Originally Posted by
bugman61
This makes logical sense, but would go against what I know about SK’s character.
At the end of the day, we could go back and forth about the why’s, but I think we both agree we should have received more. I like the reporting requirements of the settlement, but it’s a small win for a large give up.
IMO, we likely would have lost an arbitration on the company’s current usage of 23.M.7. They would argue that current levels of open time and pilot behavior with blanket slips made increased usage of 23.M.7. the only way to protect the operation. Arbitrators are spring loaded to find any excuse to agree with a “protect the business” argument. However, given how little we got, I would have favored pressing on.
100% this. After working at multiple airlines with contentious labor relations and seeing labor lose again and again in court/arbitration on what seemed like 'slam-dunk' cases I am still surprised by how often labor loses. Maybe we are just delusional about how rock solid our arguements are? Or maybe arbitrators know their work will quickly dry up if they don't side with businesses 90% of the time.
I still think we should have pressed on with this, even if the outcome had been worse.
What kind of message does this send the Co.? Create a staffing problem, and then knowingly violate the PWA,
admit you violated the PWA, continue to violate the PWA to try and solve the problem and then just get the pilots to fix it for you?
All this seems like is a big green light to find some new area of the PWA to violate.