Net Jets

[dsptchrnja]

They will have similar results because the violations are of the same nature. No NJA seniority listed pilot was on any of those flights. If the company denies these grievances, they will be sent to SBA. How can SBA rightly set precedent for one grievance and not give a similar decision for a similar violation? That would surely be a fishy one, would it not? Also, with such an SBA precedent previously set, it would help influence the arbitrator's decision.

If they are all similiar than I am forced to agree with you. But I'm finding it hard to believe the company had 21 flights that needed test pilots to get a/c out of short rwys. But I do not have the data to support this... it sounds as though you do. I am only familiar with the one instance that has been ruled on so far.

Apparently you are not familiar with the grievance process, other than what you hear. Grievances are not thrown out, they are resolved. Could be in favor of the grievant, could be in favor of the company. Your 90% baseless figure is complete bunk. Sounds nice, but you are wrong. Ask MO or DB how many of those 2,000+ grievances are baseless. Ask them how many of the 27,000 3.13 violations audited were baseless. Why would the company pay 5m for baseless grievances?

"thrown out" read "in favor of the company" - I'm using the term loosely because the nature of the grievances that I'm refering to are for the most part frivolous.

I said 90% of the of the most recent decisions that I read about... not 2000. And 90% of them resulted in no award to the grievant or change in policy.

If you were to read the SBA notes, you would read that it was a willing violation on the part of the company. It was a decision they knowingly made-contrary to the contract. It was, in fact, deliberate. How do you figure it wasn't blatant? How do you figure it wasn't a vote against the company when the decision cost the company 55k+ ?

The SBA notes for #713-05 say nothing about the company's intent to viloate the rule. Not sure where you are getting that info.

 

[FL450]

If they are all similiar than I am forced to agree with you. But I'm finding it hard to believe the company had 21 flights that needed test pilots to get a/c out of short rwys. But I do not have the data to support this... it sounds as though you do. I am only familiar with the one instance that has been ruled on so far.

You would be correct, they were not test pilots on short runways. The similarity is that none of them were flown with NJA seniority listed pilots. That is the violation. The SBA also suggested that both sides come together and reach an agreement on this issue in 30 days (from July 28).



"thrown out" read "in favor of the company" - I'm using the term loosely because the nature of the grievances that I'm refering to are for the most part frivolous.

No doubt, there are seemingly frivolous grievances. Sometimes the remedy asked is more so. But most of them are real violations against the current contract.

I said 90% of the of the most recent decisions that I read about... not 2000. And 90% of them resulted in no award to the grievant or change in policy.

Are you referring to the SBA decisions or the company decisions to the grievances being filed?


The SBA notes for #713-05 say nothing about the company's intent to viloate the rule. Not sure where you are getting that info.

From the SBA members themselves. The company stated such.

Fact is, this current contract is pressing both sides. We pay for it in reduced salary and benefits. The company pays for it with reduced operating flexibility. You pay for it being caught in the middle...affected by both reduced salary, benefits and reduced operating flexibility. I understand your frustration, as do most of the pilots you deal with at work.

We really should show a deeper appreciation for each other's situation. Neither of us make the corporate decisions we're both forced to abide by. Equally, we are pawns.

 

[dsptchrnja]

FL450, I appreciate the objective, non-confrontive response.