Originally Posted by
sleeves
Actually, the arbitratiors said we should not have negotiated with the company alone, not that we should not have, or did not deserve profit sharing. We should have made the same stink when Heppner went running to the company and got you guys scope outside of the TPA because of the emotional impact opening a SFO 737 base would have had. Using your train of thought you did not have contractional protection to that flying and did not deserve to be given the scope to protect it.
I can see and appreciate that point of view regarding the profit sharing. Again, despite what Scrappy says, I was glad you got it and even more glad nobody from the UAL MEC pulled some bone headed move and required it to be returned to the company. That would have been world class stupid.
I also can understand your perspective of the 737 SFO base opening, but the bigger issue with that was who was going to be flying the 737-900ER's bought to replace the UAL 757's. Per trilateral agreement those were to be flown by LUAL pilots, which made logical sense and was the fair and just thing to do. The problem was, LUAL had no 737 instructors, sims, etc. so had no way of realistically training for those planes. Contract negotiations took so long to complete that the trilateral was set to expire. There were considerable questions about whether the provisions were enforceable after the sunset. Pierce didn't seem to have any moral issue with taking LUAL planes that were specifically orders to replace LUAL planes and flying them himself. That's why I was so strongly advocating to ratify this contract. It was going to be LUAL fighting the company AND Pierce to retain that flying