Originally Posted by
AdiosMikeFox
Your entire post is full of "Wat!?!" but this stands out. Your opinion is so full of suppositions I don't even know where to start. Are you seeking to apply the McCaskill-Bond act to this situation? Don't forget it works both ways and the Act has never had to deal with an arbitrated seniority award before, it is unprecedented and in all likelihood the 824 would remain unchanged.
Do you even know what McCaskill-Bond is ? I made no reference to that, nor did my points involve it, so what orifice you yanked that from, God only knows. Yes, the 824 was the result of an arbitration (of which I have a copy BTW), but once that is completed, all bets are off.
You REALLY should do more due diligence when making an argument.
Originally Posted by
AdiosMikeFox
Currently airlines facing SLI post-Act are using fences, DOH and blending techniques to get SLI to work. Like UAL/CAL. Not perfect, but the Act was designed to prevent Staple And Furlough thanks to AA's SOP of treating acquisitions like crap, in this case the precipitating event was the TWA buyout.
They can spout off "based on expected career progression" all they want, but there is abso-f'n-lutely no way a 2 year FO in upgrade class is going to leap ahead of a 10 year FO 25 numbers away from upgrade at a stagnating airline. This has not happened at any airline post-Act. This is why SLI's are quietly done by the company and unions during negotiations, and they expressly try to prevent situations like this because neither want to be mired in lawsuits and grievances for the next decade.
If anything, each respective regional would hold on to their own flow and be awarded flow opportunities based on their previous seniority list (unless contractually provided, then it's all up for negotiation in a new CBA) while bidding and combined list seniority would have fences and/or some sort of blending as needed.
SLI's are about integrating seniority, NOT about altering negotiated contractual provisions. If you think the PPA is bullet proof, you're fooling yourself. The contractual provisions I'm talking about regarding flow-thru modifications in all likelihood will be willingly accepted by the respective unions to ensure a smooth and harmonious integration of which will be demanded of them if they want to play ball. The other factor I mentioned has nothing to do with integrations, contracts or arbitrations, it is a landscape function of supply and demand. The landscape will inevitably change (again
) and those who aren't interested in playing ball can easily be strong-armed out of the game or until they cry "uncle", whichever occurs first.
In fact, Envoy ALPA has ALREADY cried uncle since their initial hard stand of no concessions and in fact, their new Comm chair is leading the "cooperate and graduate" parade only in reverse for Envoy pilots to get a
do-over. I think you are really quite naïve in considering the future. Hundreds, if not thousands of regional pilots before you have both made the same mistake and failed to learn from the past and so in all likelihood will you take your seat in that stadium when the time comes.
I'll be the guy over by the popcorn stand munching away and sipping a beer when that occurs.
