...and a nice car!

I am sure the union will see that differently.
It is a new base to us and to them. We have not been able to bid it before so IMHO it is a new base.
I am sure there will be some debate about this.

The company & union in disagreement over contract language interpretation. Imagine that. :rolleyes:

But it's a new company. The Delta way is to agree with the pilots when there's a dispute.

We can dream, can't we? ;)

After past mergers, the existing categories for each airline were not considered new categories for the other pilot group. New categories were formed, though, as equipment got moved around post-SOC. That would be our opportunity for a paid move.

The union may or may not see it differently. The contract isn't up to personal interpretation, so your or my opinion doesn't matter much. The e-mail response I received was "cc" to every member of the TWG by Flight Operations, I haven't heard anything from our union contradicting what was sent to me. Don't take this the wrong way, you've put out some good gouge, but before I'd advice folks that they are entitled to relocation benefits on an AE, because they are bidding pre merger bases that they didn't have before, I'd make sure that I were correct on my interpretation and not just relying on my opinion. Past practices matter as do negotiator notes.

I thought it was to let them violate the contract, then compromise rather than risk the possibility that our legally binding PWA might not be upheld in court.

So I predict we'll give them a few more 76 seaters in exchange for promises not to furlough us in order to secure a paid move to a N/S base and call it a win-win among much fanfare..............:mad:

I agree with some of the posts, above: the union may not disagree with the company. That's because the union probably never tried to negotiate paid moving rights for people going between existing bases across pre-merger divides.

I didn't want fences, and advocated against them: I specifically wanted everyone to be able to use their full bidding power, and do whatever they wanted post SOC. If such movement occurs as a result of an AE, MD, or VD, fine. If such movement occurs as a result of new categories being created for cross-fleeting, fine as well. In such cases, some of the moves will be paid, according to the contract. But I sure didn't want the union to use leverage to ensure the company funded paid moves for existing bases, in effect encouraging moves.

Of course, I'm in a defensive position, and have no intention of moving. I'd rather see no movement. Someone who intends to move will see it differently. I think the smart compromise is that you don't have fences, and do nothing to artificially restricted them AND to channel whatever gains were made in the JCBA to everyone, via payraises, etc.

At any rate, there will be enough new categories created as a result of cross-fleeting, plus occasional displacements, as to give everyone a shot at a move, probably a paid move. The existing guarantees go far enough. So I doubt anyone is harmed much by whether we interpret a North base as "new" to a South guy (and vice-versa) for the sole purpose of obtaining a paid move.

I do not take it the wrong way. It is good info and thank you for correcting my false and incorrect interpretation.

I know what I was thinking of when I stated the move was paid for and I was referring to the movement of equipment to former North and South bases. Not preexisting fleets. I am glad you caught my error, as I would not have wanted anyone to bid based upon that.


How is that for honesty?
Face is that I do not see a ton of openings on non fenced equipment for some time. Most will be surplus and AE's to new jets in existing bases. (Well old jets in old bases that may be new to some of us)

Anywho, thank you for taking the time to correct me

Like I said, I once again am wrong and will continue to get things wrong. It is people like you that keep what I say honest. Keep it up.
Also I was wrong about AMS. It appears we will get more flying out of there as well.