records and employee numbers. It has been this way for everyone hired. If you are going to argue that Pinnacle pilots should be forced to use our original DOH, how do you reconcile the fact that all checkrides were done without regard to seniority? You would have pilots jumping other pilots in their class with greater seniority simply because they finished training first. This would violate ALPA merger policy in a way more blatant fashion than your claim that using our class date as our DOH would. If you want to use our original DOH for the merger, then you would not be "following the ALPA merger policy to the letter" as you claim should be done because in the end pilots would jump ahead of other pilots after the SLI who were originally senior to them. If you are going to argue that original DOH follows ALPA merger policy, then you would end up violating ALPA merger policy in the process.
The only way to reconcile this problem is to use the start of class at our DOH. The lists that Pinnacle submitted to the other merger committees from the very beginning has shown our amended DOH to reflect the start of class. Why now, after all arguments and rebuttals were supposed to have been finished, does Mesaba bring this up? They had months to contest our methodology.
The true test of all this will be to see how Bloch interprets this. I am quite confident that when all is said and done that he will complete the SLI using Pinnacle's class date as DOH. Any other way goes against employment case law, ALPA merger policy, and just plain common sense.
"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."
From day one if indoc, after we filled out all the requisite forms, we were in the Pinnacle HR (payroll) system. We had employment verification records and employee numbers. It has been this way for everyone hired. If you are going to argue that Pinnacle pilots should be forced to use our original DOH, how do you reconcile the fact that all checkrides were done without regard to seniority? You would have pilots jumping other pilots in their class with greater seniority simply because they finished training first. This would violate ALPA merger policy in a way more blatant fashion than your claim that using our class date as our DOH would. If you want to use our original DOH for the merger, then you would not be "following the ALPA merger policy to the letter" as you claim should be done because in the end pilots would jump ahead of other pilots after the SLI who were originally senior to them. If you are going to argue that original DOH follows ALPA merger policy, then you would end up violating ALPA merger policy in the process.
The only way to reconcile this problem is to use the start of class at our DOH. The lists that Pinnacle submitted to the other merger committees from the very beginning has shown our amended DOH to reflect the start of class. Why now, after all arguments and rebuttals were supposed to have been finished, does Mesaba bring this up? They had months to contest our methodology.
The true test of all this will be to see how Bloch interprets this. I am quite confident that when all is said and done that he will complete the SLI using Pinnacle's class date as DOH. Any other way goes against employment case law, ALPA merger policy, and just plain common sense.
05-25-2011 | 08:16 PM
#216
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
From: SAAB
I figured. See my "Mesaba dispute?" thread, page 1 and page 4. We bent over backwards to do something no other airline had done before in this MOU with granting longevity. The fact Bloch wants the MOU shows that this MOU is the problem now, or another words, the problem are the XJ furloughee pilots on Pinnacle's list. Arbitrators have a pretty solid view on furloughees and where they belong on the list. Just see previous arbitration awards for hints. We have shot ourselves in the foot, thinking we were doing "good" by this MOU, and now this MOU is being used against us. It's putting up in the air the question of Mesaba furloughees, their DOHs, their longevity credit, and it's adding to the continual delay of getting our seniority list out. Word I'm hearing is that Pinnacle badly wants another vacancy out, but was waiting for a list to come out to do it then. Now, who knows how long this debate will last? This week? Next week? A month? More? One could argue our vacancies have been put on hold as long as the ISL is put on hold. All the more reason to blame that MOU.
05-26-2011 | 03:31 AM
#217
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
From: CRJ Captain
honestly i think we should shut down this thread and just all step away and come back sometime in mid june. Thats what i am going to do.
05-26-2011 | 03:59 AM
#218
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,499
Likes: 505
It FLOORS me that XJ would try and dispute something like this, when it was clearly addressed in the LOA #2 Transtion agreement V. They are doing nothing more than trying to intentionally screw us 9E guys out of 2 months of seniority. "Unity" ....... what a joke! This is extremely pathetic behavior to dispute something like this, just to gain a 2 month advantage over every Pinnacle pilot. I won't being forgetting this anytime soon.
05-26-2011 | 04:43 AM
#220
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
From: 737 Left
Update!
Through the grapevine, I have heard that there are a handful of NON-MOU pilots who have had their DOH altered by as much as 8 months from the certified list. As I understand it, Mesaba and Colgan merger committees have both disputed this. There is no timeline whatsoever for a list.
Again, this is just from a reliable source at National.
Through the grapevine, I have heard that there are a handful of NON-MOU pilots who have had their DOH altered by as much as 8 months from the certified list. As I understand it, Mesaba and Colgan merger committees have both disputed this. There is no timeline whatsoever for a list.
Again, this is just from a reliable source at National.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
