Originally Posted by
Andrew_VT
So where is the legal basis or justification for moving all AA guys up a grouping ''vis-a-vis 50%"? (Besides saying the word 'Superior' repeatedly). Why vis-a-vis 50% and not 40%, or 63.7%? Where are the charts showing that mathematically that produces the fair result. AA so very obviously pulled this out of their backsides. Do you honestly think a panel of 3 arbitrators would just say "yeah we don't need all that math stuff, moving AA guys up exactly half a grouping seems about right."
There are no charts that could show what produces a "fair result" as that standard is subjective depending on ones position and situation. Look, it's obvious (to me anyway), BOTH the East and West proposals want the arbitrators to disregard any consideration of "pre-merger career expectations". Why ?
Because it's a known concept that HAS previous consideration in other SLI's and is the major "equity" that favors what the AAPSIC and most LAA pilots consider that they "brought" to the merger. The two pre-merger US Airways committees are unified in that don't want the arbitrators to look BACK, but instead look only FORWARD. The West committee seeks to muddy what AA pilots brought to the merger and instead disregard that and weigh in its place what they consider more important and which just happens to maximize West pilots placement against LAA pilots (the Nic massacres the East for them) that being just PMCE redefined as "merger expectations". They then hinge that on a 35/65% methodology of Longevity/Stat & Cat to make that happen using concepts that favor them against AA pilots.
Similarly, the East committee also anchors their desires on the merger being "one of equals" in the attempt to nullify any inequities brought TO the merger and disregard PMCE instead, redefining it as "pre-merger career progression" basing it also on only a forward-looking POST merger playing field with a 50/50% of the same self-benefitting mathematics. Just as I disagree with the claims made by the other two committees, I would expect you to disagree with what the AAPSIC is arguing. The arbitrators will be able to sort through the claims and determine what is fair. Our opinions are subjective and so will the committees to various degrees, The arbitrators are paid to listen, evaluate and rule. If you are confident in your committees "mathematics" as being the foundation for "fair" (subjective) and more importantly "equitable" (less subjective), you shouldn't be concerned. Heck, some here have already christened the West proposal as THE ISL, so if you're West, rest easy as it's a done deal and if your East, the West ISL (soon to be the New AA ISL) isn't so bad, well, except for the Nic.
