Oh boy. Time for me to get edjumicated, or to "get you-shelves sum edge-ah-ka-shun." Hate having to respond to TonyC (my comments bolded and in blue). Here goes...
Originally Posted by
TonyC
Absolutely, without a doubt.
There is no contractual provision, and no precedent.
If the precedent in question is awarding a crew position and training without a vacancy, obviously it is currently going on. For reaching age 60, is it contractual? Maybe, based on 24.E.6. Although, I still believe that sentence could not be defended in court, due to its wording.
Training/Stds gentlemen have historically been allowed to move to any seat that someone junior to them exists, regardless of either a vacancy posting, or if they could have held it in the most recent bid.
However, if the precedent you are referring to is movement from the S/O seat to a F/O or Captain seat after a legal restriction is removed, such as a medical condition, you MAY be right. But, I think with enough research, examples could be found to indicate otherwise.
Contractual Provisions:
24.E.3. could be interesting. Would the company require a current vacancy position to train a F/O they have frozen and are paying Captain passover pay? It only states that it is the Company's choice to remove the freeze. What happens then? Wait for a vacancy bid, and continue to pay passover? I do not believe it is really addressed.
3.B.2.B. will also be interesting. The regulated age changes. The pilot who WAS restricted by age 60 is no longer restricted. The sentence in effect becomes invalid, because the pilot now has a NEW date in which he will reach the regulated age. He is holding a seat, and pay rate, in which the reason to be there is no longer in force. In fact, if he was awarded it without a vacancy posting, argument could be made that he should immediately be trained in what he can hold, since he contractually should not be in the S/O seat now.
Seniority rights means participating in a Vacancy Posting.
Seniority rights are being "upheld" through the current use of 24.E.6, without a Vacancy Posting. As has happened in the past, protection of seniority rights though the current procedure will result in Jr. crewmembers being excessed into another position. Due to the current situation, they may all be able to hold the right seat of something, but that is not guaranteed contractually. Different circumstances, they could be all moving into the back of the 27. And, those who were awarded a S/O seat (due to age 60) in an actual bid with a Vacancy Posting will also be excessed into the back of the 27, or forced to retire.
Taking a seat without a bid amounts to Super Seniority, and it would not be acceptable.
Seats are currently being taken (awarded) without a bid. And, the result is the potential of forcing some who were awarded seats in a previous bid into either an excess downbid or into retirement.
.
Granted, the issue in question is the movement up, or forward, of crewmembers if/when the age restriction changes (again, assuming the wording allows that). Very little specifically exists in our CBA on that situation. But, when looking at it from the standpoint of a crew position award, without a vacancy posting, considerable precedence does exist. With no CBA language specifically prohibiting it, could it take place?
I am not betting against it at this point. However, I'm guessing an education is on its way shortly.
As an aside, I believe UPS addressed these issues with much more clarity in their latest contract. Any "Brown" care to comment on that?