SO - Where's the SLI?
09-02-2016, 11:20 AM
#1901
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
I'm former Eagle, a flow from three years ago. THAT guy you flew with and the few idiots like him **** me off to no end because they are clueless militant morons who have NO idea what they are talking about. All they do is leave a sour taste in the mouth of those unfortunate to fly with them. These fools DO NOT represent the majority who have flowed over. My apologies that you had to fly with him.
Thank you, you are a nice guy. I hope to fly with you. I am nice to everyone at work, generous with my time and happy to help FO's but never micromanage.
I've heard the senior flow thrus 6500-7500 seniority are suing for.....Better seniority.
09-02-2016, 11:30 AM
#1902
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2007
Position: 737 CA MIA
Posts: 1,042
7576FO,
Thanks for the background information. Didn't know that detail.
You raise a point I am trying to clarify.
The LAA list contained, native AA and TWA pilots on one list. The NIC list contained AWA and native US pilots on one list.
The TWA pilots had some very particular contractual items that pertained just to their group, Supp C,
that were not particular to native AA pilots. Yet they were not provided a separate committee during the SLI proceedings to ensure their interests were protected.
AWA pilots argued they were integrated on one list, NIC, and covered under the same contract, JCBA, as the East (LUS) pilots.
Why then were TWA pilots who were on one list denied having their separate committee and the West who was on one list given separate representation? Doesn't seem fair and equatable to the TWA pilots if their were only two lists.
Thanks for the background information. Didn't know that detail.
You raise a point I am trying to clarify.
The LAA list contained, native AA and TWA pilots on one list. The NIC list contained AWA and native US pilots on one list.
The TWA pilots had some very particular contractual items that pertained just to their group, Supp C,
that were not particular to native AA pilots. Yet they were not provided a separate committee during the SLI proceedings to ensure their interests were protected.
AWA pilots argued they were integrated on one list, NIC, and covered under the same contract, JCBA, as the East (LUS) pilots.
Why then were TWA pilots who were on one list denied having their separate committee and the West who was on one list given separate representation? Doesn't seem fair and equatable to the TWA pilots if their were only two lists.
I don't remember the exact details why TWA didn't get a SLI committee, but since Supp C was arbitrated in summer 2013... which was very recent...
I do know they tried to get a SLI committee. It was not granted.
I am former Reno Air. No-one cared cares about me. No one gave us a SLI committee.
I'm happy I waited a long time to be CA.
Reno Air purchased Nov 15 1998
All Reno pilots stapled Feb 19, 1999.
Reno had 320 pilots (319) one guy bailed to UAL in March 1999. He wanted to fly 4 engines. question mark emoji pretend coo coo clock emoji
I think that Supp C with the wind down of S-80's will spread the TWA protected CA's throughout the system on the Airbus or they can use their seniority number to fly 737 CA in MIA LGA or even LAX right now.
Some can't, but I just have a hunch that they'll be able to fly Airbus CA throughout soon. Before 2019 when Sup C ends.
09-02-2016, 01:25 PM
#1903
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Ugh... Great questions but man that's a lot of them. Frankly, I ponder the same questions myself. I do that because who knows what the panel will reason. I agree with everything you say. As bipolar as that may seem one has to have these same questions to prepare for whatever outcome may be ahead. They will come up with a list and the will have a well thought out explanation of how they arrived at that list. Beyond that I only have my opinions. And we all know what that's worth. Hopefully this damned guessing game will be over next week and we can all move forward.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
09-02-2016, 01:29 PM
#1904
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Posts: 547
Don't know the FT issues but I do know that when the recalls started AA did not go by the numbered list or some FT's would have been in class with the TWA furloughees. That's all I know
AA was admittedly clueless as to how to proceed.
AA was admittedly clueless as to how to proceed.
09-02-2016, 02:34 PM
#1905
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
I don't believe you're correct.
MB was enacted to apply to covered transactions when combining multiple carriers. When the combining carriers had class and craft that were covered by the RLA then MB invoked the required use of the Allegheny Mohawk provisions for the employees' mutual protections.
MB was about "integrating" covered employees and ensuring their "fair and equatable treatment".
Trying to learn. If you can show how MB was strictly about mergers and not about integrating the carriers' RLA covered employees it would be helpful if you could show me the reference. I can't find one to support what you conclude.
MB was enacted to apply to covered transactions when combining multiple carriers. When the combining carriers had class and craft that were covered by the RLA then MB invoked the required use of the Allegheny Mohawk provisions for the employees' mutual protections.
MB was about "integrating" covered employees and ensuring their "fair and equatable treatment".
Trying to learn. If you can show how MB was strictly about mergers and not about integrating the carriers' RLA covered employees it would be helpful if you could show me the reference. I can't find one to support what you conclude.
09-02-2016, 03:12 PM
#1906
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
Have you read MB? Look at your original response to me. MB is about integration of class and craft employees in particular mergers not about all mergers. You can have mergers that MB does not apply to.
09-02-2016, 03:14 PM
#1907
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2015
Posts: 431
09-02-2016, 03:34 PM
#1908
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 194
That's right, you know what else is right? A MB like process was used to integrate the lus/AWA pilots, the result was accepted by the company. Now you remember why it was never implemented? DFR ring a bell? A Dfr ruling that ordered the east to show up with the Nicolau award. It's laughable to suggest that using the Nic to integrate pilots from a non covered transaction is somehow against the MB statued
09-02-2016, 03:46 PM
#1909
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: A320 Capt
Posts: 5,299
That's right, you know what else is right? A MB like process was used to integrate the lus/AWA pilots, the result was accepted by the company. Now you remember why it was never implemented? DFR ring a bell? A Dfr ruling that ordered the east to show up with the Nicolau award. It's laughable to suggest that using the Nic to integrate pilots from a non covered transaction is somehow against the MB statued
Just hang on, it's almost over.
09-02-2016, 04:17 PM
#1910
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,547
I've heard about that suit. I've ignored it. People will sue over any perceived wrong these days. By the way, the first flows are captains already, and have been for a year or two now. They're in the 4900 seniority range. I've flown with one already.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
