Originally Posted by
SNAFU
None of that changes the requirement of same seat (and domicile), same bid to trigger passover pay. I'm still not sure why anybody got 150 for anything.
There really wasn't any ambiguity, just a lack of understanding of the contract. You can bet that the company understands the contract better and is more capable of using it to their advantage than the average (or above average for that matter) line pilot.
And yeah, if you want widebody pay above all else, bid ANC.
Poor treatment from the union and its employees, however, is inexcusable.
SNAFU, if you read all the posts in this thread, one point is losing your old bid when you get a new award. Prior to ALPA negotiating this in the company's favor, NOTHING IN CH24 OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE CONTRACT states this. We have read the contract. The company chose to treat pilots on the same bid, with the same aircraft, with the same seat, and in the same domicile DIFFERENTLY. If thats OK with you, you are in the majority of the ALPA MEC negotiators. I think another stance should have been taken, but most importantly I think the 200 or so pilots affected by this should have been given some information other than "guys just wait until the JR guy activates" and then negotiate it away with out telling anyone anything.
As far as your Non-Ambiguity statement....Everyone, Company and the Association, have both stated that passover pay has many "Gray Areas", so I'm glad it's crystal clear to you. Maybe you can explain why some lost their previous bid and others kept theirs.....and please reference the contract since it "wasn't any ambiguity"? I am still waiting for the association to clear that up, two MEC members have promised me an answer but 3 weeks later NOTHING. I am Not saying it's not there, just saying after 3-4 hours in Ch 24 and others, a stupid, ignorant, brainless, un-educated pledge/sherpa who has only been here 18 months and is way too JR to have an opinion cannot find it (i.e. ME).
Many salient points in this whole process. But like I said in earlier posts.....thanks to the association it's no longer a gray area now. If your JR, bid Subic/ANC knowing you may get a lateral bid prior to going to school. So instead of the company chosing to treat people with the same bid differently, they can now do it with out any ambiguity because of the associations negotiated agreement. If you agree with that you may not have thought out the possibilities. (still a gamble though)
One thing the company DOES know better than us is how the association will lean on an issue. Like the majority of ALPA members against the age 65 rule, yet the MEC and ALPA National sit back and do not support the majority. Why? senior pilots (minority) want it!!! If you think it's a 2 year process and we need to sit back and wait, and evaluate as Wally mentions.....I suggest the JR pilots take out stock in K-Y Jelly and bend over, STANDARD. There has been a vote on this issue, if thats a problem, lets vote again. I do not want my MEC to make the AGE 65 position decision in a vacuum, elected officials or not. By ALPA not taking a stance, by not engaging for the majority, they have made their decision to let it just happen. Lets put some of our Association dues to work for the majority. What a concept. Sorry about swithing gears, this subject should go into another thread.