Again you got it right. The CAL MEC is attempting to use the JCBA in the SLI process and they are the ones that REFUSED to sign an agreement not to use that in the SLI arguments. The CAL MEC is the one attempting to link the two. Clearly against the way it is SUPPOSED to work. And that, my friends, is costing US ALL from getting an agreement and putting this whole mess of the last few years behind us.

 

Am I missing something. CAL MEC will not agree that the JCBA will not be used in SLI negotiations. Wouldn't logic dictate that the CAL MEC is the one trying to gain an edge in the SLI via the JCBA?

Captain Hook

 

How are people arguing that the CAL MEC is slowing this contract down? The UAL NC and CAL NC come to an agreement on pay proposal. CAL MEC approves proposal and UAL MEC rejects it. UAL is the issue holding this up. If the UAL MEC disapproves of what the UAL NC came up with well then get some people in there at are aligned with UAL MEC positions. Then let the two NC's get together and work this out.

 

Yes you're all correct, its all the CAL MEC's fault. Talk about deflection. Lets try this again:

The joint NC came up with a pay proposal that was agreed to by CAL's MEC and denied by UAL's. That much is fact.

Now we have guys telling us, with absolutely no proof other than a miscellaneous UAL rep said so, that the CAL MEC wants to use the pay banding in the SLI.

Didn't Jay emphatically state that pay should not be used as an issue for the SLI? Oh yeah, as my buddy Coto says, don't let facts get in the way.

Nice try though, again.

 

+1
That all seems pretty clear as far as what 'our reps' have shared with us.

To me, the opening post reminds me of "A Blind Man picking out his favorite Porno......Reaching for absolutely anything".

I will agree....There has been much posturing and BS through this entire Merger thus far, but to have CAL's MEC shoulder the blame as being the solo "Poor Form" here??? The most pathetic excuse I've heard yet.

I know one thing, I for one WILL NOT rush/cave on any JCBA to 'just have one'. Both pilot groups will live under their respective CBA till the JCBA is done. If that's the case, I am damn will willing to do so till we get something to be that our MEC/NC feels worthy for it's pilot group to vote.

 

Let's see if this is "emphatically" stated......and yes, I quote....

>>>>>It is very clear that the problem is not with the CAL MEC or the JNC. The problem rests solely with the UAL MEC and their insistence that the compensation proposal enhance their SLI argument.

To further complicate matters, the UAL MEC has proposed a resolution to the ALPA Executive Council suggesting that the Council mandate that the JCBA cannot be used in the SLI arbitration. In essence, the UAL MEC wants to restrict the arbitration panel from hearing the whole truth. They want to carve out parts we believe would be necessary for the arbitrators to understand both pilot groups’ full stories. We will, of course, fight for the truth to be told in its unvarnished entirety.
<<<<<<<<<<
AM I THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD THAT SEES THE END OF PARAGRAPH ONE AND PARAGRAPH TWO TO BE IN COMPLETE CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER???

 

And let me add this.....after 6 beers along with a great steak dinner......

I am a reasonable man. I do not feel the 747 and 777 need to be "un" banded. As a 15+ year 777 F/O, I do not feel I need to have a DOH integration to be satisfied.

Now, that being said, if (and I do believe it is, 100%) my original post points are true with relation to the demands of the CAL MEC?

I find that completely UNREASONABLE, and unacceptable. Hence my "bring it on" sign off.

Regards.....

Oh, and give me a flipping raise.....soon.

 

That's what you have to refute my original post?

OK. Uh. Let's see.......

Because the UAL MEC saw what was going on and said "No 'flipping' way"? Could that be the answer?

You do not refute any of the points, but you say "But.....But......the negotiating committee agreed to it!!!!!!" So what!?

I fully support my MEC in their absolute opposition to this banding issue if it's going to be used to try and improve CAL's SLI argument. "Well sir, you can see our 767-400 is paid as much as UAL's 777s and 747s. Oh, and as you can see here, our 737-900 and -800 is paid well above what UAL pays their Airbus aircraft."

GMAFB.

Get the best contract you can!!!! Pay the forking 767-400 and 737-900 the moon!!!!!! I DON'T CARE!!!!!

BUT, you use those newly negotiated pay rates to fork me out of seniority??????

Nice tie, as we like to say on the UAL MEC forum.

 

Un-band all aircraft types. We are not a dedicated cargo outfit.

 

Apparently, the CAL MEC has received expert advice that the MEC's can agree to not use the JCBA in SLI negotiations but WHEN it goes to the panel of arbitrators for BINDING arbitration, that agreement isn't worth the paper its printed on.
The arbitrators can choose to abide that agreement or ignore it. And thus choose to ignore the JCBA or choose to include it. (and the individual pre-merger contracts)

So with that sort of advice being given to them, why would the CAL MEC agree to something that is not legally binding on the arbitrators? AND if a super jumbo pay JCBA is used it could hurt the CAL pilots in SLI arbitration.
(arbitrators then could be saying, "hey you ALL agreed that the 747 is a category above the 777 so we'll just make that a separate category/status...")

So what's the solution to this problem? I don't know. Outside of a merger situation, sure I can see the argument for the 747 to pay more.
However, at who's expense? No matter what the negotiators argue, the dollar amount that goes to the 747 crews will have to come at the expense of the other crews. How many 747's are there again? How long will they be around? A350 orders to replace them when? 5 years?

There is no perfect solution here. So we must ask ourselves.....which option does the most good for the most pilots? Really? (and backed up by hard data not conjecture as to the effects.)