Originally Posted by kronan (Post 3136133)

Clipping from TA 2015 Q&A file

Q: Does the Company still maintain absolute control of when we enter into 4A2b, and when we exit from 4A2b? In other words does the TA contain the the ability for the Union to tell the Company that it is not necessary to implement 4A2b, or to immediately exit the utilization of it?

A: The Company does not still maintain control to enter or exit into Section 4.A.2.b. The previous subjective language “This provision shall only be used to prevent or delay a furlough” is now deleted. There are now objective triggers for entry and exit in the CBA based on the System Wide Averages (SAM), which is also a defined term, along with the exit trigger of the Company hiring a new pilot (See Section 4.A.2.b.ii. on p. 34; 4.A.2.c.xi. and xii. on pp. 35-36.

The only remaining issue is the consequence of a furlough when we would be under 4.A.2.c. (the rearranged 4.A.2.b.). The new side letter (pp. 64-65) preserves ALPA’s position that a furlough would necessitate yet another exit from the lower MBPGs (and the Company’s position that it does not) based upon the prior subjective language that was deleted regarding the Company’s subjective entry into the then 4.A.2.b. ALPA would then be free to file a grievance and arbitrate that issue “as if” that old language was not deleted (with no danger that it could be used as a subjective entry point). Therefore, the side letter is a preservation of rights to argue another exit from 4.A.2.b. based on deleted language that provided the Company the subjective entry language. It is a positive, not a negative.

To state the new objective entry and exit points are not a fix to 4.A.2.b. is simply not accurate. To characterize the side letter, which actually provides ALPA another ability to argue another exit to the old 4.A.2.b. based on deleted language, as not a fix to 4.A.2.b. or that there is “no contractually binding solution” to 4.A.2.b. is not accurate. The opposite is true.

Originally Posted by Merle Haggard (Post 3137712)

This union missive actually made me laugh. Given the track record of arbiter "neutrality" and our overall winning percentage this is comedy.

"actually provides ALPA another ability to argue". Unreal.

Merle

Originally Posted by The Walrus (Post 3137828)

And I thought I had seen it all.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Emmerson Bigs (Post 3137839)

The irony is amazing. The Starclipper/Nowork pax carrier insult tour while calling out someone who might not work for FedEx circle of life.

Originally Posted by Noworkallplay (Post 3137808)

Like it or not that’s how it works. We are under the RLA. The company can disagree on any language interpretation and we have to fight it through a grievance. Management definitely has the upper hand. That’s why we must grieve everything we can and continue to tighten language like 4.a.2.c did.

Merle you work at United or FDX? Seems your a new user name posting on both forums. What’s up? You just throwing your opinions around on both or do you actually work at purple? Not being snarky just curious since you have ruffled a few feathers over on the United board.

Originally Posted by Merle Haggard (Post 3142596)

Purple for 16 years. Family interests at U. However, fact-based opinions and substantiated arguments are valid regardless of the source. I see people being "called out" on every airline thread over the "do you even work here" thing. Doesn't really matter if someone presents legitimate thoughts.

Merle