Originally Posted by
eaglefly
I think if you read the opinion and award in the UAL-CAL SLI, you'll see what mind-set arbitrators tend to use in balancing competing interests to achieve a fair result here. Our protocol agreement is not coincidentally very similar to that one and thus, I would expect the parties to avoid the errors in argument noted there, most notably from CAL ALPA and also would expect a similar rationalization from whatever arbitrators are selected here who will no doubt take that SLI result into strong consideration and how those arbitrators arrived at that result.
The relevance of that SLI award is not necessarily in the factors used, but the process the arbitrators used to weigh the various positions in constructing a final ISL. Although there are some significant differences present here that were not there, the ultimate path of reasoning they chose is likely to be very apt in our final result.
I agree. The mind set of that award favors the west position, that's not my opinion that is the opinion of the lawyer that represented the ual pilots. Here are a couple of excerpts from the cal/ual sli
CAL’s proposal assumes that we will use the April 1, 2013 pilot lists. In
constructing its first tranche of captains for the proposed ISL, for example, it uses the
number 2,299. That number appears only on Continental Exhibit C-5, p. 1, the total of
all Continental captains as of April 1, 2013. See Tr. 1153-54. Captain James Brucia, the
Chairman of the CAL Merger Committee, explained the rationale for the CAL
Committee’s proposed ISL build model as premised upon two primary foundations: an
April 1, 2013 “snapshot date” and Continental System Bid 14-02, cross-referenced to the
United Category Staffing Requirements for Vacancies, effective 5-31-2013, June bid
month.
Btw Brucia is the usairways neutral in the Nicolau arbitration
The United team's
proposal uses October 1, 2010, the MCD, as the “Snapshot Date” and the October 1,
2010 pre-merger seniority lists as the “Base Seniority Lists” for building its proposed
ISL.Furthermore, it
maintains that after October 1, 2010, all decisions were made by a single management
entity. Therefore, it asserted that the snapshot date should not be April 1, 2013, two and
a half years after a single management made decisions affecting all pilots.
Beginning with the October 1, 2010 snapshot date for purposes of assessing
And the result?
In constructing our awarded ISL, Exhibit A, we made adjustments in Step 5
(“Factor Weighting”) of the UAL hybrid model and added a new Step 6 to update the
October 1, 2010 “snapshot date” lists used as “Base Seniority Lists" in Step 1 to build the
awarded hybrid ISL. We explain those adjustments in the next two sections.
The arbitrators bought into the date the airlines had the same management making all decisions, that would be 2005 for usairways.