|
Originally Posted by Ottopilot
(Post 1391308)
No diversion. You complain about paybanding. Did you vote for it or against it? I voted against it.
The intentions of paybanding are not an issue. There are no intentions. That was industry standard and that is what both negotiating committees decided on. You can't put every aircraft in its own band. You have to draw the line somewhere. "Why was the 747 banded with smaller aircraft?" Would you have them band it with larger aircraft? Which one? We are not getting the A380. Our rates are high on that aircraft to set "industry standard" for our competition who might get it. The contract was not forced on anyone, we had a vote. How did you vote? Otto, SURELY you know that the Continental JCBA agreement stated, from the VERY BEGINNING, that they would not move forward AT ALL without pay banding. It's also simplistic (if not inane) to say, "well, if you voted for the JCBA then you support pay banding." Future contracts will remove the banding, and I'm sure that will come out in the hearings. |
Longevity according to the UAL opening statement.
Footnote 7 “Longevity,” as used in ALPA Merger Policy, codifies prior practice of considering as an equity the time a pilot has spent in-seat. See generally M. Arcamuzi, The New ALPA Merger Policy, AIR LINE PILOT, at 31-32 (Oct. 2009). Length of service is the period from date of hire to the snapshot date, adjusted by a pilot’s furlough time and certain other non-flying time. So where are you guys getting this DOH including furlough for longevity? |
Originally Posted by Pilotbiffster
(Post 1391463)
Read through both proposals last night. It sounds like CAL MEC hired their lead attorney at Walmart. No reference to ALPA merger policy, no reference to precedent. Kinda like they showed up to play but forgot to bring the ball.
No flame wars intended, the ISL is out of our hands, but if that's the most persuasive argument from the CAL legal representation, this isn't going to fare well for CAL. Friendly recommendation .. hire a better attorney, quick. Didn't ua's MEC/Merger Comm attempt to obtain "Dan Katz" when this process became eminent?? Just so happened that his services were already retained by CAL's MEC/Merger Comm for this process. Both legal sides have good/long track records & history. It's going be a show-down as the process evolves, expect nothing less. |
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 1391476)
Question.....
Didn't ua's MEC/Merger Comm attempt to obtain "Dan Katz" when this process became eminent??
Originally Posted by SoCalGuy
(Post 1391476)
Both legal sides have good/long track records & history.
|
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1391513)
Indeed. FWIW, both attorneys have been on opposite sides for SWA/AirTran, DAL/NWA, and USAir/AmWest. |
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
(Post 1391521)
And the outcomes have been what?
I'm not sure if thats the fault of the attorney, the strength(weakness) of the case(s), or the "strategy" the client(s) demanded. Could be all three or none of the above. Perhaps he is the best attorney but has bad luck? |
Originally Posted by Scott Stoops
(Post 1391521)
And the outcomes have been what?
|
Originally Posted by untied
(Post 1391572)
The attorneys on the UAL side have been the perceived "winners" at every SLI negotiation.
|
Originally Posted by Slammer
(Post 1391575)
What's a perceived winner? Facts please...
|
Originally Posted by LAX Pilot
(Post 1391579)
They represented Delta in the Delta Northwest SLI. And others I'm sure.
Don't tell them that - they'll have nightmares now! |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:30 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands