Originally Posted by
MinRest
I would agree with both points (length and pilot groups negotiating) if we were talking CBA. The JCBA serves a bit of a different purpose. Not all sections are open. This is to bridge the gap, get us on the same page, and check a box needed for the merger process to get one step closer to completion. The CBA is really where the knuckles get busted, the hands get dirty, and we can get to work.
That being said, the sections that we do have open for the JCBA need to be industry standard or better, AND meet the needs of the pilot group. I am not familiar with the HA MEC, but I have been very happy with the AS MEC and NC. I have no doubt that both sides know exactly what needs to be done, and management knows they can't have a global airline without a commensurate contract. That starts with a JCBA and I think we see that sooner rather than later.
I think the CBA is going to drag, but that is a bridge to cross when we get there.
If the MECs present a "bridge" CBA we absolutely need to vote it down. Generally going into a CBA we don't have that much power, other than to trade away things the company doesn't like for things that we want more(ie giving the company PBS on the Alaska side or switching to ALV on the Hawaiian side). The JCBA and combined pilot group is the efficiency they're gaining here, so for once we don't need to give anything to get anything. If we're presented "Alaska contract with a few fixes" the thing needs to go in the garbage and we need a new team in there. Getting a "bridge" just to have the company drag out negotiations on a CBA for years would be the definition of stupidity.