It sounds like most people feel that canceling the domestic bid was just not right. It maybe that those people who benefited from the cancelation feel the same way in their heart of hearts.

I am all for following the law and holding to the agreements people make, however, if that was not the agreement, we should take a look at it. Canceling a bid was not specifically addressed in the contract and we accepted that. However,

In Feb. 2006 the company added a couple of questions to the standing bid to help us determine what our staffing needs would be in the future if the age restrictions were lifted. It was written, at that time, that we were anticipating to be overstaffed.

We started hiring.

By virtue of the language in the contract it is clear that canceling a bid was not the intent of the paragraph.

"4. Cancellation of Awards
a. The Company may cancel an award/assignment of a crew position in reverse seniority order"

Canceling awards IN REVERSE SENIORITY clearly indicates that the parties agreed that wiggle room was needed to adjust the number of awarded positions down to meet our needs. The fact that we need a few more pilots substantiates that reducing the number of pilots was not their intention when they canceled the bid. It was never intended for our company to unilaterally cancel all bid awards and then fill the exact
same positions shortly thereafter with different pilots or use a bid cancelation to replace those pilots with other pilots. It is/was not possible for the parties who agreed to this in 1999 to know or anticipate a situation when an entire bid would need to be canceled for this purpose. The language clearly was intended to reduce the number of pilot awards, not change who they are. I believe a judge would agree.`

The situation is not ideal but not impossible. Ideally specific language would be preferred. We do have intent though. It is also understood that common sense is part of the contract. For example one party cannot change the meaning of a paragraph or term later on, when at the time of negotiations the word, term or paragraph was understood by the parties. Lastly there is practice. Is it the practice of the party to do what was done. In other words, is there a precedent?

The overstaffing would rectify itself on the next bid in the summer or pilots will retire like they had planned to.
A canceling awards v a canceling bid argument is easily defeated in this situation. I used the phrases interchangeably in this post.

There is a 60 day window to file a grievance. If a group was to file a grievance on this issue, they should do it before this bid closes, sooner if possible. The almost Captains should take the lead. The union will file
the grievance for the 79 + pilots affected or be established as irrelevant.

your thoughts please....

 

It sounds to me like the canceled the assignment award in reverse seniority, they just didn't stop till they got to the top of the list. I don't think there is anything to grieve. But I got hosed (and not subjectively) so if you find someone at CE interested (har,har,har) sign me up.

 

If they used seniority, all FDA awards would have been canceled too. If a group files, contract enforcement would have to respond in someway.

 

I think the "crew position" gives them their out. For example they could cancel all the 757 slots if the airplane buy fell through with no impact on airbus slots. In this case the "crew position" is defined as bent over and greased up by the union and retroactivity.

 

Stay with the premise, the language....

reverse seniority means---reduction in number of pilots needed in any seat
NOT changing who they are less than a month later

 

I wasn't aware of any grease!!?? Do you have to know someone to get grease??? Oh the luxury...

 

They could at least have the decency to use something water soluble....Astroglide, perhaps.