But if they prove that the current list used by 9E is not a valid ALPA approved seniority list, how can that one be even considered when you speak of reordering?

Just a thought.

 

As a 2007 hiree at Pinnacle, I was paid with checks made by Pinnacle during training and given a free hotel. $400 per week came from Pinnacle, paid every friday. People hired just two years before I was got no pay in training, and no hotel. They got their first hint of $$$ when they passe their checkride (sim date of hire).

 

The only way the list would be invalid is if people were placed out of order on it. Assuming our list had people out of order, then we would just fix the order of the list and resubmit it. However that corrected list would still have the amended DOH for each pilot. A seniority list is not a DOH list, it is simply a listing of the most senior through the most junior pilot. All other data (DOH, employee number, race, age, etc) is ancillary to the seniority list and in no way affects the validity of the order of the listing of pilots. Again, Mesaba is not contesting the order that our pilots are listed in. They are contesting additional data attached to the seniority list.

 

Like I said in the other thread.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just to be sure I understand the XJ and 9L point of view. The ALPA policy only applies to the "date of hire", but it does not apply to the "no reordering" of the seniority list.

Can a XJ pilot or a 9L pilot tell me how you pick one part over the other of the policy? Also how do you justify reordering the 9E seniority list to make your DOH argument? I ask because that is what you are asking to happen by changing the 9E seniority list to not be based on seniority date and make it a check ride date.

wow good luck to you all

 

Not if all three parties agreed to this. He's going to use class date for PCL because everyone agreed on it. He would go by ALPA merger policy unless those involved agreed to something else.

 

The problem I see is that the 9E SLI comittee did not do due diligence in certifying the correctness of the list shared at the beginning of negotitations. Without a correct list there, the entire negotiation of an integration method were flawed. So much so, even Blotch obviously had to go back and change his methodology. Essentially, 9E providing an innacurate list, wasted everyones time in negotiating a fair integration method.

Amazingly, this has been spun by political misinformation into being XJ's fault. Had the list been correct in the first place we would arlready have an ISL in hand. Instead, we are arguing over the correctness of 9E's list. And the methodology used.

At this point all we can do is wait for Blotch to come up with a way to deal with the apparent discrepancies, and hope that when it comes out soon.

 

Block will apply his methodology to the correct lists in accordance with binding agreements. That's the only way to have a legal sli. Him not respecting the LOA will not be a legal integration. We all agreed to it. That's why our union fessed up their mistakes before the sli. This was a valid dispute.

 

I agree it was a valid dispute. And those affected, should be happy this was brought to light. I have yet to see where the 9E union fessed up, but whatever, it's out now. I disagree that he would keep his original methodology though, unless it was straight DOH. In status and category, it would change quite a few peoples statuses, and therefore affect the integration formula. Maybe a small change, but it leads to a longer wait.

I just wish the "SLI Comittee certified correct list" was correct in the first place.

 

Me too. A lot of people unhappy with things over here.

 

That sounds quite reasonable. Had that been said sooner, many people's blood pressure would have remained normal.

Had the faux pas been acknowledged when found, explained why the error(s) occurred, how it would be corrected and when, at least we level headed folks would have understood. Hiding an error, even an honest one, makes a person appear untrustworthy.