Nope, representing the ASA pilots under the "agreed language" of the TPA.

 

We can already see the product through the MEC site and YouTube videos, but it's pointless as the system has not be customized to include JCBA workrules. The company is not willing to pay Smartpref do that or run "parallel testing" as it will cost too much to pay two companies when in the end only a one will be chosen.

It's a complete stalemate, that IMO won't be resolved until the next generation of Acey pilots come through. Even one ALPA National rep stated we should have had a JCBA a Long time ago but the MECs remain in a circlejerk about PBS systems

 

Sir read Attachment "A" of the JCBA and ISL Protocol Agreement.

Specifically B.1. You see the part about "...may significantly change either the current ASA or XJT CBAs or that may significantly affect the terms of, OR negotiations or other process for determining the JCBA or SLI. The non-negotiating MEC may then determine that in its view such proposed (or when concluded ) actual agreement constitutes a joint agreement subject to ratification of BOTH MECs...."


The ASA MEC is doing its job under this agreement that YOUR MEC agreed to. I would expect no less if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

Enjoy it man.

 

Here's something you probably don't know, Nevets. There is loophole that could let management could pick the system, and we would end up with that POS AOS that SKW uses. THAT is why the ASA MEC drew a line in the sand and walked away. It actually had little to do with SmartPref and everything to do with management. But your MEC turned it into a propaganda tool. Bet McK didn't tell you that part.

 

At least protecting what we have is an honorable endeavor.
And if you had read my previous post, all that means is that your MEC is required to be notified and given a ratification vote. The dispute resolution process will answer if this is required. In any case, it's moot because there will be NO ratification vote. This is going to arbitration.

The point in that post was that this wasn't the XJT MEC's doing. Only the company can use the addition of new aircraft clause in our contract.

I like you ASA conspiracy theorist guys. First it was the mcpickle was getting a kickback. Now it's a loophole. What's next?

 

Loophole in the TPA? I'd love to see a solid reference

 

As the XJT guys like to say "call your rep". He'll gladly explain this FACT to you. The loophole is in our LOA 11, not the TPA. Although there are plenty of other loopholes in the TPA.

I used to think you were actually an independent thinker like our own JB. I'm starting to realize that you're nothing but an XJT MEC pawn, spoon fed propaganda, and tasked to spew it out. And have we established that there are no kickbacks? Didn't you guys lose an MEC chairman for stealing a boatload of money?

 

The "Call your Rep" line was mine . I was just encouraging guys to seek information via their Reps, rather than just the crack pipe.

We didn't "lose" a chairmen over stealing money. The policy was "mis-interpreted" and he was being compensated to match pretty much exactly what he was making as a Flight Instructor, which NONE of the REPS had a problem with, however it was not went about via the policy manual. There was no money stolen and he was not found to be doing anything "malicious" via a committee that was created to investigate it. The committee was made up of line pilots and JF from ALPA National (FedEx guy)


Also, I spoke extensively with our NC Chair (JW) and he, as well as our lawyer, advised me that there is absolutely nothing in the TPA that says ASA has to participate in our negotiations, only in ratifying a "joint agreement"

 

Ya right, the fact that I post on these boards affects how much the union guys tell me. I'm always up front with them. If they tell me anything, I will post at my discretion. You should have seen the flack and questions of where I got the eff off letter from crewing solutions that I posted. Many people were not happy with me.

Anyway, I'll have to re-look at your LOA 11. But if there is such a gaping loophole that would let management pick whatever they want, I don't ever want to hear you complain again about our boiler plate language in our section 26 dealing with arbitration for introduction of a new aircraft type.