Originally Posted by
LeeFXDWG
Regular,
While I agree on the R&I issue being talked about by both sides, I haven't seen the "mid-June" date mentioned by the UAL MEC that was referenced in the CAL MEC update. Can you point me to that one because I could have missed it.
Anyway, my opinion of the CAL update was that it was a masterpiece of political crap and non-commital by any measure. Again, my opinion.
Rather than put stipulations on when they would support a request for release, they should have just stated that they will co-file a request for release on 30 April if the company doesn't commit to a 1 June deadline.
Wow, that would have taken all of one sentence for them to write.
Frats,
Lee
Lee,
You are right. It was non- committal because the 5k pilots at CAL and MEC were blind- sided by your MEC. Can't write a blank check of support until they understand the strategy and risk to a JCBA. The goal is a JCBA..not necessarily follow your MECs decisions. The fact that you blindsided CAL, is more reason to NOT commit to a release request, UNTIL the risk to prolonging negotiations is understood and protocols are in-place to PREVENT either MEC from going maverick. Keep in mind, JH, JP, Sr MGt and the arbitrator agreed to terms of a TA by mid June...so why did JH feel the need to pull the trigger apart from discussions with CAL.? Perhaps there were different interpretations of the meeting? If so, sit down with the other partner and develop a joint strategy. Has any UA guys called him on the carpet for this failure?