Originally Posted by
bugman61
So your answer is no, then.
The scheduling and contract administration committees were also parties to the settlement, so does that mean they agree with it or be fired/resign if the disagree?
There is often far more nuance in the filing of MEC level grievances than you suggest.
I’m not saying I agree with the settlement, my opinions are probably closest to RH. However, it’s not as unanimous and clear cut as you suggest in your posts. There are very real risks to proceeding to arbitration, as we saw with ATL airport closure and the Compass flow, both of
which were better cases than this.
You are correct. I do not know how the MEC Admin got itself here. It makes zero sense that the MEC would proceed with a grievance without the agreement of the Committee Chairman & Subject Matter Expert.
Alternative theory - batch
sizes were creating a ton of work for the Scheduling Committee; identifying the missed pilot, verifying the batch size and getting pay treatment for everyone in the batch size. Most of us think there were errors in this process and the company was fighting the pay treatments (ACE it, ACE it, ACE it) A theory making the rounds is that Capt. Kellett agreed with the company that pilot slip abuse broke ARCOS** and fixed it by removing batch sizes. The scheduling committee job just got a lot better by not having to fix this mess.
If there is truth to the alternative theory the MEC Admin & Reps either got rolled or they were in on it. (I don't know and my rep will not tell me)
At the end of the day we know two things for sure:
- This makes life much easier for some ALPA admin
- The pilots gave up a ton of leverage to negotiate something better
** and I do not disagree with this logic, JMHO, but the result is not good.