(continued)
We had different ideas and insisted that an approach that created the most pay for the most pilots be considered.
This statement infers that the UAL MEC’s position is irrational because it lowers the pilots’ pay. This article is not intended to debate the merits of banding or un-banding pay rates; however, for those familiar with contract negotiations and the arguments for and against banding, the above statement carries little weight. Most negotiators recognize that every CBA has a finite financial value, and the corporation is willing to accept a certain financial cost for a contract. For every CBA, the financial “pie” is only so big, and different pay schemes do not affect the size of that pie, only its distribution. If, as in the CAL model, paying a smaller airplane at a pay rate equal to a larger airplane “creates the most pay,” then where does that money come from? While banded pay rates may reduce training events and produce minimal cost savings and theoretical benefits to a contract, these benefits cost-out marginally. Most experienced negotiators reject the idea that banding pay rates somehow creates a significantly larger financial pie. More importantly, the statement above intends to imply that the UAL MEC’s position for un-banding is not rational because it supposedly creates less pay for pilots- and that inference is not correct.
…we favored allowing the Joint Negotiating Committee to work, unfettered by SLI considerations, on a solution that would be best suited for all CAL and UAL pilots.
The UAL MEC did direct its negotiators to produce a proposal while pretending that SLI issues do not exist, but the UAL MEC cannot rationalize the CAL MEC’s statements at the September meeting and naively pretend that they are “un-pregnant” with SLI concerns. The CAL MEC now accepts the JNC’s work “without SLI considerations” because the JNC’s unpassed proposal included SLI parameters that CAL desires.
The JNC agreed on the solution, the two MEC chairs agreed on the solution and the CAL MEC agreed on the solution. The UAL MEC said no.
The solution partially reflects the CAL banding position, and the UAL MEC was prepared to move forward with this solution (despite some unusual banding compromises), as long as the CAL MEC agreed not to use our willingness to move forward against us in the SLI process. The CAL MEC rejected that compromise.
The problem rests solely with the UAL MEC and their insistence that the compensation proposal enhance their SLI argument.
To further complicate matters, the UAL MEC has proposed a resolution to the ALPA Executive Council suggesting that the Council mandate that the JCBA cannot be used in the SLI arbitration.
These two statements are contradictory. The UAL MEC’s proposed resolution suggests that neither party should use the compensation proposal to enhance an SLI argument. In a related comment, the letter states:
The CAL MEC is upholding our agreement – to leave the SLI and JCBA as separate processes. To carve out pay rates (or anything else for that matter), would be the antithesis of those agreements.
The facts and events make it very clear that the best way to ensure that SLI considerations do not taint the JCBA process is to put it in writing with a “carve-out.” Such an agreement is a natural complement to the earlier agreements with a successful precedent in the DAL and NWA merger.
This issue is not centric to the B-747 as reported by the CAL Master Chairman and more recently by the press. Instead, it is about the entire pay structure on the combined fleets of both airlines. More importantly, it is about keeping the SLI process out of JCBA negotiations and not holding the JCBA hostage to supposedly advance one side’s position over the other. A union-family squabble in the midst of JCBA negotiations is not ideal, but prompt solutions do exist. As in most consequential matters, reason and rational are usually not the first and loudest to speak, but if enough listen when they do come forward, they usually carry the day. The UAL and CAL MECs will find a timely solution, and the pilots will become united; we do not have any other choice.