zoooropa

The Award doesn't apply to hiring or filling of vacancies. It hasn't applied to one single vacancy bid at RAH or F9 to date, why should it start now?

Correct, Eischen specifically referred to "single" systems and the NMB specifically referred to the separation when RAH attempted to have the representation election delayed.

It took six months at the NMB the last time. I would expect the same time frame when we approach the NMB this time.

This is not factually correct. F9 has never filled a vacancy pursuant to the Eischen Award. F9 hired several pilots (some of which resigned their seniority and some that did not resign their seniority) prior to The Award being issued. We have not hired anyone since The Award. F9 did have a Voluntary Staffing Adjustment (MKE closed, CHI opened) and those vacancies were NOT filled according to The Award, they were filled according to the F9 CBA (DOH seniority).

The Eischen Award doesn't apply to hiring.

You have some items correct and others incorrect. F9 did not hire "furloughs". The term "furlough" is defined by the F9 CBA. The CHQ CBA doesn't apply to this hiring event, just like the F9 CBA didn't apply to the RAH hiring of 190 and q400 pilots. You can't have it both ways (see oskee's post above about integrity). Where was all of this outrage when RAH was filling vacancies at RAH? Maybe I wanted to be a 190 CA (those are free to everyone according to Eischen). I can't bid 190 for the exact same reason you can't bid at F9. Where was the lawsuit when F9 filled the CHI domicile according to DOH? Any litigation regarding this hiring will be dead in the water based on past precedent.

Eischen made several statements related to "hiring"...

"Pilots hired after October 1, 2009 are to be placed at the end of the
IMSL, by date of hire."

and

"Articulation
of the reciprocal fence protections in terms of "priorities" means that, to the extent fenced
positions remain open after the exercise of a protected groups priority rights, other pilots on the
IMSL can bid for such open positions, in accordance with their integrated seniority and the terms
and conditions of applicable CBA provisions; rather than the Carrier filling those positions by
hiring new pilots off the street. Those reciprocal, limited duration and aircraft-type defined
priority fences do not apply to the E-190 aircraft"

and

"The Award does not include proposed "conditions and restrictions" which would require
application of one carrier’s collective bargaining agreement to work performed at a carrier
covered by a different collective bargaining agreement; conditions which are contrary to existing
collective bargaining agreement provisions (e.g. proposed changes to vacancy bidding rights,
displacement provisions, domiciles, and/or training freezes/seat locks); and, conditions that
involve matters subject to negotiation (e.g. the transfer of longevity credits between collective
bargaining agreements, or tolling of recall provisions)."

and

"In the event that the NMB finds a single transportation system and then certifies a single
bargaining representative for the system-wide craft or class of pilots, applicable CBAs will
remain applicable, in accordance with their terms, until consolidated or otherwise modified by
valid mutual agreement between the affected single carrier and a certified single pilot craft or
class bargaining representative, if any."

and

"After the NMB makes its
determinations, the designated single representative and the Company must negotiate an
implementing agreement and/or revise or consolidate the applicable CBAs. Thus, these Parties
not only have the cart before the horse but also have yet to attach the wheels and seat the driver."

(we can all thank the IBT for prematurely advancing this SLI for the benefit of the majority and at the expense of the minority, but that is a debate for another thread)

In short, the CHQ CBA and F9 CBA still apply. No RAH pilot can "bid" for airbus vacancies and no F9 pilot can bid for EMB 135-175 vacancies.