Thoughts on which should happen first? ISL or JCBA?
Discuss...

 

I mean no disrespect but this has already been agreed upon. JCBA, then ISL.

 

Not much to discuss outside of fact.

As long as ALPA governs the shop on property, the policy clear.....
JCBA---->SLI.

The majority vested within this equation harps not to resemble that of USAirways. The above was written explicitly to avoid a repeat of their ways.

Questions?

 

One question: If flow and control of information on this forum is an indication of the group as a whole, then JCBA, SLI will likely end up in several lawsuits. How do you avoid that and achieve the harmony our ALPA fathers intended when everybody is trying to steal?

 

Really??
Riddle me this via the last two 'big' "ALPA v ALPA" mergers in our industry......Speaking strickly to the SLI vs JCBA, and which item comes first in the process.

Scenario #1:
It has been a tested/proven failure via the policy used in the USAirways, SLI----->JCBA.

Scenario #2:
It has been a proven/tested fact of success following the policy REwrite used in the "New" Delta,
JCBA----->SLI.

The two 'real life' scenario's above are "black & white" as to WHY the policy was rewritten following the first scenario. I do NOT doubt that there will be some form/faction of litigation from some groups within the fray (regardless of the policy), but tell me how deviating from the present policy would be any more productive?? The two roads have been tried/tested, and we've seen their respective outcomes. No need to wonder, thus the present policy.

As it's been pointed out in other threads sharing the same idea topic, going into an SLI Arbitration sitting on polar-opposite ends is nothing but dangerous. The coined phrase "Anything can happen in Arbitration" is nothing but true. You asked what/how do 'you' avoid this? It's been stated.....Having the two SLI-Merger Comm's narrow the gap of difference in starting the process. It's very easy to suggest, but challenging in some respects to execute...that I don't doubt. I hope that the two sides see the "pros/cons" in taking their respective cases to the table, and that some harmony is heeded prior to giving their cases to the panel.

 

I am just wondering how does one vote on a contract if they don't know where they stand seniority wise.

Scenario #2- one may vote in favor of a contract that will benefit them as a captain, yet after the list is complete, they now find themselves as a F.O. and not what/where they expected.

Scenario #1- IMHO, when it is agreed that "BINDING" arbitration is the route to go, well, that's how it is.

I guess it's just easier for me, 'cause I am WAY low on the list, and it wouldn't matter what the outcome is on the list.

 

You appear to have a good handle on the process used at the "New Delta". Didn't one group have shot-gun pointed at their back and the company held a sledge hammer over their head. Neither procedure was that good, just the national president is a Delta pilot and he thought controlled intimidation worked best. Maybe we should get "somebody in the know" tell us how it really worked.

 

You too can have an average to better ("good handle") understanding by taking the time to read the following regarding DAL/NWAs Arbitration.
https://crewroom.alpa.org/ual/Deskto...cumentID=45376

As far as ALPAs current president, CA Moak has only been in office since Jan, 2011. Reading the Arbitration, you may gather his position during that time was MEC Chair of the former/pre-merged DAL pilot group.....Not in the position of ALPA's President during such time as you claim. May want to reference that fact on page #2 in the link above.

Out of curiosity, do you currently reside on either the UAL/CAL Pilot SL's??

 

When you read the JCBA, pay close attention how they crafted the pay bands. That might answer your question in part.

 

*******************************************