Originally Posted by
eaglefly
I was waiting for someone to demonstrate my point. Congrats......you're it.
The point was AA's pre-merger situation just as US Airways is speculative and subjective based on ones position and interests. Read the UAL-CAL SLI award and you'll see both those parties did the very same thing there too.
There is just as much documentation that AA flush with over 6 billion in cash at time of filing was simply exercising a strategic bankruptcy to absolve themselves of undesirable labor debt and obligations as opposed to a purely financial one. Both Boeing and Airbus had zero problem inking deals with AA for close to 1000 aircraft orders and options 6 months prior to filing. A better question regarding US Airways fragmentation, is what was the expected timeline to combine the two separate operations ?
After all, it is the only airline still not merged close to a decade after committing to do so with no end in sight. Call me crazy, but that seems pretty fragmented to me, but again, it matters little what we as individual pilots or even the Integration committees assert or claim. Just as in UAL-CAL, the panel will have little difficulty assessing those factors and discarding the subjective claims. Of all the complex issues involved in this SLI, pre-merger financial conditions present and future are among the easiest to quantify. It may be they place little emphasis on that aspect anyway, so try not to get too worked up over this issue.
I just re-read your post and have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say... I made your point by asking a simple question? -- and you still did not answer it. Every analyst article I can find seems to disprove your assertion that US was fragmented (in terms of financial performance). If anything, the fragmented pilot group made Wall Street quite happy (and rich). Happy Wall Street = long life.
As for dismissing subjective claims, one would hope so -- that's why they are called "neutral" arbitrators. Their "job" is to examine every aspect of the merger, based on precedent (which, by the way includes career expectations). Who knows how much weight they will place on these expectations -- 5%, 10%, 25%? Who knows. Anyone that claims that they know exactly how much it will be weighted is as crazy as anyone that claims it won't have any bearing at all. After all, if you read all of the most recent arbitration results, it was at least considered.
You keep suggesting that the arbitrators will not undermine one of their own. Well, I would agree. Which is exactly why they will consider a myriad of things -- including career expectations. Their counterparts did just that in previous arbitrations. So why would it be any different this time?
As for AA's 6 billion in cash and the suggestion that the bankruptcy was a means to shred the labor contracts, that doesn't hold up when compared to the current negotiated contracts. If they meant to reduce labor costs, we would not see agreements like the F/A's T/A or own MOU, restoring (even raising) those costs. I would argue that the BK was meant to shed more long-term debt and be used a leveraging tool to lower other costs, which we see maintained throughout the merger (i.e. reducing supplier costs, outsourcing more, etc.). It was a strategic bankruptcy meant to bring overall costs in-line with competitors. How would that have played out for you? I have no idea, but I'm willing to bet it would not have been good.
The simple fact is that both airlines needed the merger equally -- the employees at AA to avoid additional outsourcing and layoffs, and US for increased revenue streams which ensure long-term survival. The question is, how will the arbitrators view those very different prospects? That is grounds for a beer (or bottle of rum) bet...