It is not about the 747/777!!!
11-10-2010, 05:08 PM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 110
Originally Posted by kc135driver
AGREED!
Out of curiosity, was there ever a time when CAL had completely unbanded pay rates?
Out of curiosity, was there ever a time when CAL had completely unbanded pay rates?
On second thought, I think I misunderstood your question......I was thinking about when pay was based only on seat position and longevity.
Completely unbanded rates have not existed since the re-union-ification. Probably last time they were completely un-banded was sometime before the strike.
Last edited by SUPERfluf; 11-10-2010 at 05:11 PM. Reason: realized misunderstood the question
11-10-2010, 05:09 PM
#22
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by LifeNtheFstLne
The 767-400 is not a different type rating. But don't ask me how they ever signed off on it being in the same grouping as a 757-200. No comment on the pay banding either. Just pay me.
11-10-2010, 05:11 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2010
Posts: 363
Originally Posted by SUPERfluf
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.)
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.)
Here's the bigger problem, wasn't the whole reason for doing the JCBA before SLI to keep people from using their vote on the JCBA as a proxy for a perceived bad SLI, ala LCC?
So, even if we do agree, get both sides to sign a piece of paper saying nothing in the JCBA will be used in SLI (which, again wasn't that the whole purpose of doing JCBA before SLI?), but in the process get everybody so paranoid that they vote on the JCBA we finally get with suspicious eyes? In other words, are we running the risk of members voting down an otherwise perfectly good contract because of the fear that the current disagreement is bringing? Kinda like premptively turning down a bad SLI based on a perceived week JCBA?
Does that make sense?
KC
11-10-2010, 05:19 PM
#24
Line Holder
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Position: A320 Captain
Posts: 50
Since is stand corrected on the 767-400 rating I need to update my position that all 767s and 757s should be all paid as one banded payscale separate from all others since they are all under the same bid.
11-10-2010, 05:25 PM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Originally Posted by SUPERfluf
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.)
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.)
The two will end up being banded, in my opinion. The UAL MEC knows that they are already in a spot after agreeing to band them in the last BK contract. See original post.
11-10-2010, 05:34 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: right for a long, long time
Posts: 2,642
Originally Posted by SUPERfluf
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.
The arbitrators can choose to abide that agreement or ignore it. And thus choose to ignore the JCBA or choose to include it.
It has to be remembered that disputing parties hire them to perform a service, if they do not stay within boundaries of what is being asked to accomplish they will not be in business very long....
11-10-2010, 05:36 PM
#27
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
+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.
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.
I'm sure we can all realize that this is 90% about seniority for both sides. There needs to be a resolution to this argument SOON, get the JCBA nailed down, and then take as long as you want on the SLI!
I don't understand why we aren't allowing ALPA National to finally put some of that dues money we've been paying to good use. We both voted ALPA in, so it makes sense to me to let them arbitrate a solution here. I've HEARD (no verification) that the CAL MEC won't abide by the ALPA National decision if it doesn't go their way. Could someone from CAL verify that, and provide the rationale? Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm genuinely curious as to the though process.
11-10-2010, 05:49 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Originally Posted by 757Driver
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.
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.
Dude you are WAY OFF BASE!
The FACT that the UAL NC agreed to the CAL MEC banding proposal is a complete fallacy and lie related by the CAL MEC. The NC agreed on the "concept" of banding NOT the actual bands, and when the CAL MEC tried to equate a 767-400 with a 747-400 the UAL MEC said NO. That and only that is the hold up.
Here's a fact: The CAL MEC letter lied flat out.
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.
Read that over and over and then read it again. Those are the words of the CAL MEC Chair and they are absurd as they contradict themselves in the space of two sentences one right after the other.
Next take a look at the arbitrators decision from Delta/NW:
We have carefully reviewed the respective submissions, evidence and arguments submitted over the 12 days of hearings. In the course of constructing the ISSL, we have taken seriously the admonition of the ALPA Merger Policy to disrupt as little as possible the valid career expectations of pilots who have staked their professional lives on service to their respective companies. We have also recognized, as one must, that pre-merger expectations borne by both sides to this process will, in virtually all cases, be tempered and shaped by the realities of an enlarged, merged workforce. Notwithstanding months of vigorous negotiations and subsequent good faith participation in mediation efforts, the parties to this dispute are deeply divided, as is apparent from their respective proposals: Each does little more than stack the deck for their own constituencies in ways that are neither fair nor equitable. As will be discussed below, this Board has chosen a different approach, one that adopts a Ratio and Category basis, but with a simplified grouping of aircraft, a “Pull and Plug” adjustment mechanism that addresses Attrition considerations and a limited period of Conditions and Restrictions designed to deal with, among other things, fleet expansion and reduction.
Now read that very carefully . . .
Ain't nobody foolin' nobody here, so holding up the JCBA in an attempt to influence the SLI is only hurting us all and as it turns out the CAL MEC is holding up the works because THEY are trying to link banding in the JCBA to SLI which is NOT the way it has been done previously and I haven't even gotten to the part where the EWR rep literally threatened the UAL MEC saying he would hold up the JCBA indefinitely until he got his way.
Now really . . . really really . . . tell me the UAL MEC is at fault here.
11-10-2010, 06:07 PM
#30
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
BUT, you use those newly negotiated pay rates to fork me out of seniority??????
Please point me to the exact release that states we plan on using any type of pay issue to enhance OUR seniority in regards to SLI?
Doesn't exist and you're grasping at invisible straws.
Maybe you guys are on to something here. Lets sort out the SLI thing first letting the arbitrator compare our current rates with yours and see what he comes up with?
