Originally Posted by
SpecialTracking
Yes, extend the TPA for another period of time that the company doesn't desire to complete the JCBA. Signing an agreement with a termination date is an insult. If management was serious about getting contract, they wouldn't need TPA with a termination date. A termination date gives management leverage.
The TPA didn't terminate as a whole, only certain provisions. What was the leverage to extend all portions of the TPA indefinitely?
Management said they would terminate base protections but we could have furlough and ratio protections. Why would they let us have furlough and ratio
protections? They don't intend to furlough or materially change the fleet ratios. Therefore those offers for a time limited TPA are worthless.
This is all hearsay as neither one of us was there, but it sounds like we agree here. The offer made to us jointly was to extend the expiring provisions of the TPA minus base protections, which affected both sides roughly equally (tough to know exactly). Your MEC decided that wasn't good enough and wanted more. We played along for a while, until there obviously wasn't going to be movement. Our MEC then used a grievance to get the CAL pilots included in CY2011 profit sharing, which wouldn't have been possible after December 31st. Our MECs are currently jointly working on provisions in the TPA.
In my eyes, your MEC bravely (yes, that's sarcasm) was willing to leverage the CAL pilots chance for profit sharing in order to make a political stand for something they knew they weren't going to get. I didn't expect profit sharing, but the more I heard from those in a position to know about what happened behind the scenes, the more I'm glad we got it.
Our MECs still have primary responsibility to represent our respective pilot groups. Sometimes the goals and direction are exactly the same. In some areas they'll be different, with the SLI being the prime example.