Originally Posted by
Carl Spackler
If your answer is that you want to start with an arbitrated award that was never implemented with an operation that was never combined, I would ask you why? What's the difference? The only credible answer is that you want it because it advantages you in some way. And that is the very definition of a windfall that SLI's are supposed to minimize. It's interesting, but the harder one side pushes for the Nic award, the more it proves that the Nic really was a significant windfall. And a significant windfall will be a hard sell in civil court as you'll be saying: "We will be irreparably damaged...unless you let us have a significant windfall." Good luck with that argument guys. I think you'd come out quicker and look more interested in fairness if you brought all 3 lists to the arbitrator.
Carl
Quick answer to that is that we on the West are bound to the Nicolau because it has been held up by a DFR from the East centric union.
We cannot negotiate off the Nicolau because it dilutes our case for a DFR. The fact that the company used an inferior contract on the east to whipsaw the pilot groups does not constitute an advantage for one group over the other. That supposed advantage for the east was the result of an artificial scenario, and would last only until an actual contract with pay raises and new terms better than LOA 93 was put forth. The MOU is that new contract. There is no other path now other than a new JCBA between LCC and (now) AAG.