Originally Posted by
GrapeNuts
The two arguments proffered by EF and his newly- aligned companions from the east present two arguments, the fairness argument and the windfall for the west argument. Both are based on subjective opinion where the perceived detriment disadvantages their own personal gains. Can a two against one scenario develop in front of the arbitration panel? Possibly, because what advantages both EF and the east the most? Subjugation of a minority group for the benefit of the majority.
If both the APA and the east wish to complain about the Nic or hypothesize about ramifications of using the Nic in front of three arbitrators, go right ahead. At that point you aren't arguing against the west but instead criticizing a well respected colleague of the three member arbitration panel. Be my guest.
The best argument I see the APA and the east may have success with to bury Nicolau's decision in a coordinated argument is to recognize that Nicolau did occur but would be unduly burdensome to apply now. That's a stretch in my opinion, because again, the arbitrators are being asked to combine east and west lists , a task which an arbitrator has already completed. I can see APA arguing things have changed with them in the picture so therefore a scratch start needs to happen, but as EF already admitted to the APA interest in involving themselves in the Nicolau question is because they feel the west pilots will hurt their career expectations. I find it interesting a pilot group in bankruptcy at the snapshot date will argue career expectations.
We will see how this shakes out, but I predict lawsuits whether Nicolau is used or not.
"Newly aligned companions"..........now that's rich.
My foundations rise from the concept of maintaining pre-merger career expectations and the avoidance of windfalls. Obviously even that is a subjective standard depending on position in this ménage-a-trois. As for APA admitting anything, now THAT is a stretch. No, what happened was eaglefly revealed HIS beliefs on what the APA will do regarding the Nic, which.........is essentially what they have done. Punt. Another streeeeeetch, is the idea that by soberingly and accurately assessing that the Nic might be worse for AA pilots interests then without it that they are somehow "involving" themselves in the Nic. Just as the West has the right to argue FOR the Nic without prejudice by the arbitrators, others are entitled to the same latitude in arguing against it. If you think any one of the three sides (or perhaps 2) is going to argue strictly for the interests of another, you're mistaken.
The misguided claim that to do so would somehow be criticizing a well-respected colleague is baseless. Nicolau's award was made with only two of the three ingredients that now exist present and indeed the recipe is far, FAR different then when it was cooked by Nicolau. You're belief that APA and the East will conspire against the West is also misguided. Yes, one or both may argue for integration models that don't incorporate the Nic, but at least in the case of the APA, I don't think it will be intended as a direct attack on the West. The APA has no duty whatsoever to place the interests of West pilots above legacy AA pilots and the best argument I can see from ANY side is one founded on giving any given pilot what he or she had before the merger and could expect pre-merger. While you're at it, I'd suggest reading the UAL-CAL arbitration for an heads up on how arbitrators look at pre-merger conditions of each carrier and their ability to wade through the biased chaff. They'll look at each carrier closely to determine that information and in the case of AA, I'm confident they will see exactly what that BK was all about.
1.5 billion last quarter is hard to ignore.