[QUOTE=jsled;992545]True, but the REASON it changed was because of USAir. Should have made that more clear... but I deleted the post anyway.

I SEVERELY doubt we would have had the list done before the no furlough clause expired anyway. That's the next storm on the horizon. I do like the new policy better.

 

[QUOTE=gettinbumped;992768]Delta had a list in 8 months. As per old school ALPA merger policy's arbitration clock, we would of had the list done by January of 2011, almost a full year before the furlough protection ended. Even with delays, a year is a good pad. With this new system, we won't even START the clock until the MEC accepts a TA on a JCAB. When will that be? a month? a year? a decade? We are screwed. The SOC is going to happen with or without a SLI. Meanwhile the company will furlough out of seniority while pitting us against each other. How is that better?

 

[QUOTE=jsled;992913]For starters, I think it is erroneous to assume our SLI would have gone as smoothly as Delta's did, so I wouldn't bet on our list being complete by January 2011.

For the sake of argument, let's say we did get it done quickly; without a JCBA, I don't see how we would have had furlough protection. We would have a merged list, but I don't see much use in that without a JCBA. How would you cross bid? Which Contract would you use for fleet/seat/domicile bidding? Who's work rules would the mixed crews fly under? Would you have a situation where the CAL Captain would be legal at an outstation, but the UAL F/O wouldn't? How would UAL pilots magically obtain the CAL furlough protection... we wouldn't be operating under their contract. It seems to me that we would be in the same boat regardless of which went first when it comes to furlough protection. I'm confident the company would have figured out how to whipsaw us just as effectively.

Having watched what happened at USAirways, it makes sense to me that the new policy has the JCBA go first. That way, we are at least united in our goal of getting a good contract. After that, when the fight is on and each side goes to their respective corners, no matter how ugly it gets, at least we are all operating under the new, damned-well-better-be improved contract.

 

[QUOTE=jsled;992913]How can it be "out of seniority" when we are operating as two separate companies? Are you standing on a DOH seniority integration?

 

[QUOTE=dogger;992976]Not at all. The SLI method is spelled out in the merger policy. A timely SLI has always been the policy (until now), so that the company cannot furlough one side and grow the other. IOW, we need to NOT be operated separately. What if UCH decides to open a 737 base in DEN? Should UAL pilots be able to bid it? What about an Airbus domicile in IAH? You wouldn't mind not being able to bid on that would you? It would be nice to have a SLI in place before these shenanigans begin. Even without a JCBA. If you think pay banding was divisive.................

 

[QUOTE=gettinbumped;992957]ALPA merger policy takes the SLI out of our hands and into the hands of arbitrators on a timeline. The list would be done in the allotted time line, just like it was at US Airways and DAL. US Airways East guys just chose not to accept it. If we had a list, at least we would be ready to go when the JCBA came. And, we would have a LEGAL basis for grieving furloughs "out of seniority" or other shenanigans. This is not some theory. It is why ALPA merger policy has always put priority on a timely ISL. The very guys who negotiated this change are not happy about it now. At least not on UAL's side. I bet you a beer this policy will change back after this mess is over. Time will tell

 

[QUOTE=jsled;993021]I have sat in on Union meetings as of late. As I understand, the CAL side scope clause prevents the above scenarios explicitly (not vaguely as the 70 seat issue at hand). UAL scope does not have protection from these scenarios. The TP&A was created to mostly protect the UAL pilots from the above. Unfortunately, most of these protections expire at the end of 2011. That was the longest period of time that management would agree to. If the agreement had not been signed, the furloughs, whipsaw and such might have already started. When I asked, what was the major delay in contract negotiations, we were told that the banding issue ate up over 4 to 5 months of negotiating time. Although I am not happy about the situation, I don't have any control or input. We need a contract now!!!! And not just any contract, an industry leading contract!!!

 

[QUOTE=jsled;993029]After I read your first sentence I was thinking "right up until the lawsuit begins".

I hadn't heard that the guys how negotiated the change weren't happy with it. That is interesting. Indeed time will tell. I figure we were pretty much hosed either way as soon as the DOJ approved the merger and we didn't have a contract in hand. THAT was the real oopsy by our union in my opinion. We should have had two union reps camped on the Hill making sure that our interests were heard.

No need to bet... the beer is on me anyway.

 

[QUOTE=dogger;993044]I wouldn't buy that line about the 4-5 month delay on the banding issue. I'm totally convinced that even if the MEC's hadn't had this roadblock, we'd be right where we are now, with the company offering nothing but concessions. The day the DOJ approved the merger, our leverage disappeared, and negotiations pretty much ground to a halt. Just my thoughts.

 

[QUOTE=dogger;993044]The CAL side scope clause prevents the above scenarios until x months after SOC. The protections do not last indefinetly from what I understand. So they may screw us FIRST, but you could be next.