Originally Posted by
PurpleTurtle
Some of you West guys are fixated on implicit assumptions.
You guys think you know what an arbitration panel will do, even though it is not certain that an arbitration panel will ever even be granted authority over the SLI... but even assuming it will be arbitrated, it is not certain who will participate nor is it certain what extent of the SLI question(s) will actually be granted to them.
When ever you use the word "if", just remember that is when your "implicit assumption" starts and "contingencies" begin... just like when the 9th schooled you guys on "implicit assumptions" and "contingencies".
Don't spend all your "righteous damages" just yet.
The PA stipulates arbitration. The parties have a period of time to negotiate to minimize "disputes and inconsistencies" in pilot data, determine snapshot and constructive notice dates, fleet composition, staffing assumptions and pilot bidding patterns. Whatever not resolved on this info goes to the arbitrators to quantify and factor. The parties (2 or 3) then propose their competing ISL build models during arbitration and explain why they believe their model should be adopted. The arbitrators accept, reject or form a "hybrid" model based on various positions of the parties that were accepted that in their mind is the most fair and equitable model. That is the ISL award.
Personally, I think the PA has UAL-CAL stamped all over it. That award IMO offers the best look in advance into the likely arbitral mindset that will craft our ISL. Of course, ALPA merger policy isn't in play (but any of the 3 factors COULD be adopted, although weighed differently) and there are significant complexities in this SLI that weren't in that one, but the mindset is very apt.