So it's really just that easy, the company can negotiate one without expecting any kind of fuss over seniority agreements or any kind of litigation in going forward along those lines? Management hasn't sought judicial clarification on their standing to do so or anything like that?
Clearly it does, six years at least.
Oh they are? What is it both parties finally agreed to, was it Nic or DOH? I have to admit I don't have time to follow the pilot thread, but it sounds like I missed some pretty important news.
I thought they were waiting on resolution of the pilot situation? Maybe one of them could enlighten us?
So the pilot's seniority dispute is no obstacle in obtaining a new contract? Aren't negotiations now under way? It's my understanding that the company has the Nic as the agreed upon seniority list; will USAPA negotiate any contract that accepts that? If not, how can the company "negotiate a joint contract that will pass"? Doesn't management have a justifiable concern that depending on what's negotiated they could be subject to litigation? Just looking for some answers...
Surely this is the fault of management then?
Interesting, thank you.
Your question would appear to indicate that you believe that the company's efforts (or lack of effort) to merge the employee groups has been a consistent effort over the last 4-6 years. I believe that until now, at least in the case of the pilots, there has been no financial incentive for Mr. Parker to merge the respective groups. In fact, there has been considerable financial dis-incentive to put the groups together, as that will immediately result in increased costs of upwards of 100 million dollars annually, with synergistic cost savings of only about 10 million per annum, as a result of a new pilot contract. (source: internal crew news sessions) Mr. Parker has been quoted as saying, " the cost pales in comparison with the savings". Only recently, in the company's Declaratory Judgement request, has the company indicated that it concurs with the west pilots arbitrated seniority list, possibly indicating an ulterior motive or incentive to complete that portion of the merger at this time, for whatever reasons that they deem important at this time.
No, that's why I asked what I asked. I'm simply testing the claim that management is responsible for the HP/US merger being incomplete, which many seem to happily hold to.
Very interesting. Thanks for the insight. My question now is, even if DP had the incentive the entire time, was there anything he could have reasonably done in order to facilitate a single work group under a single contract? It seems to me that the essential points of contention at the heart of the pilot dispute, being internal union business, would be well insulated from the intentions of management.
I believe that you are correct with respect to the company DJ slowdown and the eventual "the Nic is it". I believe that what the company really wants is the current cost savings, but cannot sacrifice the ability to attract future merger financing. "Position A" for the company would be to not be obligated to the increased cost of a JCBA, but to be able to exercise the option,if necessary for future consolidation. By the way, did you read the transcript?
