I have heard this before. And I understand the SRH, as that just repeats information in the PWA. But how does a prospective NN become "legally" binding? How would an arbitrator in court view it if we could not produce information in the contract, but could via NN? I imagine it would not be favorable for the union, as the only legally binding document per the RLA is a collective bargaining agreement. If it's not in a CBA, it wasn't agreed to, as far as the law was concerned.

Because it’s vetted through the company.

Not to mention, they sometimes go back to negotiatiors notes, not NN’s, but notes and term sheets, when filing a grievance. Which are…. Legally binding.

I think a lower hanging fruit is what the agreed to ‘soak time’ actually means. The NN is vague.

Some possibilities off the top of my head:
1). Soak time clock starts when the open time trip is flagged as SS/Premium.
2.). Soak time clock starts when company decides to designate but that designation may not be known to the pilots at time of designation.
3.) Soak time is time the trip has to hang out in open time as a WS before being designated SS/Premium.
4.) Some other parameter I haven’t yet thought of or exception note not yet written.
…(or 23M7)

I think most everyone is assuming 1 but there isn’t anything tying it down to that in the language released so far.

The language matters and this language we don’t yet have.

this was briefly talked about at the MSP roadshow today. They described soak as time SS needs to sit and be seen by everyone prior to being awarded. The goal is that everyone will have the opportunity to put in an SS for the trip.

Also at the roadshow someone asked about the incomplete language. The negotiators said SS soak is the biggest omission known. The other incorrect language are references to other sections in the language. Such as section X refers to a pilot being effected by section Y. Section Y should read section Z.

They said the notes on the SS soak were thorough and the company agrees with the notes. A language email on all of the language alterations had been sent today from ALPA to the Company, so hopefully we will see the corrected PWA soon

That is positive from the MSP roadshow. I just hope that it is seen ^as a SS^ and not just seen as an open time trip … sounds like they are circling the issue correctly and will have language before voting closes. Good news.

Here’s one…unless I’m missing it in the language, the ability to bid for your training timeline preference on an AE only applies to the 210- or 335-day windows. The language js missing for the 150-day bids (you know, the new “standard” bid that will make up most of our bids). Waiting for confirmation from my rep.

Has anyone at the road shows discussed/explained why narrowbody flying was left out of the global scope agreement? Thanks.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4y9Lv9phVkNqbWEGgiddKr?si=MLQZHyrtQFOQ2VhfCIUU6A&u tm_source=copy-link

Also send a DART to the negotiating committee. Very helpful and responsive.