JCBA at a stand still!
 

I am severly disappointed at the snails pace of the JCBA. I believe we have 3 or 4 non-economic TA'ed sections. Union has been waiting for companies response to all other sections presented to them.

The lack of info from CAL MEC has been disappointing to say the least. Blame the company has been the game. However, here's the real story, LEC 171 are under recall threat. CAL Negotiating Chairman will step down at end of January. MEC Chairman is up for re-election. Will he run and does he have support to get re-elected?

SOS, just a different year from CAL ALPA politics. It is certainly getting old here. When are these pilots going to learn that fighting each other is one thing they should not be doing now. Doing the work that they elected to do would be more appropriate.

I am so tired of this. Management has won already thanks to a few shellfish acts by CAL LEC REPS.

Ya get a shrimp and a crab in a room together, you never know what's going to happen :)

I don't think it's over by a longshot, you play the cards your dealt and you press forward. This game is far from over.

F-N-A....
Words to live by HSLD.

Steady lads, steady.

We negotiated for almost 6 years through two airline purchases and a failed TA to get to where we're at...

allowed to strike?? Hardly. :mad:

At a stand still. I hardly think so. Negotiations are outside of all those other issues. The COMPANY still hasn't responded to our proposals now that they are all on the table. They are of the opinion that you need the mediator to negotiate further while the union says no we can keep meeting until his schedule works out. Leave it to the company to interpret things the way they want...as always (what is the meaning of "is" again?).

True, the NC chairman stepping down plays a factor. However, he is staying on until his replacement is named and some overlap occurs until he leaves. Plus, he at least stayed on until all our section opening positions were developed and presented to the company, not in the middle of an incomplete proposal.

Just my opinion. I think things are going as expected with negotiations and all the other internal political BS is standard stuff outside of negotiations.

Think of the mediator as the man standing in the room tapping his wristwatch.

Geesh don't let Skippy read this! He'll blow a gasket!!

When I heard what the company "offered" us, I figured the new ALPA strategy should be making every effort to get released for a cooling off period. We couldn't be further apart on the big, important issues of the contract and still be in the same galaxy.

I wouldn't be too hard on the CAL MEC guys though. I don't think it would matter much who you had in there. This is the way UAL negotiates. Sadly, the negotiating team that came through the merger appears to be the UAL one.

they could offer a paycut to the Neg committee and i wouldnt be surprised nor blow a gasket---- i could really care less. it's how negotiations play out in the end that matters--- for now MGMNT has no incentive to get a JCBA - they are making tons of $$ and any extra $$$ the jcba would allow would just go to pay the pilots etc anyway-- SO there is zero incentive to move quickly--- mgmnt , like the old faa strategy of hijacking of DELAY is the norm and to be expected---
However, the clock is ticking and while we could get released, there is zero chance of striking, the PEB would get people together and make it happen in the 11th hour as happens quite a bit. Only when it either costs the company $$ or there is a deadline, do they act.

there are many reasons to delay-- mainly for protections and provisions.. think of it as this: over a thirty year period how many 5 year contracts can you fit in there--- mathematically of course the answer is 6 but mgmnt doesnt like 6--- if they can delay 2-3 years on every contract-- they would only have to negotiate 4!-- not too shabby-- and more $ for them-- not to mention it decreases their exposure for other world issues, like terrorism, state of the industry and trends, spikes in oil etc-- thats one of the reason compensation is always negotiated last--

UAL ALPA and MGMNT will just play the game of delay back and forth until the hourglass is near done and the pace will pick up. Eventually, UAL will need something or some relief etc and basically be forced to negotiate however the leverage i doubt wont be with them.

As long as the pilot group isnt playing checkers while mgmnt plays chess UAl will be fine-- im not worried one bit-- but everyone's economic and emplyment position is different

Imho
 

You would think that with the Arbitrators decision having been made on the Scope issue, both sides would have an incentive to head to the negotiating table to wrap this thing up. With all economic proposals on table, scope seems to be the roadblock. With the Arbitrator's decision in hand for both parties:

a) Management should realize that a line has been drawn in the cement by the Arbitrator decision. They get no more 70 seat jets with CAL code in the hubs thus preventing seemless integration of flight operations. Jeff S. realizes he needs to work out the scope issue before his merger spins out of control and merger equity is wasted as in the case of US Air. Jeff S. needs to compete against Delta and the well-merged machine they have created.

b) JNC realizes they have some leverage going forward and knows contract can be completed with small change in scope (again just my opinion) and strong JV provisions. Yet strong pilot sentiment and polling prevents a change in current stance of RJ flying so the facade and fist banging continues. If NC position is changed to allow current amount of 70 seat RJ's to remain on property, then the NC may be able to get a TA to throw over to the pilot group. The JNC may be inclined to work through the issue knowing that money value of contract is wasting with each day passing and the NMB may not allow a strike anytime soon.

Is a TA going to be in the near future with both parties at the negotiating table in Denver or is it going to be negotiated by the NMB a year down the road?

In the end, I believe were going to end up with the same scope results just at a different time period.