Originally Posted by
Jethdlr
Maybe the JCBA has more to do with our Scope clause not your -400. Banding the -400 with the 777 has become an ALPA industry standard. I dare say OUR Scope is not quite Industry Standard.
Lets not have our cake and eat it too. You will dilute all other fleets with a separate pay scale for the -400. You will have a fence that therefore gives this advantage to one group for the life of the fence. If the -400 goes away so does the rate and the money goes back to management. It is time to think long term not instant gratification for a few.
Your scope clause is what it is. One of the best in the industry. I would think the JCBA would water it down if anything. (I hope not)
After talking with my reps, I understand this is about much more than the pay on the 747.
It is about the fact that the CAL MEC feels that they must use the JCBA to prove or improve their SLI arbitration argument.
The UAL MEC feels that the SLI should be based on the ALPA merger policy criteria AS OF THE MERGER ANNOUNCEMENT DATE. They do not want the JCBA details to influence the SLI.
So, it's about much more than pay on the 747. It's more about one side trying to limit the gains of the other side because they want to use the JCBA for SLI arguments.