Originally Posted by feltf4

You missed the point. They are exploiting the contract.

Hypothetically they could. Because our contract doesn’t say “regardless of training failures, pilots shall be awarded vacancies in seniority order” - exploiting the weak language that is the CBA.

So again, I don’t agree with what the company is doing. However it’s further proof of how weak our contract language is. The FOM upgrade hour requirements changed sometime like 1.5 -2 years ago. Alpa should have came up with a letter of agreement saying “regardless of flight time at the company upgrades will be awarded in seniority order”

the companies interpretation of “seniority” is different than what you and I agree on. However as we are seeing with the NEA, our contract needs work and the company is exploiting it.

So you and I agree that it’s not right to by pass upgrades or downgrades. However the guidelines set in the CBA user manual are simply to gray.

Originally Posted by panpanpan

The NEA is not exploiting weak language. It is violating the CBA.

With regards to the upgrades, it is my view that the language is straight forward.

Every possible scenario can not be covered or else the CBA would be 1,000 pages long.

Originally Posted by Wipeout

The FOM explicitly state what the “Captain Upgrade Training Requirements” are. (FOM 1.46.4). So I’m not sure what we are arguing here.

Originally Posted by SaintNick

because the contract states differently

Originally Posted by Boomer

Here’s a hypothetical, let’s say Jetblue issues a revision to the FOM that says “Upgrades shall not be awarded to ALPA volunteers or committee members.”

Does this seem legit? Which takes precedence in regards to filling of vacancies - the FOM or our CBA?

Originally Posted by Steelers

Agreed but ALPA should have taken issue when the FOM was revised not when it becomes a issue