Originally Posted by
Bad-Andy
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.
*sigh*
This isn't an integration of Wall street players (or management). Of greater interest (and seemingly more relevant) is how any such corporate "financial performance" would have translated to the
Pilots financial performance, namely the thickness of their wallets going forward separately vs. combined
. It is my assertion that unlike UAL and CAL, the pilots of both East and West pre-merger compensation wallowed WELL below that of legacy standards and that was due to the FRAGMENTED operations of a single entity, yet operationally split carrier. You appear to assert AA was in collapse and AA pilots careers were in decline due to furloughs (that never occurred) and was saved by US Airways, I disagreed with that.
The point was the subjectivity of opposing opinions and the fact they are essentially meaningless. If history is any teacher, the arbitrators almost universally consider that aspect (as per UAL-CAL), the only question is to what degree ?
Again, my point was that there are multiple subjective pilot opinions on each carriers pre-merger status and future and none of ours counts. The arbitrators will determine that value, if any and so why work yourself into a lather ?
Originally Posted by
Bad-Andy
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.
Now it is me having no idea of what you are trying to say. On one hand, you're arguing the certainty of AA's pre-merger weakness in conjunction with US Airways lack of weakness and now based on the above you seem to agree on the subjectivity of it all and that was my point. Considering that, why have you not recognized yet that BOTH of our opposing opinions on this are meaningless ?
Originally Posted by
Bad-Andy
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?
I did ?
Where have I said that and specifically WHO will they not "undermine" ?
Originally Posted by
Bad-Andy
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.
It DOES hold up because the team that orchestrated the destruction of AA pilots pensions and (hopefully) retiree medical (the two biggest financial benefits of AA's C11) was Horton's team, not Parker's. In fact, above you reiterate my contention is WAS a "strategic" bankruptcy and not one typical of a business that had little future as a going concern. But again, WHY are you asserting something you see as certainty and then diffuse that by highlighting the its subjectivity ?
Perhaps there is a bit of SELECTIVE interpretation going on, eh ?
Originally Posted by
Bad-Andy
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...
No, it's YOUR assertion that both carriers needed the merger EQUALLY. Others can make a viable assertion that each carriers NEED of the other was NOT equal. That's not to say both benefitted from the merge, just that what was brought to the party was not one of absolute equality. I understand your desire to see this merger as one of equals, but I don't think the arbitrators will. If you read the UAL-CAL award, you'll note that in THAT case the committees demonstrated that each carrier had strengths and weaknesses, but overall neither was superior to the other. The considerations to assist them was information THEY quantified including not only economic background, including global alliances and hubs, but economic status and prospects at merger closing date including financial status, fleet compositions and pilot staffing.
Will this panel come to the same conclusion that pre-merger US Airways was equal in all respects to pre-merger American Airlines ?
Personally, I don't think so, but they might as anything is possible. If you want to believe they were, I'm not stopping you, but I'm sorry, I just can't agree with it. Perhaps the arbitrators will agree with you on this instead of me ?
Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable they'll get this aspect of the SLI dead-bang on target.