Originally Posted by
flybywire44
That being said, lets zoom out, and get away from this minutia. The ultimate customer of SLI is American Airlines. The arbitrators would provide a very poor product if upset the majority of pilots (AA+East) by awarding Nic... Don't you think?
Is it reasonable to assume that West pilots would be harmed by the Nicolai award is East+AA pilots collectively burned the house down? Obviously, this would never happen, but arbitrators and company will seek the most mutually beneficial solution.
Well, my point is that incorporation of the Nic presents more challenges for the arbitration panel in constructing the ISL that wouldn't be there without it. If the West plops the Nic down as their one list to merge with AA pilots considering it puts many West narrowbody F/O's (to say nothing of captains) in high percentile positions that given the Nic list couldn't be reordered (if accepted) who might end up senior to many AA legacy pilots with more time in seat and making (and expecting future) substantially higher pay, there will have to be compensation factors.
In simpler terms, the Nic benefits the most 1700 pilots that pre-merger (like it or not) were flying for essentially a one domicile LCC operation with top pay substantially below that of AA and whose order/option/retirement schedule in conjunction with the likely reality of remaining in that situation for many years to come would arguably produce a windfall for those 1700 at the expense the other 13,500 and most certainly the 10,000 at AA.
Will the arbitrators put the interests of this 1700 as a top priority at the expense of the massive majority ?
That is the question. Again, personally, I don't think so.
Originally Posted by
flybywire44
These underlined statements may be misleading—I'm afraid they may unnecessarily stress some of the less than 500 AA natives whom these statements apply.
I believe you suppose that AE flows with relatively less sweat equity, and who did not hold a recall right may devalue the SLI value of legacy AA non-flow thru pilots who did/do hold a recall right. Is this correct?
AE flows, and any relatively junior AA native recalls will surely be credited their sweat equity, but at this most bottom portion of the seniority list what value did either group's longevity represent? Regardless of longevity, both demographics have the same net bidding power, and I believe arbitrators will take note of this.
How much percentage based movement was there between February 14th, 2013, and December 9th, 2013? Given this question, I am confident that the arbitrators won't devalue AAnatives relative seniority to their more senior AE flows. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last AA native recall class prior to December 9th, 2013 was November 20th, 2013? This illustrates the net value of these group's seniority value.
I also must point out, as I have in the past, that the Merger Announcement Date is the typical litmus test for delineating Conditional Notice pilots. If this applies to this merger, than the majority of the people you're writing about need not worry about these things.
Furthermore, if West Pilots (against all odds) gain representation they will assuredly demand a Merger Announcement Date Conditional Notice Snapshot for delineating pre/post merger pilots. This method was used in the UAL, DAL, and Nic SLI awards. So for all the arguments AA pilots may have made advocating west pilot representation...you may have devalued a MOU effective date method for inflating system-wide AA pilot relative seniority.
It's ironic, but it's out of our hands, and as a third list pilot I don't really care which snapshot is used as I personally feel that it makes no difference for junior AA/East pilots. The net value of bidding seniority is equally inflated on both sides during the February 14th, 2014 to December 9th, 2013 time frame. Assuming relative seniority inflation between the AA & East groups is constant between MAD, and MOU Effective days than what are we worried about?
I hope my late night thoughts prove constructive.
Respectfully,
FBW
Well, the UAL-CAL CN litmas WAS Merger Announcement Date (MAD), but that was at agreement of the parties. I suppose it could be MAD here, but then why have status quo determined at date of merger consummation ?
I dunno, perhaps by agreeing to the consummation date, it minimizes this issue ?
Remember, my statements are based on the apparent reality that none of the 3 seniority lists (or 2 in the case of the Nic being applied) will be reordered and so as one of the complexities in this SLI, one pilot's relativity at AA (or US Airways) could theoretically lift the tides of some of those presently junior below him (to varying degrees depending on the dovetailing of blocks of pilots or a finer individual dovetailing) or likewise that pilot could sink those presently below him should his longevity (time in seat) be heavily weighed. Since leapfrogging won't occur, groups of junior pilots at all of the carriers may win or lose depending on how this factor is applied. Looking at the lists, this issue doesn't seem to apply to pilots senior to about '98 at AA, in other words it will be an F/O issue for all groups.
This is where incorporation of the Nic really seems to foul things up. If the Nic is used, a narrowbody West F/O could really elevate those junior to him against AA pilots unless they where blocked very junior to AA pilots which would then harm East captains or very senior F/O's junior to him. It's another reason I think the Nic might be more obtainable hadn't this merger occurred, but since it never was implemented (right or wrong) and the REALITY is the consideration now IS relevant to THIS merger/SLI where each pilot group was and not where one group (and extreme minority) SHOULD have been, the dynamics are altered to force the arbitrators to either uphold the Nic for the benefit of this 11% minority whose pre-merger career expectations couldn't hold a candle to those at AA or weigh the interests of the 89% majority (65% @AA) and use a different model more in line with the avoidance of such a windfall.