Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Just so you don't go off on the personal attack tangent, I am in the top 15% of the Delta seniority list and I have nothing to gain from this or actually any further seniority integration in the future. So just leave that out of your equation.
I have no personal bias. I'm simply expressing my opinion, just as you.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
You think it is important that the West and East had separate operations over the last 9 years. Here are some questions for you. How many network management teams did US Air have during that time? How many central reservation phone numbers did they have? How many frequent flier programs did they have? Was there any way a passenger who bought a ticket on US Airways could tell if they were on a West plane or an East plane?
I don't know the answers to those questions, but all they do for me is provide a basis to ask more questions, such as;
TO what degree, if any, do those aspects impact the pre-merger career expectations, fleet make-ups and bidding patterns of pre-AA merger U pilots, both East and West ?
Would a passenger who bought a ticket to destination X even HAVE the ability switch from PHL or CLT to PHX or vise-versa in their travels ?
Have those been considered factors in SLI's of other employee groups in this merger ?
I'm sure there are others.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
I don't know the base history at AMR over the last decade, but I am sure that some bases have grown and some have shrunk or even been eliminated. When a base shrunk, did the pilots at that base have to go to the bottom of the AMR list when they were displaced? Why not?
Bases at AA that have closed or shrunk in almost all cases were because of competing interests in bases that were geographically too close (think BNA and RDU) and siphoned traffic from each other - or - required more pilots do too new revenue opportunities that only that base could supply (think MIA and SA flying) or were hubs dominated by another legacy and had a high contingent of RJ's (think ORD). The combined entity that is US Airways is delineated by a wide geographical distance (almost the entire continental U.S.) and so the questions regarding passengers above in most cases was likely VERY rare. However, in our situation, no pilots I'm aware of couldn't take their seniority to another base, but remember there is only one recognized seniority list at AA, wheras at US Airways there presently ISN'T one recognized seniority list, but two. THAT is the reality, unfortunate as it is. There IS one exception to the seniority issue here when moving to another base and that is STL (AKA SLT) and involved former TWA pilots seniority rights regarding downsizing and/or elimination of their protected base as per Supplement C of our CBA. The resolution to that (unpopular on both sides of the argument), resulted in "carving out" transferred aircraft (namely S80 to DFW and 757/767 to MIA), strictly for former TWA pilots to exercise their base seniority to bid and hold that flying.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
Just because the pilots were operating separately, it did not change the central fact that there was one management team serving one customer base. Whether or not flying got shifted from one US Airways base to another meant nothing to that management team, the exact same as what happened at AMR. In 2005 the East and West merged. After that time, there is no way to sort out their individual career expectations or the individual fates of their pre merger airlines; they were irretrievably altered for all times into the future.
Your last sentence is interesting. I'd argue that in opposition though by posing this question; Which is MORE relevant to the present situation and more importantly which is more QUANTIFIABLE for an arbitrator in this case regarding assessing pre-merger U pilots ?
A. A true operationally combined pilot group based on the Nic that can only be quantified now by applying assumptions and hypotheticals (AKA "guessing"), or B. Taking a known quantity snapshot of pre-merger reality of where the pilots were and where they were likely going based on their unfortunate AA pre-merger separation ?
The Nic does indeed "list" pilots based on an integration that occurred almost a decade ago, but few if any of those pilots true career expectations could be accurately quantified from it because no one actually exercised any bidding pattern. It's provisions remain hypothetical. In opposition, the arbitrators CAN quantify the present state of U pilots based on the reality of separate lists and the limitations that have resulted (unfortunate as they are).
So do the arbitrators begin to assume and guess as might be necessary should they have to decide how to feather in a Nic-based U pilot group into the AA group or do they instead revert to known quantifiable data that is bolstered by the consideration the Nic list had no real timetable for future implementation as a result of the equally weighed stalemate of the two groups ?
That's the question.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
So your statement that the East and West expectations were not changed by the merger is ludicrous on its face. The East pilots were in Chapter 11 with no cash, no reorganization plan, no hopes for the future, and it is clear they were headed to liquidation. The fact that they exist now is solely due to the merger. Maybe America West would have gone out of business too, who knows. But to say both of their career expectations have not been changed by the merger is just ignorant.
IMO, your assessment of the future of the respective carriers is simply one subjective opinion. There are just many in opposition and the only three that will count is the arbitrators. We'll have to wait to read the award to see their assessment of that subject. I respect your belief that I'm ignorant and wont take that as a personal shot. You'll understand I disagree with you on many point. Do I think you're ignorant ?
No, just expressing an opposing view.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
SLI integrations are about trying to meld together PRE-MERGER expectations. Go back to arbitrations 20, 30, or 50 years ago and you will see the validity of that observation. You might want to do some actual research of actual arbitration results before you go spouting off with your ideas. You like to refer to the UAL/CAL SLI integration, why don't you tell me what those arbitrators had to say about CAL's attempt to cash in on their supposed gains in the three years after their merger. I will give you a hint; they said that the merger closed in October 2010 and anything that happened after that was the result of a single merged airline. It simply didn't matter what occurred after that time. Oh, and who was the head arbitrator in that case? Well I think it was Dana Eischen, a name that should become much more familiar to you in the near future. But hey, I am sure it will work out differently in your case.
Well, so much for someone not going of on a "personal attack tangent". "Ignorant", 'spouting off" ? This paragraph seems to reveal some negative
emotion creeping in, so I'll just move on...........
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
So you can place my opinion in whatever category you want. I can at least say I have directly observed multiple seniority arbitrations and have studied every seniority arbitration dating back to the 1960's. I am not a lawyer and I don't give legal opinions, I can just read what has happened numerous times in the past and guess what will happen into the future. Your opinions lack any basis in historical fact and seem mostly to be generated on what would be best for you.
Your opinion is noted. As for what's best for me, I've run the DOH and ratios methods just for kicks and the percentages don't change that much. A hybrid that includes the 3 ALPA factors weighted as per the UAL-CAL is also in the ball park. Most importantly though, is I know that ultimately I as an individual will likely have no input to the final list and so I'm grounded in reality and not assumptions and hypotheticals like others seek to embrace. I'm sorry if my differing opinion upsets you.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
This is not about pleasing parties. The West pilots had rights; rights that were established with the Nicolau award. Those rights were NEGOTIATED away. If the end result of that negotiation, however decided, do not match the rights they had before, they have a ripe DFR case and the parties that will pay damages are APA and AMR. This is not about making people happy, it is about contractual rights that were negotiated away. Tell me what the courts said in Rakestraw vs. ALPA and the associated seniority cases that followed. Give me that report and then study the following seniority cases and let me know your opinion after that.
I have no idea where you think I state the arbitrators will factor in "pleasing" anyone and in fact, I've stated the opposite. Reading the UAL-CAL award, they go out of their way to explain that that fair and equitable is the litmus and not pats on the back. This tells me that once again, someone has stopped reading my posts and reverted to reacting to them. For someone who claims to be a Senior Delta pilot, you now sound like a fervent West pilot vehemently disputing any opinion against the Nic.
Do you have a friend or loved one you are supporting ?
Nothing wrong with that, but considering where this post of yours has morphed and what it reveals (to me anyway), I see bias. Nothing personal, but I simply do.
Originally Posted by
alfaromeo
If you are going to give amateur legal advice, at least do some study before offering it. Clearly you have not read anything of significance that relates to this case and are just making it up on the fly.
Jesus. Show me ONE post where I give LEGAL "advice". I've repeatedly stated I'm just a pilot with an opinion, so once again you bely the fact that aside from getting emotional, dabbling in the very personal attacks that you cautioned me on and exhibiting bias, you still haven't REALLY read a damn thing I've said.
It's OK...........we airline pilots aren't known for our astute observations.
