gettinbumped

Cool. Sounds like a great plan. You guys should have about 100 70 seat RJ's in IAH by then. I'm sure EWR will pick up a bunch by then as well.

Captain X

Here's a question. If the UAL members of the JNC came up with a solution that was agreeable to the CAL members as well as the CAL MEC and both Master Chairs but not acceptable to the UAL MEC, why didn't those members get fired from their positions for not complying with the resolution on 744 pay?

tailwheel48

And you guys will have about 200 more.....

SoCalGuy

All a good point's/questions....

This is the rub.....It's NOT the MEC Chair's right/position to "go renegade" in his (or in this case her's) own 'direction'. There have been MEC Chairs (at least at CAL) who have been recalled for doing so....most recently the Chair prior to CAL's current MEC Chair.

How I understand it, when the MEC's vote, the MEC Chair DOES NOT have a voting right within the MEC's vote (IE-the vote on approving the the 'contents' of the T/A for approval to disseminate to the combine pilot group for vote) concerning the T/A. He/She MUST follow the WILL, via the majority VOTE of the entire MEC. So basically if the MEC's view is different than the MEC Chair's.....tough shiz.....The MEC has spoken and is doing 'their job' in voting the way 'they' think it should be done, NOT as to how the CHAIR think's it should be done. The ONLY caveat in this, if things are going to 'go public' as they have on this topic, the MEC and it's Chair better damn well be on the 'same page' publicly, or there WILL be egg on someone's face when things shake down.....if your gonna disagree.....best behind close doors.

Hope that's easy enough to follow....and clear as mud.

Shrek

It can NOT be used or at least SHOULD NOT be used as a basis of SLI. Why have the process seperate at all if what you say is true right?

Shrek

You are correct sir

The MEC Chairman is the "mouthpiece" of the MEC. He has no voting rights as outlined very clearly by you.

And also agree that the public grandstanding needs to stop on BOTH sides - big picture.

Captain X

You guys are both correct and have a good grasp each persons role, but in this case both MEC Chairs are also ad hoc members of the JNC which is why the additional point of them both "approving" the compromise(s) has been made. Details really. Except in this case Wendy Morse essentially cut Jay Hepner off at the knees in front of her MEC.

That said, it still doesn't answer the question:

If the UAL members of the JNC are not complying with the UAL MEC's original resolution on 744 pay to the point where the MEC is not accepting the JNC proposal(s), why has the UAL MEC allowed those members to stay in the position on the JNC?

SoCalGuy

Your guess is as good as anyone's at this point.......

Could be going out on a limb, BUT I highly doubt there is ANYONE on APC who would go on record as being a member of the JNC. With that being said, an 'outsider' (which 99.9%+ of us are) will NEVER fully know the exact reasoning as to 'why' without being directly involved in behind closed door meeting/issues/heated discussions....anything on here would have to point to conjecture at best concerning your question.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________

IMO....It 'may' do more damage to the entire Negotiating Process if the UAL MEC decided to just 'clean house' of the present UAL member's on the present JNC (harm to BOTH sides viewing the JCBA is for ALL pilots). It does not take much to realize that this 'circus side show' involving the Banded vs Unbanded has already caught the eye of Mgt as we speak.....if disbanding (no pun intended) 1/2 of the current JNC came about, it may do more harm than good at the present time.

One has to remember.....this "riff" in the pay-structure issue is just that, a "riff" in the long winded process. Nothing has been handed down T/A-wise for the MEC's to even lay ink to by way of the MEC's vote. I would think making 'big changes' as you suggest is something that 'could' happen....but right now probably has not set off the "oh $h1t" metter yet. I would believe that the UAL side is willing to try to settle this 'differing stance' within their leadership before tossing out the baby with the bath water.

Again, as I said in the opening....It's all "just a guess".

AxlF16

My guess. Even 'if' there were such a resolution regarding the 747 pay (MEC direction to the NC is private), the NC members still have other direction as well. One of those might be 'get a JCBA ASAP'? So in balancing the direction they likely compromised on some things in order to move forward. That is exactly what I'd expect from BOTH sides of the JNC. The NC members are NOT charged with SLI issues, that is up to the merger committee and direction from the MEC. The product/agreements from the JNC SHOULD be free from SLI issue pollution. Of course it's not that simple, so the MEC and Merger Committee have to look at those agreements from the perspective of SLI impacts. The bottom line: The MEC likely saw that the 'compromises' made by the UA NC members were potentially very damaging to the pilot group they are charged with representing. Of course the 'craniums up' from Baron about the tack they were going to take helped them 'find' the poison apple.

SUPERfluf

Or the CAL merger committee (lead by a Captain that was on the committee that re-wrote the SLI rules) believes that the 'resolution' to not have the JCBA affect the SLI won't hold water in arbitration?