Originally Posted by
moon
Obviously in your scenario they wouldn't send more than AA hires. It makes sense that envoy would want the lesser of the two but that is not what was bargained for. Just what they hope they can get.
Here's some common sense thinking. If the company was so sure it was the lesser why would they have come to the negotiating table during the grievance arbitration. They would just let it play out and the arbitrator would rule in their favor. However they are clearly negotiating with the union. So maybe it's not so cut and dry as to what the ruling would be. Does that make good sense?
If the GREATER is the way the agreement states, it would put them in violation by not sending more than AA would be hiring. We both agree that is foolish. Yet the pilots legitimately could go to grievance claiming a violation and be awarded damages. That adds more to the rationale that interpretation is incorrect.
No, your second point does not make good sense. You are implying a cause and effect relationship that is not necessarily there. At the current rate, there is a 8 year flow (assuming no attrition). Once the Protected Pilots finish flowing, it slows to a 14 year flow (again assuming no attrition).
Yet in the next few years it is estimated the overall hiring from the regionals will grow to one fifth of the total pilots a year, the equivalent of a 5 year flow. To stay competitive and have usefulness for recruiting, they need to have something in that range. Pilots would laugh at a 14 year flow.
This would cause Envoy and AA to want to renegotiate the rate for the future. This is a driver in their self interest to want to negotiate with the union.