Originally Posted by
Sink r8
VERY unlikely unless asked...
I agree with you about the general relationship between fences and unity, and would have preferred an award without fences (even if they don't impact me).
But the award did contain fences. Unfortunately, it's the qualifiers that become a little nebulous. They allow for 1) arbitrator job security, and 2) a place to go for those who live to exploit the small loopholes in our contract, and thrive on conflict.
So, you can expect the arbitrators to clean up and qualify the replacement aircraft language, but I don't see how/why they would remove the fences altogether.
OTOH, like you I can see how we could negotiate a settlement, and agree to dump the fences, or modify them, or preempt the arbitrators and agree on clearer terms for the replacement aircraft qualifiers.
Yep, the whole premise behind this first "boomer out of the barn." makes me curious what direction we are will be turning in regards to the fences. Many things are going to transpire in the coming months and years that will make these fences a sticking point. Yes, they are always bones of contention.
Where I see us going is more of one jet or the other, and a decision or need to define what is or is not replacement. Once that is determined and or defined, we move to the next step. That step is in effect: "If the current jets will stay for the remainder of the fences, there will be equal opportunity on both former lists for advancement, so......
It all SHOULD result in, what is best for the group as a whole, not a few "I's."