SLI June 18th

Reply Subscribe

Page 17 of 21

« First

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

06-25-2013, 11:18 AM

#161

Olecal

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Feb 2013

Posts: 168

Quote:

Originally Posted by cadetdrivr

Except of course, when:
(1) if the same collective bargaining agent represents the combining crafts or classes at each of the covered air carriers, that collective bargaining agent’s internal policies regarding integration, if any, will not be affected by and will supersede the requirements of this section

(Source: the actual law)

Willing to put anything on it, there will be no windfalls for either side!

06-25-2013, 11:20 AM

#162

syd111

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2008

Position: B-777 left

Posts: 1,415

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olecal

Willing to put anything on it, there will be no windfalls for either side!

If it is anywhere close to your proposal that would be a windfall.

06-25-2013, 11:33 AM

#163

cadetdrivr

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Oct 2010

Posts: 2,639

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryiah

Wishing for a windfall, scab mentality?

What the frack????

I was simply pointing out that ALPA merger policy, not McCaskill-Bond (i.e. "the law' you referenced), has final determination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olecal

Willing to put anything on it, there will be no windfalls for either side!

Ya think?

06-25-2013, 11:34 AM

#164

syd111

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2008

Position: B-777 left

Posts: 1,415

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryiah

Not when you consider the w-2s of the 2 groups prior to the merger.

If it is any where close to the cal proposal I would consider it a windfall! How you feel larryiah doesn't matter at all too me.

06-25-2013, 12:12 PM

#165

Staller

Banned

Joined APC: Mar 2013

Posts: 536

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryiah

And what you consider to be a windfall doesn't matter at all to me.

Larry, you should go back to YouTube stuff. You get in trouble when you put pen to paper or finger to keyboard.

06-25-2013, 12:37 PM

#166

Scott Stoops

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2010

Position: 737 Cap

Posts: 451

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryiah

Not when you consider the w-2s of the 2 groups prior to the merger.

Show me one award that used w2 for anything. Seriously. It has not happened. Further, it becomes more clear that you haven't taken the time to read the transcripts every time you post.

Scott

06-25-2013, 12:45 PM

#167

routemap

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Mar 2012

Posts: 152

Quote:

Originally Posted by syd111

If it is any where close to the cal proposal I would consider it a windfall! How you feel larryiah doesn't matter at all too me.

If it is any where close to the UAL proposal I would consider it a windfall!

I see no reason why it had to go to arbitration.

06-25-2013, 12:45 PM

#168

Scott Stoops

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2010

Position: 737 Cap

Posts: 451

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryiah

And what you consider to be a windfall doesn't matter at all to me.

If it even remotely staples 2500 L-UAL pilots, nearly half of which have never been furloughed and most of which have 2+ times the longevity of the pilots placed ahead of them - that would be a windfall. I'll say it again - the CAL proposal is dramatically more extreme than the Nic award that caused the changes to ALPA merger policy to ensure the Nic award never happened again. It really is that simple. The CAL side overreached.

Scott

06-25-2013, 12:46 PM

#169

Scott Stoops

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2010

Position: 737 Cap

Posts: 451

Quote:

Originally Posted by routemap

If it is any where close to the UAL proposal I would consider it a windfall!

I see no reason why it had to go to arbitration.

How so. Be specific.

Scott

06-25-2013, 01:04 PM

#170

Scott Stoops

Gets Weekends Off

Joined APC: Nov 2010

Position: 737 Cap

Posts: 451

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olecal

ALPA merger policy was very similar when DAL/NWA had their SLI, except for the addition of longevity to be considered. When you look at their award, they used a stovepipe method. This was definitely a method outside the policy. There were references and inclusions of the merger policy items, but in the end, they used factors outside the items in the policy. Therefore, I firmly believe that although the merger items will be mentioned, weighted, and included, there will definitely be outside factors used. Hanging on to such a 'open ended' policy is setting up for failure.

Stovepipe is exactly what both sides here used as well. What are you talking about? They are basically normalizing what a pilot could hold, if every single pilot ahead of them bid the highest position possible. It absolutely normalizes each list individually based on entitlements and not bidding habits of individual pilots, and is an accepted and commonly used alignment system. It is not, in any way, a factor that is being considered. It simply creates slots, from which individual pilots from each list, in their pre-merger order, are inserted into the final list. Exactly as it has to be based on not re-ordering each individual list. It is, again, very clear to me that you as well haven't read the transcripts and don't understand the process.

Scott