Skyflyin

Birddog, I don't see anything here that is any different than before. Yes I read the award, and yes they agreed with the United C&R as far as training protections. I have two issues with the arbs decision here regarding being vague.

1. They accepted the UAL training protections, but as you can see the UAL training protections do not define "in the process of training"

2. As the arbs were putting down the CAL MC training protections they are talking about pilots who have been awarded, but not scheduled, for training. Here is their quote below:

"As of the close of these arbitration hearings, many of those individuals had not even been awarded a training date, let alone begun training."

So yes, I understand that they are saying those without training dates should not be protected, but they are vague on those that DO have training dates.

Lastly, you have the SFO base MOU which states that any award of a pilot who is in training, or who has been scheduled for training via either a L-CAL training advancement award or L-UAL Vacancy award will not have their bid cancelled.

Now, having said that, those on 14-02 or 14-02A that have not been awarded a training award were expecting to have their bids cancelled, so if the CAL MEC is trying to get those guys protected IMO that is a stretch.

Again, hopefully the arbs will clear this up in early OCT., but I can't believe they would go against something that the two sides have already agreed to. We will have to wait and see.

Really

So is KARMA!! You sound like a ..., well never mind!! Make sure you identify yourself when getting on a flt. if we ever fly together on the 73!! I want to know what type person I'm flying with. However, doesn't sound like it will be hard to tell with you!! Quick advice, treat seniority like scoring your first touchdown, ACT like you've been there before!! Good Luck, J"unior"Sled

DaMnad

The SFO 737 MOU also says:

"In the event the decision and award of the SLI Arbitration Board is in conflict with this agreement, the decision and award will prevail:..."

Skyflyin

Yes, I understand that, but both the "decision and award" and the UAL C&Rs do not define "in the process of training".

That is the problem.

Probe

What words don't you understand?

Skyflyin

Probe, can you not read??? Show me where in the arbitration and award or the UAL C&Rs it shows what "in the process of training" means and I'm good. Both the CAL C&Rs define it AND the SFO MOU define it in detail.

What is so hard to understand about that? As I said, I'm sure it will be cleared up next month.

jsled

Oh yeah. It's karma alright. Karma for the last 3 years! Been there before. Now I'm there again.

Good Day,
Longevity Sled

cadetdrivr

Never mind, I see text from the ISL Award has been repeated previously.

Just because it doesn't say what you want it say doesn't mean it's vague.

Airhoss

VERY confusing. Kind of like date of hire was also very confusing for some folks at CAL. The Arbs didn't have much trouble figuring it out for you though. So I wouldn't worry this too has a simple definition. TIME to QUIT playing these games folks!!

jsled

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.
Guys. Don't worry about this little rif. Which is worse? Let them go to training or give them displacement rights? Hopefully we can just move on. There will be plenty of vacancies in the future. JMHO.

Sled