Originally Posted by iPilot

To add this merger language isn't anything outlandish. When it was written it was top of the line for giving the union the ability to prevent whipsaw by forcing a merger if there's ever a situation like ABX/ATI where Atlas owns two airlines to pit against each other.

What wasn't expected is that the company could turn it around and use it to force the union to merge. The arbiter in the Southern case ruled they could and imposed a 45 day time limit on the SLI which wasn't anywhere in the contract language. Additionally it imposes Southern's merger language on Atlas which is still technically a separate pilot group and union. It would be like FedEx buying Southern and then forcing the FedEx pilots into the southern merger process (and ending up with something between FDX and Southern's contract, somehow). The FedEx pilots wouldn't even get a vote in the matter!

Its a shaky ruling that if allowed to stand is quite dangerous for the industry. It sets precedent where Atlas can merge with any airline and impose a wildly one-sided merger process on the pilots. Not to veer too much into politics but this is what happens when you have severely anti-labor politicians placing judges and arbiters in positions like the NMB where they can wipe out our bargaining ability with a simple court ruling.

Originally Posted by Cujo665

Are the two contracts identical? If so, then why not work out an SLI agreement amongst yourselves (Pilots, Atlas-Southern) and then hold it hostage for expedited full section six?

What is it the company wants to do? One CBA for both pilot groups at once?

Originally Posted by Cujo665

That’s why I say to get both pilot groups together; negotiate an SLI, and make it effective upon ratification of a pilot ratified CBA. You’ve complied with the intent of the ruling.... yet it remains leverage to get section six concluded swiftly.

Originally Posted by Cujo665

That’s why I say to get both pilot groups together; negotiate an SLI, and make it effective upon ratification of a pilot ratified CBA. You’ve complied with the intent of the ruling.... yet it remains leverage to get section six concluded swiftly.

Not to wade into politics too much, but the NMB members are majority appointments by Democrats. I bet the current admin would likely eliminate agencies like the NMB as wasteful and interfering with free market negotiations by placing the thumb on the scale.... or in this case the full palm on the scale.

Originally Posted by iPilot

That's not how this works at all. I don't know how to explain it to you any better.

Originally Posted by Globemaster2827

Also... The ruling states that the Union shouldn't be allowed to use the SLI as leverage at all. Thus the "45 Day" rule.

Originally Posted by Cujo665

Well, the court just said you’ve got 45 days. Apparently it’s exactly how it works. You can roll with the punches and try to make it work for you; or keep doing what you’ve been doing. It’s been so effective thus far.

I wish you guys well, I’ll keep showing up, marching and holding signs when I can. I’m no friend of these types of unscrupulous vindictive unethical management teams.

Originally Posted by akfrtdwg 57

The court did not say we had 45 days. An arbitrator did. There is a very distinct difference. The arbitrator made up language to suit his ruling. A law suit to void his ruling is no doubt coming because of it. But our section 1 clearly states the union is to hand over a merged seniority list at which time the 9 month clock starts. Not a 9 month clock which can be voided I'd the union decides to change the date. This isn't the first time this has happened, this happened years ago already with Atlas/Polar and now management is trying to repeat history with Atlas/Southern. Our scope doesn't have any provision that allows for an effective date of the seniority list. So you can't keep it hostage.