beis77

Aside from more hurt feelings, distrust, and some angry pilots, I don’t think they’re concerned. Apparently UNAs have reinstatement rights, otherwise there’s no chance CR would have operated this way. They would not have violated the PWA in such an obvious fashion (IMHO) if UNAs weren’t allowed reinstatement rights. The sentence in BS’s memo clearly contradicts their intent and they should have been up front with us. Or if they honestly didn’t know at the time (since UNA is still a relatively new thing), then when they did realize they were going to offer reinstatement rights, they should have been much more vocal about it. They did mention it in a few comment/responses on Sky Net (BS encouraged UNA to put in a bid), but many folks aren’t on there. They definitely should have clarified in a flight ops wide memo that they were mistaken in the memo. If ALPA tries to grieve it though, the company will likely just point to the PWA and say that it trumps whatever language was in a CR memo, and they’re probably right. Frankly, I’m surprised we have not heard anything from ALPA yet on the AE... crickets.

On the flip side of this, in a few weeks it may not matter, with 1941 headed out the door. On the other hand, if additional UNAs are saved and if they weren’t afforded the opportunity to reinstate on this bid, then the company would be looking at a grievance from those pilots arguing that their reinstatement rights were violated/not honored IAW the PWA.

CR is treading a very fine line, and I honestly think their intent is to follow the PWA to the letter in order to avoid as many grievances as possible. I could certainly be wrong. There will be plenty of folks contacting reps to try and grieve it I’m sure. It does appear CR is using reinstatement to their advantage to avoid training churn as much as possible though.

bugman61

I agree. The only thing they have done which is questionable WRT the contract is saying that the 1941 won’t participate and then doing it anyway. I think the simplest explanation here is that they intended to do it that way, and then after the bid was out they realized (or ALPA told them) that they couldn’t exclude the 1941 because they were still active pilots, and all active pilots can participate in AEs. By a strict reading of the pwa they did it right, just gave bad info in the memo and nobody followed up when they changed their mind.

FangsF15

Agreed. Probably PWA compliant. The fact the 1941 were suddenly included is irrelevant if the furloughs happen. It’s just a really, really crappy twist of the knife for them.

beis77

Yes exactly. Tone deaf doesn’t begin to describe it; it’s just cruel.

”Congratulations you’re reinstated and no longer UNA!!!”

some time later...

”...for 20 more days, then we’re still furloughing you...”

StartngOvr

Have we found any cases where any of “the 1941” were given an AE Award? I don’t think we have yet?

I think we are reading more into the term “excluded from this bid” than BS intended to convey. I think by “excluded,” they meant only excluded from an AE award. A reinstatement is not an “award” in this context. It’s actually a cancellation of a previous “award”(displacement.) Look at the column headings in the document. The first 32 pages are “Awarded” positions. These are pilots who got a new position they bid for. (And the seat lock to go with it!) The rest of the document shows reinstatements. If none of the 1941 were awarded anything on the first section, it’s probably compliant with the memo.

Not saying it couldn’t have been clearer to avoid confusion. But, I think there’s a bit of a communication gap between how a pilot defines an award versus how a spreadsheet wonk does.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Gone Flying

Looks like 229 above the furlough line are still UNA while 450 below the line got reinstated somewhere. I’m guessing the October bid will place those 229 in the slots vacated by the 450 getting furloughed but they could not do that while the 1941 are still on the list. 1720 still have UNA as there most future category.

bugman61

It’s a distinction without difference. A reinstatement is an award just like a VD or MD. The company specifically said that UNAs not projected to be furloughed would be assigned positions in inverse seniority order if they didn’t bid. And then they didn’t do it.

In the end I’m not sure you could win a grievance, and also not sure what the remedy would be.

The only real harm I can see is that junior pilots who put in percentage qualifiers may have gotten awards and after the oct bid those numbers could be thrown off.

GogglesPisano

That's how I interpret every AE. My dream sheet and displacement bids are always updated.

They came to close to target on the FORECAST STAFFING. The POSTED VACANCIES are meaningless.

Drum

Were you in one of the closed categories (M88, NYC717, etc)? Are you part of the 1,941? If not then there were about 500 or so UNA above the cut line that didn't get anything this time around. Other guys have explained pretty much how that worked. Crappy deal, as this management continues to curb stomp us. Another bid in Oct once we know the real furlough number. There's another shot at it. I think you have up to 6 bids before you lose the reinstatement right.

2StgTurbine

With regards to management, what was the point of the entire UNA thing?

When they first came up with it, I didn't like it, but I could at least respect the fact that it was a creative way to get senior pilots re-trained to replace the to-be-furloughed pilots. In the past, airlines never had the luxury of being able to plan for a furlough.

As a non-furlough letter UNA, that never happened. I haven't flown since March, I can't hold my current category, and I haven't been trained on the A220 (most likely my next category). I have been paid to do nothing the last 5 months. The earliest I can start training will be late November. Other than a very minor savings for the few pilots who actually took a pay cut when they converted to UNA (if the even did), was there any benefit for the company to assign people UNA in May?