Originally Posted by
EWR73FO
1) Still fail to see the problem with pay banding unless you see that as a way for lual to get a step on the sli. Short bus gets paid 757 rate.
2) jury still out on LOA 25. DO agree that it needs to be all or none. Not good for some and bad for others.
3) Give you that one. We blew leverage there.
4) Rumor control needed. Have you actually seen correspondence from either MEC that directly identifies this as a lcal demand or simply further negotiations.
1) Career expectations being a major key to the SLI, the L-UAL argument would be that we have many more widebody airplanes, with the 747 being bigger than anything on the L-CAL side. With the 767-400 married to the 747, but the 767-300 married to the 757-300, that "advantage" is blunted. On the narrowbody side, by putting the 319 in the lower band with the 737-700/500, the L-UAL side has many more airplanes in that (the lowest) category.
2) Agreed
3) Agreed
4) Fair enough, as it is only hearsay on our side. It was just strange that this issue came up at the last minute, and the CAL MEC refused to start "ground school" until the arbitrators decision. If that wasn't the case, it would seem to me that issue would have been decided during the previous process like all the other issues. But you are correct that I haven't seen any document to that effect.
I hope that when this is all over we can all unite behind our elected leadership and get on with fighting Jeff. I take no pleasure in being "pitted" against my fellow pilots. This process is extremely difficult for all of us involved... which is why I feel it might be unrealistic to expect too much more from any further negotiations. But again, that is simply my assessment. It's not more valid than anyone else's who took the time to go through all the material we have been presented. Cheers