Originally Posted by
WarmSandDreams
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.
I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean when I say bridge. The JCBA occurs with two ALPA mergers as part of the merger process, regardless of where either airline is in its CBA duration. It is a required part of merging two ALPA pilot groups together. This is not to mean that we just take less or do not care what sections that ARE open, are treated appropriately, and that we see gains there. I would urge you to go look at what sections are open for the JCBA. It seems like there are those that assume JCBA negotiations and CBA negotiations are the same thing. There is a reason we voted to move openers until after the JCBA is done.
This is NOT section 6 negotiations.