Pinnacle Dispute Resolution Letter
 

What is it?

It's the language that dictates how a dispute with the WAY the Bloch award is applied.

For instance- if someone thinks that the quota numbers shouldn't count during displacements then it would go to a dispute resolution process. If the merger committees couldn't agree on the solution, then it would go to Bloch and he would give his decision.

LOL! So who is disputing what this time?

I'm thinking exactly what Smittey said: quotas not counting during a displacement. With the quotas in place, you're going to have a lot of -200 and Q400 guys getting booted back to FO while there are junior -900 CAs still holding on.

Colgan wants to have cake and eat it too? If it applies to vacancies, it should apply to displacements. And isn't it written pretty clear? "No pilot may be awarded or displaced... unless so and so maintains a minimum of x positions."

IT's a Pinnacle Dispute Resolution Letter

Classic.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TV863B5ML.jpg

Actually.....it's Pinnacle guys, too. I'm a 6 year CA, and if the furloughs go like they say, I could be looking at the right seat again while junior XJ guys hold onto their left seats. It's not just Colgan anymore. I've got 500+ CAs below me in seniority. Cool, huh. By those numbers, I'd be "safe." Ooops. Less than 270 -200 CAs below me....

Pinnacle guys could get double screwed in all this: 9E FOs that got "jumped" in the SLI by Colgan guys didn't get that upgrade they thought was coming in a few months. Now, some of the 9E CAs that have been CAs for 5+ years could lose their seats, too.

Basically, this is what SHOULD be fair: quotas based on what proper staffing levels should be on the -200, not what they were on July 1st, 2010 because Pinnacle likes to short staff everything. For that fact, it should be based on proper staffing levels on the -900 as well. Then it's an even playing field. I'd say the same thing about the Q400 and the Saab, but management has run us into the ground so much, it's become a moot point.

Shy, it's Pinnacle pilots up for the screwing. Where do you think those PCL ATL 900 pilots are going to go? If you said CRJ 200, you are correct.

Those ATL 900 CAs can only displace Mesaba 900 CAs down to their minimum fence, which they are only a few over. They can't displace out MSA 900 CAs. Those 900 CAs will then have to go to the 200 and displace out junior MSA and PCL CAs

I'm sure you already knew this

So the screwing of senior fo's will continue. This place is beyond salvageable.

So if I'm understanding this right, Pinnacle has protected 100 -900 Captain seats and 541 -200 Captain seats. So system wide, 641 Captains must be Pinnacle? Everything else will be seniority as per ISL?

And XJ has it's protected CA slots (200 and 900) if less than the total number exists then they are ratioed. Nothing is protected for 9L. If there are displacements they might get bumped before a more junior 9E or XJ ca to keep numbers correct.

Oh please. Go easy on the "more junior 9E or XJ" pilot comment... even if they are more junior on that effed up seniority list, they are more senior DOH wise, and that's all that matters. True seniority is still respected.

Only a wish. Bloch is reality. As sucky as it is.

Don't forget that the Mesaba minimum fence will shrink as well, and Pinnacle will still have protected 900 CA slots. In the Bloch award it never mentions that it matters where any particular fleet reduction comes from. Both pre-merger Pinnacle and Mesaba -900 CA protected positions will be reduced by approximately 20-25% since we are losing 20-25% of the total -900 fleet. It doesn't matter that the losses are coming entirely from the pre-merger Pinnacle side.

Incorrect. The Mesaba minimum fence will not be lowered. The Bloch award only mentions a reduction if BOTH pre merger numbers are lowered, Mesaba isn't lowering.

No. Where will those ATL pilots go? They can only displace out MSA down to the MSA minimum staffing fence.

As of recently, MSA is just a few over their minimum staffing. The top few ATl guys will bump out the junior MSA 900 CAs down to the fence and that's it. "no pilot will be awarded or displaced to a CRJ 900 CA spot unless MSA....."

The ATL guys can't bump (displace) the MSA guys below the fence. Also, the minimum staffing numbers are only reduced if both MSA and PCL numbers are below the minimum staffing numbers, PCL will be and MSA is not. Since it is only 1, th MSA fence stays intact. This is all in the award.

In essence, the PCL "protected" positions are useless.

Here is a "grass isn't always greener" Delta Connection story if you want something to be happy about...

I'm a 9 yr FO, never got to upgrade, and I've only got 150 FOs below me in seniority. Cool, huh. :cool:

And I thought Comair had it bad.:eek:

He is Comair.

that really sucks.
ASA has 7 year FO's though.. kind of close I guess, although there are 900 FO's below those guys.

I believe the previous (the one above you) poster is correct. The net number should be lowered for the total -900 Captain positions.

Read the award rather than speculate. The award says both. Here, I'll do it for you ....

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.

This doesn't say anything about 'pre-merger.' It makes reference to Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots. Arguably, with the single fenced operation, and the fact all Mesaba pilots are now Pinnacle pilots, I can see an argument made that the numbers should decrease together since we are all Pinnacle. Or, is the "we are all Pinnacle" mantra not count when fleets are getting parked? :rolleyes:

You are delusional. I again suggest you read the award. Whenever Bloch makes mention of a specific airlines "fence" number, he doesn't use the term pre merger. The above applies to the fence number, hence no pre merger. The idea that "technically Mesaba is now Pinnacle pilots" have nothing to do with the Bloch award. Nice try though. Using your logic the phrase "Pinnacle must maintain 95 CRJ CA spots" would be for Mesaba and Pinnacle pilots since, as you said, "Mesaba pilots are Pinnacle pilots"

The Bloch award makes a clear distinction of who is a "Colgan," "Mesaba" or "Pinnacle," and has nothing to do with your above mentioned slap at unity amongst the group.

I'm sure Hunter will formulate a strong argument. Maybe you and him should team up and formulate your argument and try and strengthen it up for Bloch

I see. What you are saying makes sense now.

Slap at unity? There has been no unity from day 1 of the 3-way negotiations. Any hint of unity broke initially last April when Mesaba filed a dispute AFTER hearings were closed regarding the 9E DOH issue. THat didn't go well. Then the quotas came out and it reflected horrendous staffing numbers on the Pinnacle side from the old June 2010 staffing model, and then the 9E guys were downgraded so Mesaba and Colgan pilots could take left seats. That didn't bring any unity. And NOW that entire fleets are getting parked, it's every group for itself fighting to protect as many seats as they can for their own group. Face reality: there is no unity to be had ever since this three-way happened.

Ha! Good luck with that. Now that the livelihood of senior 9E pilots is affected, watch a 200% effort from the 9E side of things. Before, there wasn't really any clarification or fight when the junior side got screwed in unfair quota numbers and the Saab fence. I never heard a peep since the Aug 2011 update that the clarification is requsted from Bloch and he hasn't answered. That was also in regards to the Saab captain fence-off for Pinnacle pilots. How much you wanna bet, in cold cash, that THIS time, in regards to THIS issue with the CRJ-900 quotas, you WILL hear a clarification from Bloch?

:rolleyes:

Blocking the juice
 

I remember there was a way to block people on the old airlinkpilots.com
Is there something like that on here? The juice's antagonistic remarks are childish & annoying.
Thanks for the help

Your right in tired of shyguy and his whining.

Click "User CP" then "Edit Ignore list" and add "The Juice" to your list of scary people.

Ironic that someone whom you referred to as being an antagonist, just helped you.

Glad I could help.

Huh? You passed English class?

Better than that.... Now Airlinkpilots.com has a feature called
THE THUNDERDOME where guys get to fight it out in their own section of the message board. It's truly good stuff. Same for Mesabapilots.com

The Pinnacle NMFC has been working hard to reduce that effect. I have never seen anywhere close to the failure rate that has been happening to the former XJ/9L's When the fail rate is over a third, something systemically is wrong.

Speaks volumes about the training department. I thought things would have changed in the last year down there.

AQP starts soon right?

Not sure you are going to like AQP

why not?
..............

Grow up...they aren't out to get you. Not their fault you can't fly a missed approach with a failed FMS (or just go straight out anyways just for the hell of it) or leave the flaps at 20 after a v1 cut and not even bringing them up on the climb check. Plus the fail rate is around 10%. where are you getting this 33%? Inflammatory crew room and internet gossip? Sure it might inflate to 30% for a class or two but it is nowhere near 33% overall. I suppose the Feds are in on this too since so many have not been signed off on their first or second fed rides?

What does it say? that they want people who are capable of safely flying the CRJ with your family on board? You sound like one of those guys who turned the screen red on 3 v1 cuts and claimed he failed because he was 2 lidos behind and didn't have his shoulder harnesses on...and what's AQP got to do with anything ? you are still at the mercy of one of those 9e instructors "out to get you" with a pink slip.

One of the often overlooked aspects of AQP is no extra training...... Only repeats allowed, no extra training, go to checkride whether student ready or not.....This is based on validating the training curriculum as well as the student

It can work well but it won't solve problems inherent in the department

What's NMFC?