100% agree with you on the influence. Unless your one of 4 on the respective M.C.'s, our direct voices are moot to the panel of Arbitrators that will hear the unresolved issues regarding the SLI.
Your's is Pay-Bands, mine is SCOPE. You have a vote to use on what YOU feel needs to be included/excluded on any future TA. Glad that you intend to show up on TA Day when it arrives.

As far as Letter's/Pay-Bands, not sure if he will or not. As we've seen on this site specifically, the PB issue is something that has been debated in nauseam. The topic is obviously something that the CAL & UAL Pilots strongly disagree on. Both sides of that issue have heard each other loud & clear. Up to this point, it's something that the two cultures will not agree.....Sad to say, and not trivializing the topic.....Agree to disagree.

Special, it's something you choose......Do you choose to live on the Boards (APC/"Crack-Pipe/ect...) to maintain/receieve all of your info as the "holy grail"?? By most accounts on limited interaction, you appear to be a smart man.....so I would guess not.

When I have a question on a issue, especially with the Merger related questions, I have NOT a problem dialing the cell phone/sending an email to any of my Rep's/MEC Officers. In doing so, more times than not, you can get accurate info/or at least have them steer you in the right direction on where to find it/or who to speak with further. Do I take ALL the info as 'gospel'?? NOPE!! You'd be an "ID-10-T" to not "Trust, but verifiy" ALL of those interactions.

BTW....Did you speak with UAL's, Dave Smith, regarding further infomation/clarification on the extent of the rewrite?

 

chicken, eggs sometimes make me sick.

 

SoCal,

Your arguments in this thread have merit.

Speaking of pay bands and scope, it is interesting how AMR Mgt is promoting pay bands and the relaxation of scope in their opening letter to their pilots. Our JCBA negotiations however, appear to be in line with AMR Mgt on banding but at odds on scope.

Regards

 

I hear you.....

As far as the AMR MGT BK "openers", I would expect nothing less to have MGT come out swinging to slash anything/everything......Posturing/positioning 101 on their part to start the process. Nothing foreign to you guys after dealing with it first hand under Tilton's reign on the BK Train. I fully expect APA to come back and 'return-serve' in closing the proposed gap on several levels, time will tell......Horton is already targeting a 15 month restructuring window.

As things presently stand for "UniCal", neither Pilot Group has a clue as to what our future TA will truly hold.....NOT until we "get-a-peak" following both MEC's ratifications. You, I, and everyone else can speculate (some even claim to 'know') as to what the TA's SCOPE framework will hold, will Pay-Bands be included/excluded within the TA's construction.....the list goes on & on. Our JNC has it's Marching Orders, and there's little left to the imagination as to what BOTH Groups expect by way of an industry leading CBA.

Bottom line.....If there's nothing to read by way of a completed TA, I'm not going to get worked up until such time it's printed/presented to the herd.

Cheers.

 

I read this thread and wonder if it isn't just an exercise in frustration. The ISL will only come when there is a JCBA and the real focus in my mind is will the two pilots groups ever get a JCBA.

Many of us over here at LUAL are concerned there may be an end run to get the LCAL pilots a contract and abandon the LUAL pilots to fend for themselves. If you don't think it can happen just observe the tactics at work with the FAs and Mechs. The problem is we, LUAL pilots, have so much more to lose than these fellow employees.

Why? I am firmly convinced there is an airplane order waiting in the wings (no I do not believe it has already been signed) for replacements of the 757s and possibly 90 seaters. I envision LUCH Management will eventual drop the LUAL side and push towards a LCAL contract and thus place those airplanes and growth in to the hands of the LCAL pilots if they are unable to achieve a JCBA to their satisfaction. I will give you the exact words of a former CAL VP now working out Wacker Drive said to my face, "All we have to do is throw money at the CAL pilots and they will be happy..." I am not making that up!

Now many of you will say NO THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! Please review our current history because IT HAS!

So while you all argue about the chicken and egg I hope you realize why the MECs agreed to get the JCBA first. Yes there are issues like banding and how it will effect the ISL, but the real golden egg to Management is a broken pilot group and a failure to achieve a JCBA will just feed into their hands!

 

This is not exactly true. We are the guinea pigs on the new Alpa Merger Policy. It did happen that the JCBA came before the SLI at DAL, but it was not because of the new policy. As you said, the policy change came in May 2009, a year after the NWA/DAL announcement. I urge all to read the SLI award for DAL/NWA. It has the whole story. DAL and NWA approached the pilots about a pre merger contract before the merger was even announced. It was conditioned on an SLI. The DAL and NWA pilots tried to agree on an SLI, but could not. So a modification to the DAL contract was agreed upon, later including the NWA pilots shortly after merger announcement. That is very different from having an ALPA merger policy that MANDATES JCBA first, then SLI, as was written AFTER the NWA/DAL merger. Our managements did not include us in any pre merger negotiations, and now if they never give us a contract, we will never have a JCBA. It is that simple. It is why ALPA merger policy has always done the list first, and why it will again after this abortion of a merger. JMHO

Sled

 

Oops. That should read...if they never give us a contract, we will never have a SLI. Sorry, long day yesterday.

Sled

 

Special,

Personally I could care less what the merger committeeS (plural) argue. All sorts of things are going to be presented by both sides to argue the respective positions. Our side will probably argue positions which offend S-UAL pilots (as referenced by your post) and your side will argue positions that would likely offend S-CAL pilots.

They can argue shoe size, height, weight, bowling score, aircraft type, longevity, golf handicap, earnings, bases, number of commuting pilots, work rules, stronger scope language, etc. etc. for all I care. (The only thing I don't want them to argue is ego as both groups certainly have no monopoly on that as a factor.) I want both sides to argue EVERYTHING that they feel makes their case so that we all know our sides did the best job they can shut down these DFR lawsuit theorists from the start.

Remember this is part is an adversarial process that would likely tick off the majority of the pilots if we were in the room during oral presentations. Luckily, and hopefully, both our sides have calmer, cooler, non-emotional advocates who will do their job making their positions clear without it resorting to personality issues with the other side.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsled

This is not exactly true. We are the guinea pigs on the new Alpa Merger Policy. It did happen that the JCBA came before the SLI at DAL, but it was not because of the new policy. As you said, the policy change came in May 2009, a year after the NWA/DAL announcement.

You are correct, the current ALPA Merger Policy that was 'reworked' by the MPRC was rendered complete in May, 2009. The DAL/NWA Arbitration was ruled complete about 5 months earlier in Dec, 2008.

As you were clear in pointing out, I did mention the MPRC was working in concert, though separate, from the DAL/NWA Arbitration. The MPRC's rewrite would NOT have any bearing on the DAL Arbitration, nor ANY OTHER Arbitration already in progress at that same time.

During this entire process, I would not be surprised if the MPRC kept a very keen eye on the DAL/NWA framework/footprint as a litnus test in which to emboss the "new policy".....a live experiment in progress. During this time, the MPRC was able to observe first hand from the sidelines how the JCBA--->SLI "worked" in the first major ALPA v ALPA Merger following the AWA/USAir melt-down (SLI--->JCBA).

Looking at the timing, DAL finished in Dec, 2008, and then the MPRC finalizes their rewrite in May, 2009. Examining further, three of the 9 members (Pilots) that resided on the MPRC were DAL & NWA Pilots (DAL's Dave Short & Rich Harwood, along with NWA's Mike Lararowicz). Do you think the MPRC paid serious attention to the DAL/NWA working as they themselves structured the rewrite??? What do you want to bet that there was direct communications (on or off the record) between the MPRC's DAL/NWA Rep's and the DAL/NWA Merger Process as the steps ticked by?? I'd bet the house!!

What we DO know, all they MPRC had to run with was a smelly bag of "Shiz" that still resonates from the AWA/USAir Merger. The MPRC needed something, and something that worked, so why not look at the process that worked at DAL/NWA. The old saying, "Your only as good as your last game" comes to mind when dealing with the "old" Policy guidelines in the wake of USAirways. With the MPRC rewrite being worked on in concert with the Arbitration, was it's release only 5 months after the "successful" DAL/NWA Arbitration a mere coincidence??? I'd be willing to bet otherwise.

Having us coined as the "Guinea Pig", I don't buy it. As drawn above, the MPRC had a front row to see first hand as to "what worked" as they fashioned the rewrite, knowing all along as to "what didn't work" (circa-AWA/USAir). Whether the 'Horse before the Cart', or the 'Cart before the Horse'.....The JCBA---->SLI has played out "live & in person" right before those who did the rewrite, the MPRC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsled

Our managements did not include us in any pre merger negotiations

You got that straight!! The "exchange of all exchanges" that set the table regarding UCH's Mgt dealing with the UA/CO Pilot Groups.....

"Mr Smisek, can we (Pilot Groups) expect to have an Equity Stake in this Merger"?

His reply: "No"

"Why's that"?

His reply: "Because they didn't earn it".

You are correct when you alluded to the DAL/NWA being 'different'. CAL's former Richard Anderson treated the Pilot Groups (DAL more so at first till the NWA Pilots were brought within the mix later) as Assets, not the Enemy. Prime example was giving the Pilot's Equity in the Merger.....Something that Jeff has flat out denied us.
Bottom line, no two Mergers are the same, this one is NO exception. There are several fluid variables surrounding each merger that can not be kept "as constant" from one merger to another:

** Economic peaks/valleys associated with any Merger's timing.
** Mgt's Style from one to the next.....Surviving Culture/Migration.
** Are there Furloughs involved within the mix, and if so, how many?
** Seniority List Demographics from one group to the next.
** Equipment mix being brought to the the merger
** The list goes on.....

In the end, time will tell on several levels. Like you, I sure as heck hope that we can turn the corner before this hits the point of unobtainable repair.