Originally Posted by
Bozo
The arbitrator can do what ever he wants. Your statement is not likely but you never know. It is highly likely that the rate will be lower than most because of the 9E numbers. That will hurt when there were other options at the time than going into negotiations for a rate.
If it does go to arbitration the MEC nor the pilot group will have any control of the outcome.
But the current ERJ rates seem to be higher than industry-standard 70-seat rates. Either we have to believe that an arbitrator would impose a paycut on pilots for flying a larger aircraft, or we have to admit that the threat of a whipsaw between the two groups is pretty negligible. There's just not enough of a difference between the two rates for an arbitrator to come up with a new rate that is substantially below our 70-seat CRJ rate and yet remains above the current ERJ rates.
Originally Posted by
JetBlast77
Not sure where you are getting your info but it is pretty outdated. The company backed off their proposal asking for cuts when we asked them to show us in the books why they need them and they couldn't. That happened a long time ago.
On January 5th, from the ASA MEC: "The remaining issues in the JCBA are mostly financial, job security, and of course, which bidding system to use. Another contributing reason for the slow pace of negotiations now is that many of the Company’s proposals have become regressive relative to both existing contracts. In some areas the Company’s proposals are worse than what is contained in other recent bankruptcy conditioned agreements."