Tuck

Wow, take a look at the recent info on PFC - look at Arbitration #1 - unbelievable it was decided against him. The two ACPs involved - wow!

LEROY

Wow. Just, WOW. All this time, after having heard "the pilot's side" through the grapevine and from the rumor mill, I was secretly sure there was more to it than that. I was certain the company had damning evidence, to which ALPA was privy, and which ALPA wasn't disseminating because it would hurt the pilot's case. I had convinced myself that the reality would come to light that there really were a few "bad apples" deceiving the company.

I read the entire report on Pilot 1, waiting for the bomb to drop, waiting to read "the REAL story" on how it all went down...

NOPE.

It REALLY WAS JUST LIKE THE RUMORS HAD IT! That dude got fired after having told everybody he could that he was unsure of his situation. He told his ACP, he told the company, he wrote emails and letters, had conversations at dinner parties, and he still got fired.

The decision reads just like every other decision I've read CBA arbitrations, especially the one about 4A2B:

When asked about a specific <email, conversation, negotiation, intent at time of drafting contract language> the witness <company representative, ACP, company negotiator> could not recall the specific details of that <conversation, email, letter, etc.>

No wonder we lose every arbitration. Half the evidence can't be recalled, even written documentation! Long-reaching suppositions get made on behalf of the company's interests, evidentiary documents are overlooked or disregarded, and in this case, the pilot's honest answers to misleading questions get used against him in finding him deceitful!

Anybody who needs a reason to doubt the company's "good-faith" and corporate integrity when dealing with pilots, from negotiations to discipline to probably even ASAP reporting, just read the final results on Pilot 1.

I don't want better language in the next CBA; I don't want new work rules. I want Section 3 CASH. It's the only thing that can't be "re-interpreted" when the company wants it back. I'm convinced there's no language we could put in the CBA that the company couldn't undo. And I'm taking screen shots of every piece of correspondence I get from the company now. And I'm not saving it on the company iPad!

There really are black helicopters...

MaydayMark

Wow, just wow ...

I might be a prime candidate for an FDA (empty nester, wife would like to go) but ... after sorting through all that legal nonsense, who in their right mind would risk disrupting their lives to be under that type of scrutiny?

Maybe Management is happy just putting new hires there? A former military or former RJ Captain would make a fine 2 year Captain at an FDA. Lots of guys on the street might jump at the opportunity? Is that the objective?

Personally, I'd like to see the FDA's be a good deal so that the folks senior to me might bid it. Maybe The Negotiating Committee can fix the mess? I hope so ...

MM

Tuck

You come away feeling there is zero "just cause" from management. I can't see how anyone could reach a different conclusion.

matty

Everyone should read every case linked in the PFC posting. They are long, but some interesting things are presented...on both sides.

Gunter

I'm with you, mostly.

I don't want NEW language. I don't want a total rewrite of any section for the reasons you stated. PBS comes to mind.

But some updated language that further defines acceptable management behavior is a good thing. Remember that we have a negotiating committee that actually listens to the lawyers. This is a change from BC/DW era.

There are lots of documented instances of CBA language that is vague or ambiguous. Management is on record quoting specific sections when they made decisions to fleece us. Repairing the CBA to prevent them from doing a few of these things would be good. Accepted fare policy comes to mind

ANCFRTDG

If you ever had any doubts about how things really work here??

MaydayMark

I really wanted to believe it wasn't like that ... I've always tried to do my best and hoped it was appreciated. I'm disappointed

whitekeys

Well, if it will make you feel any better, JB again played loose and easy with the truth. The outside civil actions in Alaska are far from closed. By order of the Superior Court in Anchorage the complaints of one of the terminated pilots (marital-status discrimination & retaliation) have been remanded back to the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR) for them to reopen their investigation. Management has some more explaining to do.

LEROY

I wanted to believe it wasn't REALLY that bad. I've been around long enough to know it ain't all roses, but usually there has been enough of a back story to explain the seemingly ridiculous.

In this case, as in the 4A2B arbitration, it appears there was no other story, like many convinced me to believe. It's really that bad. I have renewed my level of less than zero trust in management. I will continue to second-guess every step they take. For that matter, why do we all have mandatory iPads? What's the real reason? Sounds crazy but...

As to CBA language, Gunter, I'm convinced there's no language that can't be undone in the company's kangaroo court. Why waist time and effort on it? Just like with CBA 2006, we won't even KNOW we got screwed until years down the road when new language gets "tested".