Originally Posted by
eaglefly
But the arbitrators (remember, there are MULTIPLE arbitrators) also said this regarding the construction of their "hybrid model" (remember that term) in THIS SLI, ......."We inquired as to where the respective groups have been and we have made reasonable judgments as to where they were going. We attempted to recognize reasonable expectations of both premerger groups, but rejected proposals that could not be reconciled with governing merger policy or resulted in untenable windfalls. As in all such seniority integration exercises, the fairness and equity assessment is focused necessarily on the respective groups, not on each or any individual pilot."
It would seem that the arbitrators looked at each groups pre-merger reality (where they had been, where they were going, expectations) and the elimination of windfalls.
Where was the West GROUPS pre-merger reality ?
Was realization of the Nic an imminent expectation at merger contemplation or completion with AA ?
Later they said in regard to George Nicolau's "four basic varieties of ISL arbitration", that "each case turns on its own facts". I think even old George himself would agree that the "facts" of the Nic (for right or wrong) have changed as a result of its lack of consummation coupled with a subsequent merger and SLI with American Airlines.
Again, the complexities and facts of THIS SLI make the assumption that the Nic will prevail very questionable. It will be one of the major questions for the arbitration provided first, the West even gets recognition as a party to the SLI.
I think where you go awry in your analysis is that after the merger between AAA/AWA, the career trajectories of each group was changed by the merger. However, you characterize those changes is immaterial, what you had was a single management team making decisions based on a single network and a single passenger base. There is absolutely no way to unwind those facts and determine where the East and West would have been absent the merger. The status of the East and West combined in 2013 when the merger was completed is material to their placement in relation to the AMR pilots but not to each other.
Therefore, when determining the proper relationships between East and West pilots, you necessarily have to go back to 2005 when the merger was consummated. The arbitrators can then try to have some complicated arbitration to determine what that relationship should be. Or they can simply pull out the award that was already litigated in the Nicolau arbitration and accepted by the company as a legitimate seniority list for the East and West as they existed back in 2005. The answer to that question seems obvious. They also consider the long term effects that their decisions have on labor groups in general. If the East's behavior in the last 7 years is rewarded, then it would encourage this same type of self destructive behavior out into the future for other labor groups.
The secondary consideration is the liability issue. If the West pilots do not get placement as good or better than the Nicolau award, someone is going to have to pay for that loss. Despite the amateur legal analysis that goes on here, the West pilots rights to the seniority award were negotiated away. Unless they get fair treatment, AMR management and the APA will have inherited the liability for that negotiations from their predecessors. They don't want that liability and that is why they are pushing hard for fair treatment for the West pilots.
Many pilots imagine decisions that they want the arbitrators to make and then back engineer some reason why they will make those decisions. The arbitrators have only two items to sell in the marketplace; knowledge and neutrality. If they give away their neutrality to please some party in the integration beyond the fair and equitable standard, they are essentially throwing their livelihood away. Sort of like trying to do an aileron roll in your jet full of passengers; you can do that once and once only.