For secondary bidding. Not primary bidding. A half truth is also half lie, Nevets... but whatever it takes to "win" the conversation, right?

 

I'm being honest. I don't think our MEC is trying to keep line bidding as you say. That is what I was refereeing to. It's going to be used and my understanding is that I won't solve to zero open time.

 

Oh. Well, I'm glad your MEC has unilaterally decided that!

I hate to break it to you, but when we open our DFW council, L-ASA will have the majority of votes on the MEC. Might be time for you guys to start negotiating and stop demanding while chest thumping.

 

If it was "iron-clad" then file a grievance. From what I understand your former sch. person, management now, that is involved with this has asked for the specific language. The response several times has been "that's the way we've done it before". No specific language, no cases.

 

I don't think you quite understand how the two MEC's work or how a TA would be ratified. Both MEC's vote separately to send it to the pilot group. I also think some of the L-ASA guys understand the conflicts of interest with having all extremely senior MEC people and might want to vote in someone fresh. I think you should talk to your MEC about not willing to negotiate. When one group says this is what we want and we wont budge on it even though you are presenting a case for your side... that is a huge problem. That is what the ASA MEC did to the XJT MEC on a PBS system.

It took them 6 months to get around to looking at both systems side by side and even with this report they are assuming the use of the base software with no amendments... so this report is basically useless without knowing the amendments. I don't know what is worse the fact that they or someone has a serious agenda to railroad their idea into existence or the fact that they are now trying to sell this idea that they have been willing to compromise all along. There has been accusations of the same on the part of LXJT but that turned out to be completely false.

I am kind of curious why they are building a base for 11 airplanes when the erj IAD ops is easily 20 airplanes

 

Because it is a base for a different carrier and no way to flow through DFW from any other base?

 

It's also probably going to grow more than 11 airplanes.

 

You're slipping, so I fixed it for ya.

 

It's very simple. The ASA MEC represents the L-ASA pilots, not the L-XJT pilots. The L-ASA pilots overwhelmingly support Pref Bid. Even the junior lineholders seem happy with their monthly bid results, and 80-85% of the pilots get a line in initial bidding. We like it so much, that we don't want to start over with an unproven system and have the learning curve again. We're not even interested in hearing about your new, unproven, untested system. We have told our MEC our wishes, and our MEC is following them. So why SHOULD my MEC "entertain" your MEC in a specific powerful individual's crusade to impose a bidding system no one on either side really wants?

 

I can't wait to see UNICAL's scope section. How's that DEN base working out... wait, nevermind.