Originally Posted by
TonyC
Yeah, the MEC wanted a seperate pay rate for the B-777, something short of A-380, but more than "Widebody." I think it's ridiculous that the A310 pays the same as the B-777, don't you?
Anyway, the proposals discussed were based on a system of overrides which would be based on triggers that The Company could control and manipulate. The overrides were conditional, and nobody could affect the conditions except The Company. Does that sound familiar? International Grid ring a bell? Reviews were mixed.
Add to that problem the fact that the VP of Flight Ops sent us that famous New Year's Eve FCIF announcing the implementation of 4.A.2.b. -- negotiations became very difficult, and the ratification environment (which would have been required for an LOA) became quite hostile.
As for the 26.K. arbitration for the B-777 pay rate, the biggest problem we faced was the mess left behind by FPA's attempt to label the MD-10 as something other than a Widebody. It started out as a DC-10, which was a Widebody, and they made it "like" an MD-11, which is a widebody, and yet some genius spent our dues money arguing that it wasn't a widebody. The arguments they used then proved to be an impediment to our case to argue that the B-777 was something more than a widebody.
So, to answer your question about how I feel ... I feel fine about what we did.
.
Yeah, left out the word turned.
Thanks for the thoughts. We should think about that debacle as we may be have, yet again, an airplane bid before a pay rate has been agreed upon. Or at least before the work rules are ironed out.
Albie,
Sorry if my quick comment offended. I know some felt a higher pay rate was going to be an easy arbitration. Hindsight is 20/20 while its foggy in the heat of battle. Since we flew 747's under the widebody payrate the arbitrator disagreed.
Maybe arbitration will fruitful this time working out work rules, not sure.