The union needs to look and consider all options. Just say no is about as a effective strategy as a banzai charge against machine guns. It’s brave, it’s chest thumping but also very ineffective. First they need to go back and review all the negotiation notes pertaining to the scope section. This should of course already have been accomplished. Then they need to run this by the best legal help they can get and try and arrive at a decision on our chances with a grievance. If after review they say we are a lock to win or at least 75% than no is the correct and only answer to the company.
If on the other hand they say it’s a 50/50 crapshoot that the company can get those 35 airframes back the choices become more difficult. They become become extremity difficult if they say we will probably lose. There is negotiations leverage even if it’s felt we will not win. It could be used for other improvements or to drive a complete rewrite of section 1 outside of section 6 negotiations. A loss in arbitration produces zero gains and the company gets the airframes.
I expect the company will conclude a flow with Endeavour and put those airplanes back in service immediately. At that point we will file a grievance. Once the grievance is on file there will be negotiations prior to a ruling. We need to be smart on how we handle that based on what I said in the first paragraph.
My initial reading of that section in the contract had me feeling it’s a easy company win. As I read it a few more times and look at the companies timing I feel we might have a decent chance. The company did not need the airframes when the agreement was pulled down. They acknowledged in numerous communications they did not have access to the airframes. They made no attempt to conclude a flow agreement at the time. Now with the training bottleneck they can’t put the remaining 717’s back in service per networks request. The E175’s become de facto 717 replacements. I think that weighs heavily on our side. What I don’t have is any idea of the context the negotiators notes might add. Being stupid often feels good, being smart produces results.
paragraph in dispute: Exception two: In the event the hiring or flow provisions of NWA LOA 2006-10 or LOA #9 cease to be available, either at the feeder carrier affiliate referenced in such LOAs or at another carrier, the number of permitted 76-seat aircraft in Section 1 B. 5 47. e. will be reduced by 35.
What I don’t like is why this paragraph was added as on the surface there is no need as they retained the LOA’s involved.
Last edited by sailingfun; 05-10-2021 at 06:14 AM.