There is a timeline in place to keep the company from dragging their feet until they just get around to it. Not that we have seen a lot of success with timelines, but in theory it was a good idea. Neither side has to "request" it.
The problem is that the arbitrators "good ol' boy" network makes sure there is a steady backlog of work, so there is often long waits simply to get the arbitrators together, and that throws the timeline out the window.
Then, of course, the arbitrators can take their time with the decision...years even....as we have seen in spades at US Airways.
But the way the MOU was written, it really makes little difference to the pilots since the product of the arbitration has to be cost neutral. That means, we will get what we are already (total compensation) with or without the arbitration. The only thing this arbitration may settle is bringing all three contracts onto the same page.
And Parker sounds like he is headed to arbitration anyway. Relax....enjoy what you have...you will have it in one form or another, no more; no less, until the amendable date which is 2018(???)
But IF the pilot shortage is real this time, should we fall on our APA swords over a scope relaxation that the company (and industry) cannot take advantage of anyway? If there are no pilots to fly all those RJs we would be giving them, what is the point of saying no to the money?
