Originally Posted by
inline five
The No voters rationale is they want to sell HBT and dom/intl in arbitration.
Never heard this. Besides, that is outside the scope of arbitration. Any "trades" would have to be negotiated between the parties and not the arbitrators and then YES, the arbitrators could allow that between the parties (even with a mediator), but arbitrators cannot themselves go outside the scope of the MOU provisions.
Originally Posted by
inline five
The union comes up with a value and the company comes up with a value and the arbitrator determines their "true" value.
Nothing at all from the APA has told us what the value of HBT and dom/intl is...we could be getting a much better deal this time around yet we don't even know it.
We don't have any of the information to make an informed decision.
If we are making an extra $85 mil a year in compensation but giving up $30 mil in concessions, we're coming out way ahead in a cost neutral JCBA process.
It's sickening to me that Delta gets 13/14 days off, min day, etc. Even my commuter had 12/13 days off for lineholders and reserves, min day, duty and trip rigs, etc.
But we're handcuffed by the MTA.
Face realty.
You are enmeshed in misguided fantasy and rationalizing your position with what you want the arbitration to be as opposed to what it is. This makes it easier to convince yourself voting for this TA is the best option.
Again, this is all erroneous. You are confusing THIS arbitration (which is not like most due to the specific provisions of the MOU) with NEGOTIATION. Even IF an opportunity to negotiate should occur during the arbitral process, it just means we have MORE leverage because the arbitrators hands are tied from unilaterally crafting tit-for-tat valuation trades. That's actually a BETTER place to negotiate then what has occurs so far.
Might I suggest you contact the source, that being APA legal and talk to EJ yourself for a better understanding of the arbitration situation ?