Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
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.
No, I characterized the reality that the career trajectories of both sides WERE NOT changed by the merger. I'm not just "minimizing" them, but due to the conflict saying they never ACTUALLY changed, i.e., for all intents and purposes, the operations remained separate and thus the pilots operated essentially status quo to continue to prosper or not based on the strength of their own individual pre-merger situations for the most part.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what did the reality of a single-management team controlling two separate operations produce for the West over the intervening years to support the worth the West brought to THAT merger ?
How much expansion did PHX receive during the intervening years vs. PHL and CLT ? How many pilots were hired ? How many Group III or IV aircraft did AWA PHX operate from US Airways merger to AA merger ?
Parker certainly had the opportunity to expand PHX or even West flying to new hubs/routes and hire significantly if that operation supported it. Did he do that ?
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
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.
...and again, based on my opinions above, this where we simply disagree. As for the Parker accepting that outcome, sure, he had little choice at that time, but that was only in the context of the merger then between AWA/U.
Will the arbitrators discount all other issues and award the Nic to the West based on the premise it would be "rewarding" the East ?
Who knows, but I don't think so. Additionally, I think we all know the unusual and repugnant actions by the majority then are unlikely to be repeated, especially with M-B in play. Any future SLI's will include specific safeguards to ensure that won't happen and this merger and its MOU and SLI PA are proof of that.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
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.
"as good or BETTER then the Nicolau award" ?
That sounds like someone slouching toward an unrealistic expectation of a windfall to me. At any rate, as for liability, well, it appears to me that APA is more interested in absolving itself from liability while still recognizing the West has a major issue in need of resolution and bending over backward to present themselves in a neutral fashion. Remember, M-B only requires a fair PROCESS and not necessarily a fair outcome as that definition has a tendency to remain a subjective one based on ones position. If APA was singularly on the West's side, you'd think they'd do more then punt the issue to arbitrators in a multi-arbitrational process whereby arbitration will first decide if the West even exists and if so, another arbitration will decide what, if any, consideration if given to the Nic. I wouldn't be so rash as to jump to the conclusion the APA is pro-West (and thus anti-East), but more likely an entity carefully plotting out a process to prevent a future minefield from blowing them apart. You may think they are "pushing hard" for the West, but I think that's more about THEIR self-preservation then realizing YOUR goals.
As for your "amateur legal analysis" comment, based on your position it seems there you feel those that bring up opposing perceptions about the validity of the Nic in the present situation consider themselves some type of pseudo lawyers ? I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm just 1 pilot out of 15,000+ with an opinion and nothing more. In consideration of that, your position and your comments, I'm not sure which category to place your post in, so I'll let you choose........will it be amateur legal analyst or one pilot with an opinion ?
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
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.
There's a flip side to that coin and that is "fair and equitable" is a subjective determination, so "pleasing someone" would apply in both directions (or maybe even 3 in this case). Again remember, the concept of "fair and equitable" in the M-B process is about the process and not the result. If the West should get a seat at the table and still doesn't get the Nic, I think that fair and equitable standard is met because the PROCESS gave the Nic every chance at consideration. If the West doesn't get a seat, then that standard STILL will have been met IMO, because their exclusion was decided by neutral arbitrators and not APA or USAPA. The question at hand is ultimately WHICH party gets pleased. Clearly SOMEONE is going to be displeased regarding the Nic issue as it either will be included in the final ISL or it won't, so in this case the arbitrators can't win and if your read the UAL-CAL award, you'll see they wearily know this as virtually all SLI's result in sour grapes for someone. What they DO have to do is reasonably justify their actions to those neutral to the issue and successfully justify a rational basis for crafting an ISL in the manner they did.