Originally Posted by
newarkblows
When we are done having this conversation in lala land let us know so we can get back to reality. The XJT MEC proposed multiple ways to come to a mutual agreement via arbitration, external/ internal focus groups, ... And all were shot down. The ASA MEC shot those proposals down and instead of negotiating in good faith they proposed expensive and sometimes impossible solutions that weren't necessary. Is the "line in the sand" really the same from one MEC to the next?
Why are we arguing over this? This isn't contestable. All parties have come right out with what happened. Either you are being intentionally obtuse or somebody is lieing to you about what happened.
Wrong. The ASA MEC responded to the Binding Arbitration proposal with going through the process but making it advisory. Your MEC shut down at that point. Our side attempted to negotiate. Your side acted like children and refused to talk about it anymore.
The ASA MEC proposed an equal education campaign. Once again, rebuffed. They proposed turning both systems on at both properties. They were told no by both the XJT MEC and company.
The XJT MEC said SmartPref was the platform of choice without directly saying it. They also so at one point, no way Fligthline will happen. Line in the sand maybe? Our side continued to talk to yours. Our side makes their position known with a request to continue working on an agreement and your side institutes a gag order and won't talk with our guys at all. Next thing you know, the company suddenly wants to talk 70 seat rates under the guise of Section 26. Coincidence? Probably more like your guys started the whipsaw. Both sides share some blame but your MEC carries a bunch of blame as well. Asking the company to engage them in Sec 26 talks and then blaming the ASA MEC for their poor decision is classless.
Why? Who's try to work through this and who's playing games with 4000 pilots paying for their games.