Cranberry

I have a bonus lead layer in my hat.

worstpilotever

Did these people use ALPA dues money to consult with all these other lawyers?

roogs25

i know the castration example is extreme, but I think that’s the point they are trying to make. Without explicit definitions and limits where is the limit of what the company can do if alpa/faa do sign off on something? Yeah, it won’t be castration, but I would feel a lot better if I knew where the line actually was and not just a nebulous, “trust us,” or “be careful who you elect to alpa positions,” or “let the courts decide.”

CRJCapitan

I agree with what you're saying about questioning where the line is drawn. However, they went so extreme that people are talking about how crazy they are and a bunch of other stuff instead of talking about realistic issues relating to this language. I think using such an extreme example is more of a distraction than it is a meaningful contribution to the overall discussion.

billtaters

We do know where the line actually is. The line is "The Company may not unilaterally impose a vaccination, medical procedure, or medical requirement on Pilots beyond any requirements imposed by the FAA, including special issuance certificates."

ALPA is the bargaining agent. There is no contractual language you can create in a CBA to protect you from your own bargaining agent. To use 171's absurd example, if the new TA stated explicitly that the company and ALPA could not require castration and 2 years down the road, a majority of the MEC and the company agreed that castration was wonderful, they could simply agree to a LOA allowing castration.

CBA's also don't exceed federal laws or regulations. If ALPA got UAL to agree to no longer requiring a first class medical in this TA, do you honestly think you'd be done seeing an AME?

The 171 reps appear to be in way over their head and to not understand the very basics of labor law. This isn't difficult. If I were IAH based, I'd be considering recalls.

Embarassing

rickair7777

There's also the issue of federal mandates, as we saw a couple years ago. CBA can't protect you from those (misguided as they might have been).

roogs25

Okay, to be clear, your argument is that regardless of what is said in the contract, the union and the company can, at a later time, simply agree to an LOA mandating ANY medical procedure? I had not thought of that angle until you mentioned it.... except isn't that exactly what they did during COVID? And isn't that what this whole section is about, not repeating what our company and union did during COVID?

JTwift

100% agree. I can’t believe this went out.

DarkSideMoon

I can.

IAH doesn’t send their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs conspiracy theories. They’re bringing crime embarrassment. And some, I assume, are good people.

I’m mostly kidding, I know quite a few IAH pilots I’d be happy to fly with, but damn the stereotype exists for a reason.

jerryleber

First, you have to evaluate the likelihood of "ANY medical procedure" being required. It is almost nil. Covid was a rare occurrence itself and we will be protected against the company unilaterally requiring such a vaccination again. The next issue is reasonableness of such a requirement. If it is unreasonable the company would know it is undoable because of all the potential legal liability. In other words this is all paranoid overreaction.

No good deed goes unpunished. Our union did a good job providing protections the vast majority of the pilots consider reasonable. If you doubt that just wait for the ratification results. This is much ado about almost nothing.