Gary has said he has no intention and that it would be inappropriate to interfer in the seniority list integration. In other words, he isn't going to give any assurance one way or the other.
He fully realizes the current law provides for relief in the courts, that could be years, your side has just "thrown down" and started that "longer road to peace and prosperity" instead of "day one full up SWA employee".
Now, what do you do when gary says "no deal, can't give a firm date"? Seriously, just want to know.
Our side hasn't "thrown down". We knew it wouldn't be "day one full-up SWA employee with pay, benefits, etc" at DOCC, it never was going to be that way. What our MC *HAS* said was that agreement couldn't be reached on this issue and it's been tabled while they work on other things. That's not "throwing down".
As far as what we do if agreement on that issue can't be reached? I don't know, I'm not on the MEC or the MC, just one of the people who picks up the phone and gets informed when I read the updates and know there's more to them than just what was written. I'll leave it to them to figure out, but I do have faith that it'll get worked out - half the MC are people I've known for over a decade and trust, one of them implicitly, and the word I'm getting is that the mood in Dallas is still very amicable, which is good.
We do, however, have an interesting dynamic change coming up in our MEC structure. They're making MCO and MKE full voting domiciles, rep elections will start next month. Whoever gets elected in those elections will have the power to tip the balance of decisions at the MEC level which *COULD* direct some changes in strategy. I say "could", because the MC has been left almost completely autonomous in how they operate, including negotiating the Process Agreement, so it might have absolutely zero change in what's being done in Dallas right now or they might choose to get more involved at the MEC level. Very touchy subject around here, actually.
Lear70,
I think I'll enjoy meeting you someday. I agree that the extremes on both sides make us grumpy.
Of course, those extremes do make the wheel go around and expand ones thought process. Just have to remember the other 95% of the groups are shaking their heads too.
Thanks, and you're right of course, it does inspire thought sometimes, just have to make sure people realize a lot on here is posturing, and the 1%'ers are at EVERY airline, and mostly harmless, so we don't let it get our blood pressure up.
Happy to buy the beer when we get to hang out (even if it's the expensive stuff)! :beer:
Lear,
The process agreement is and agreement between the unions over how we will negotiate the ISL.
It also covers many other aspects of the merger that deal with union relations as well.
You are admitting to holding this agreement hostage in order to dictate to management how and when the airlines will be combined.
Hardly a reasonable approach.
I think you misunderstood what is being asked for. It's not a date to integrate OPERATIONS at the AIRLINE level fully, it's a date to integrate SENIORITY LISTS with SWAPA representation for ALL pilots. That's perfectly acceptable to bring into the Process Agreement between the two unions.
But PCL says that ALPA isn't holding anything up ...
It's not being held up. That implies that it's at a stalemate with neither side willing to move or work on anything else until someone "blinks". What's happening is that both sides haven't reached agreement on this issue and that other things are going to be worked on while both sides work privately on the issue.
However, just to play Devil's Advocate, by your argument, someone could say that SWAPA is holding up the Process Agreement by refusing to agree to a date. I know you don't see it this way, but our guys are left with the question "If SWAPA won't agree to this, maybe they really DO have plans for a Muse scenario. Why ELSE would SWAPA not agree?" Makes us *VERY* uneasy to proceed without it...
Honestly, it depends on which side of the argument you lie on; each side sees it their way, that's just a part of negotiations. I'm sure it'll be back on the agenda for discussion at a later date. There's still 2-3 months (or more, depending on when the DOJ responds) to get back to it, and I believe cooler heads will prevail, so no worries, mate...
