Furlough Return Question
05-09-2016, 11:49 AM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2013
Position: B737
Posts: 1,204
Originally Posted by Spoiler
same posters appear time and time again concluding "it's tiresome," "let's move on," etc.
maybe they should move on.
maybe they should move on.
If it did devolve to that, I would definitely consider moving on. I mean who the hell really wants to work for such a dysfunctional organization?
05-09-2016, 04:37 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by Sliceback
Agreed about tossng the nutso proposal.
Which one is it?
Which one is it?
Some could see that as a little off...
05-09-2016, 07:14 PM
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,216
That's the beauty of the SLI hearings, each group gets to present different solutions and the arbitrators try to reach a deal that addresses the majority while realizing individuals can't be protected.
05-09-2016, 07:34 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,293
Originally Posted by Sliceback
That's the beauty of the SLI hearings, each group gets to present different solutions and the arbitrators try to reach a deal that addresses the majority while realizing individuals can't be protected.
05-10-2016, 02:17 AM
#35
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,876
Originally Posted by Sliceback
That's the beauty of the SLI hearings, each group gets to present different solutions and the arbitrators try to reach a deal that addresses the majority while realizing individuals can't be protected.
05-10-2016, 04:47 AM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,216
I support the process. Not sure I'll like the outcome but no one is getting their dream solution.
I also support the AASLIC proposal. It's primarily about dollars. Guys bid for dollars.
What's not mentioned in the complaints about one proposal is the weaknesses of another proposal, like furloughees that went to another list in the merger coming back 1000-1500(?) numbers more senior then their classmates. So is the CA being used above the outcome of correcting some other flaw? IDK. That's why they had hearings in front of guys who've done SLI's before. They'll hack their way through the data and try and come up with a solution.
I also support the AASLIC proposal. It's primarily about dollars. Guys bid for dollars.
What's not mentioned in the complaints about one proposal is the weaknesses of another proposal, like furloughees that went to another list in the merger coming back 1000-1500(?) numbers more senior then their classmates. So is the CA being used above the outcome of correcting some other flaw? IDK. That's why they had hearings in front of guys who've done SLI's before. They'll hack their way through the data and try and come up with a solution.
05-10-2016, 04:55 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Position: Window seat
Posts: 5,216
Here's what I suspect is happening to the CA example being given - it's a result of using the NIC. The NIC places younger AWA guys further up the list. To avoid the AA pilots being hurt by the NIC fallout the entire NIC list has to be pushed lower.
If the arbitrators look at the NIC biased result they might decide, as they can, that using the NIC as a baseline doesn't work.
The AASLIC pilots position has always been - don't punish our list trying to correct problems with the NIC.
If the arbitrators look at the NIC biased result they might decide, as they can, that using the NIC as a baseline doesn't work.
The AASLIC pilots position has always been - don't punish our list trying to correct problems with the NIC.
05-10-2016, 05:33 AM
#39
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by Sliceback
Here's what I suspect is happening to the CA example being given - it's a result of using the NIC. The NIC places younger AWA guys further up the list. To avoid the AA pilots being hurt by the NIC fallout the entire NIC list has to be pushed lower.
If the arbitrators look at the NIC biased result they might decide, as they can, that using the NIC as a baseline doesn't work.
The AASLIC pilots position has always been - don't punish our list trying to correct problems with the NIC.
If the arbitrators look at the NIC biased result they might decide, as they can, that using the NIC as a baseline doesn't work.
The AASLIC pilots position has always been - don't punish our list trying to correct problems with the NIC.
05-10-2016, 05:34 AM
#40
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 85
By default I'm a glass half empty person... But on this subject I've got a descent feeling
1. This is happening in the wake of three other large mergers. I'm confident that this arbitration has learned from the others.
2. The proposed lists have gotten everyone rolling their eyes. If everyone here is rolling eyes I would imagine arbitrators are as well.... Essentially it creates dialogue and that's always a good thing to have in negotiations, get it all out on the table so nothing's missed.
3. I would however be concerned if everyone was happy with each other. I've been to those family reunions and you'd better watch out bc there's probably a knife at your back waiting for you to lean back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. This is happening in the wake of three other large mergers. I'm confident that this arbitration has learned from the others.
2. The proposed lists have gotten everyone rolling their eyes. If everyone here is rolling eyes I would imagine arbitrators are as well.... Essentially it creates dialogue and that's always a good thing to have in negotiations, get it all out on the table so nothing's missed.
3. I would however be concerned if everyone was happy with each other. I've been to those family reunions and you'd better watch out bc there's probably a knife at your back waiting for you to lean back.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
