Originally Posted by
Slammer
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?
Slammer,
Now remember, I'm going from the updates I receive on the UAL side and some that I read about from the CAL side on the forum. Never read the mid-June timeline anywhere. Then again, I could have missed it.
Other than the various timeframes mentioned during the course of the process, I can say that mid-June wasn't mentioned in a UAL update that I read. Again, if you can point me to it. Great. I'll stand corrected.
All the protocols, implied promises, or whatever aside, no one was blind sided IMO. And, to be honest, you do know that the request for release from either/both sides will be funneled through Nat'l to the NMB. You are aware that Moak will have to sign off on and present the request?
Blind sided would probably more relate to the PS issue as a one sided, albeit legal, approach.
Not trying to pick a fight my brother. Just laying out the facts regarding the information I have been given and what has transpired to date.
Besides, if one were to believe in MEC released timelines.....there would have been a JCBA in Oct 2010............
Frats,
Lee