Originally Posted by
eaglefly
Again, we disagree. I think each SLI has its own factors and EVERY aspect of the UAL-CAL is not necessarily applicable to this one. You feel comfortable sharpshooting that particular basis and I'm saying it's not a guarantee. I understand though Leonidas is committed to a position of absolute certainty that the Nic is the only valid US Airways list as to even hint at it being optional tanks their very argument as to its validity.
As for the first arbitration, I don't think the issue of the Nic is even part of that per se. That argument will center around the Wests legal right to be a part of the SLI process as a recognized party in the first place. The arbitrators considering that question may maintain a narrow view of that question in strictly legal terms. Right now, the West doesn't exist and the train has already left the station with only two passengers, APA and USAPA. The PA provides for the 2 passengers to compile, quantify and clarify data of pilots from 3 SEPARATE LISTS (not two). Additionally, it was only those two passengers that picked the 3 conductors (arbitrators) on this train to steer them to the most proper destination of a final ISL. If the PAB denies the request of West pilots to activate their own NC, then that is final and binding and the train doesn't stop in PHX. If they do, the final arbitration will still have the 3 quantified lists presented and I suppose the Nic will be included as a side consideration.
We should know within a couple of months if the SLI train stops in PHX.
The certified seniority lists will reflect the status quo of the three seniority lists in effect at the carriers on December 9, 2013
(i.e., American, US Airways (East), US Airways (West)); provided, that this will be without prejudice to any Merger Committee’s position on the appropriate “snapshot” or “constructive notice” date.
The status quo is the status quo.
Any argument that the status quo is unfair would be frivolous and outside the scope of the arbitration.
But if the West gets a seat at the table, they can argue that constructive notice for the merger was 2004. "Snapshot" for all three lists... 2004!