In the matter of: UAL DRC vs CAL DRC
06-12-2014, 07:34 AM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
Who thought he could brown nose his way into a permanent upper management position. One of his cronies actually bragged to me once that Whitford was so "respected" by the company that they had given him free season passes to the Cubs. And to think that we traded Dubo in for Mr. Pinky Ring.
06-12-2014, 07:34 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
There is absolutely no evidence that the current MEC has done anything to favor LUAL pilots over LCAL pilots. You know this but I guess it works to drive the nitwits that believe everything you tell them without question.
The fact that the LUAL pilots are the majority and will likely be the majority for some time and have a majority of pilots at the most domiciles drives the members on the MEC. What would you have us do, turn over the MEC to the minority and see how it works out. I don't think so considering your actions in the early phases of the merger.
Now, if you can come up with any evidence that the LCAL pilots are being slighted to favor the LUAL pilot please post it and quit fanning the fire with lies, rumors and innuendoes.
The fact that the LUAL pilots are the majority and will likely be the majority for some time and have a majority of pilots at the most domiciles drives the members on the MEC. What would you have us do, turn over the MEC to the minority and see how it works out. I don't think so considering your actions in the early phases of the merger.
Now, if you can come up with any evidence that the LCAL pilots are being slighted to favor the LUAL pilot please post it and quit fanning the fire with lies, rumors and innuendoes.
The LCAL union seemed to be particularly vulnerable to getting the bad end of the deal and "LUAL pilots are in complete control of our union now so it will be interesting to see if there's a different result" not regarding the decision, but possibly negotiating a remedy with the company if given that lattitude.
Last edited by APC225; 06-12-2014 at 08:16 AM.
06-12-2014, 08:57 AM
#63
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
DRC DEADLOCK ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS UAL/CAL EKN AWARD DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE UAL Claim No. 1
AWARD
1) The Company did not violate the EKN Award when it failed to cancel training assignments to fill both CAL and UAL vacancies that were scheduled to commence after September 6, 2013--and rebid them using the ISL.
2) The Company did not fail to fulfill any obligation the Conditions and Restrictions imposed upon it when it complied with a Memorandum of Understanding it entered into with both MECs by honoring pilots' September, October and November 2013 Training Assignment Bids, which it had awarded prior to the Arbitration Board's decision.
3) UAL DRC Claim No. 1 is denied.
AWARD
1) The Company did not violate the EKN Award when it failed to cancel training assignments to fill both CAL and UAL vacancies that were scheduled to commence after September 6, 2013--and rebid them using the ISL.
2) The Company did not fail to fulfill any obligation the Conditions and Restrictions imposed upon it when it complied with a Memorandum of Understanding it entered into with both MECs by honoring pilots' September, October and November 2013 Training Assignment Bids, which it had awarded prior to the Arbitration Board's decision.
3) UAL DRC Claim No. 1 is denied.
06-12-2014, 10:12 AM
#65
Line Holder
Joined APC: Jun 2014
Posts: 45
DRC DEADLOCK ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS UAL/CAL EKN AWARD DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE UAL Claim No. 1
AWARD
1) The Company did not violate the EKN Award when it failed to cancel training assignments to fill both CAL and UAL vacancies that were scheduled to commence after September 6, 2013--and rebid them using the ISL.
2) The Company did not fail to fulfill any obligation the Conditions and Restrictions imposed upon it when it complied with a Memorandum of Understanding it entered into with both MECs by honoring pilots' September, October and November 2013 Training Assignment Bids, which it had awarded prior to the Arbitration Board's decision.
3) UAL DRC Claim No. 1 is denied.
AWARD
1) The Company did not violate the EKN Award when it failed to cancel training assignments to fill both CAL and UAL vacancies that were scheduled to commence after September 6, 2013--and rebid them using the ISL.
2) The Company did not fail to fulfill any obligation the Conditions and Restrictions imposed upon it when it complied with a Memorandum of Understanding it entered into with both MECs by honoring pilots' September, October and November 2013 Training Assignment Bids, which it had awarded prior to the Arbitration Board's decision.
3) UAL DRC Claim No. 1 is denied.
06-12-2014, 04:27 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2006
Position: 737 CA
Posts: 2,750
DRC DEADLOCK ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS UAL/CAL EKN AWARD DISPUTE RESOLUTION COMMITTEE UAL Claim No. 1
AWARD
1) The Company did not violate the EKN Award when it failed to cancel training assignments to fill both CAL and UAL vacancies that were scheduled to commence after September 6, 2013--and rebid them using the ISL.
2) The Company did not fail to fulfill any obligation the Conditions and Restrictions imposed upon it when it complied with a Memorandum of Understanding it entered into with both MECs by honoring pilots' September, October and November 2013 Training Assignment Bids, which it had awarded prior to the Arbitration Board's decision.
3) UAL DRC Claim No. 1 is denied.
AWARD
1) The Company did not violate the EKN Award when it failed to cancel training assignments to fill both CAL and UAL vacancies that were scheduled to commence after September 6, 2013--and rebid them using the ISL.
2) The Company did not fail to fulfill any obligation the Conditions and Restrictions imposed upon it when it complied with a Memorandum of Understanding it entered into with both MECs by honoring pilots' September, October and November 2013 Training Assignment Bids, which it had awarded prior to the Arbitration Board's decision.
3) UAL DRC Claim No. 1 is denied.
This award is just, and LUAL will lose claim #2 as well (displacements), because:
1. UAL ALPA signed the SFO MOU. It allows continued training AND displacements for ALL cancelled bids (not just SFO bids).
2. As LCAL successfully argued, although the SFO MOU may appear to trumped by the SLI OPINION, it does not violate the SLI AWARD.
06-12-2014, 06:03 PM
#68
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 Cap
Posts: 2,282
This award is just, and LUAL will lose claim #2 as well (displacements), because:
1. UAL ALPA signed the SFO MOU. It allows continued training AND displacements for ALL cancelled bids (not just SFO bids).
2. As LCAL successfully argued, although the SFO MOU may appear to trumped by the SLI OPINION, it does not violate the SLI AWARD.
1. UAL ALPA signed the SFO MOU. It allows continued training AND displacements for ALL cancelled bids (not just SFO bids).
2. As LCAL successfully argued, although the SFO MOU may appear to trumped by the SLI OPINION, it does not violate the SLI AWARD.
06-12-2014, 07:11 PM
#69
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,866
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
