ASA/XJT contract obstacles (already)

[buscap]

Nasty coke products

Well now that that's in the pro-merger column; what can we do about swapping out those ram-testicles, horns...whatever....for some real flight controls?

 

[Cardinal]

Well now that that's in the pro-merger column; what can we do about swapping out those ram-testicles, horns...whatever....for some real flight controls?

The ramshorns are like sushi - sounds like a bad idea till you try it.

 

[Tarzan]

Well now that that's in the pro-merger column; what can we do about swapping out those ram-testicles, horns...whatever....for some real flight controls?

Once you get used to them, you'll want nothing else. Plus, the FA has control over the temps in back and there is an actually PTT that is in a useful place and not on the darn yoke. It drives me nuts when you get a guy who is ham fisted on the yoke PTT when you are hand flying.

 

[Booker]

The ramshorns are like sushi - sounds like a bad idea till you try it.

Ha. Awesome thread creep. Five years in, and I still think they're stupid. But I do like sushi.

 

[Nevets]

Thanks to FL990 for this info from the ASA contract:

"If I could draw everyones attention to ASA's contract, SEC 1.E.2 which states "The respective pilot collective bargaining agreements will be merged into one(1) agreement as the result of negotiations among the pilot groups and the successor or Company. If a fully merged agreement is not reached within four (4) months from the date a final and binding integrated pilot seniority list is issued, the parties will jointly submit outstanding issues to binding interest arbitration;"

So if after 4 months of stalling by management our contract goes to an arbitrator and he/she gets to decide what is in our CBA without a pilot vote? If I am reading this correctly, this is a huge obstacle for our new group to get an industry leading contract because of this weak language. I see no reason for the new company to negotiate anything industry leading because they can count on the arbitrator giving us an average contract without our votes. This is a big deal.

Our contract calls for 9 months. But the kicker here is that these contracts were negotiated before the new ALPA merger policy. The old policy had SLI before JCBA. ALPA changed that to prevent one pilot group from holding the JCBA hostage because they didn't like the outcome of the SLI (AWA/USAir). The new policy requires a ratified JCBA before SLI negotiations. The point is that our contracts both require us to use ALPA merger policy and because of that new policy we will never reach 4 or 9 months after binding SLI because JCBA has to be ratified first.

Nah, NMB mediators very very rarely impose contracts on groups. I dont think its going to go that far. Also this is, at least as I read it, talking about the two pilot groups, not the combined groups desire's vs. management. I am sure both of our pilot groups will be able to come together and hammer out a JCBA fairly quickly. We both have excellent portions of our contract so hopefully they will keep all of those and get rid of the bad stuff.

Now that I've made the language irrelevant in my mind, this wouldn't go to an NMB mediator. It would go to an arbitrator. Arbitrators in these situations are not affiliated with the NMB. And it is talking about the pilot groups negotiating with management.

 

[Tarzan]

Our contract calls for 9 months. But the kicker here is that these contracts were negotiated before the new ALPA merger policy. The old policy had SLI before JCBA. ALPA changed that to prevent one pilot group from holding the JCBA hostage because they didn't like the outcome of the SLI (AWA/USAir). The new policy requires a ratified JCBA before SLI negotiations. The point is that our contracts both require us to use ALPA merger policy and because of that new policy we will never reach 4 or 9 months after binding SLI because JCBA has to be ratified first.

The facts behind the merger policy are correct but the contractual issues are still there. They both say list before JCBA. Sec 45 is guidance only and not binding like a contract.

But the trump card we all have is the merger of DAL and NW. That is a heck of a good asset especially when the MEC is right upstairs from another to get further guidance from.

 

[Nevets]

The facts behind the merger policy are correct but the contractual issues are still there. They both say list before JCBA. Sec 45 is guidance only and not binding like a contract.

But the trump card we all have is the merger of DAL and NW. That is a heck of a good asset especially when the MEC is right upstairs from another to get further guidance from.

The binding part is in section one of both contracts that state SLI will be done in accordance with ALPA merger policy. Apparently this is the way our MEC views it.

XJT has an office next door to CAL so they are getting guidance from there as well.

 

[CFI2766]

The binding part is in section one of both contracts that state SLI will be done in accordance with ALPA merger policy. Apparently this is the way our MEC views it.

XJT has an office next door to CAL so they are getting guidance from there as well.

Soooo... what do the XJT guys think has to come first, the list or the JCBA?

 

[Nevets]

Soooo... what do the XJT guys think has to come first, the list or the JCBA?

ALPA merger policy, which is incorporated into BOTH pilots' contracts is clear in requiring JCBA before SLI is even considered. This was the lesson learned from AWA/USAir vs DAL/NWA. ALPA does not want another scenerio where a pilot group holds JCBA hostage because they didn't like the outcome of the SLI.

Let me put it this way. There is a definite period when 9 or 4 months occurs after SLI. But by that time, the JCBA would have been long ago ratified through the normal bargaining process anyways.

 

[mckpickle]

Ok, lets play devils advocate. When XJT and ASA signed their contracts with their respective managements the merger policy WAS integration THEN a contract....but then alpa changes the policy...to which neither companies management teams signed off on. So the unions change the policy without managements approval and expect management to adhear? I agree this is the way is should go, but dones't it seem like some high priced legal guys could shoot holes right in it? Thoughts?