Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1571108)

Reading this whole post, it sounds like you are advocating the Usapian position that DOH (or a methodology that supports that) must be used in the SLI, otherwise why would you seek with seeming urgency this information?
Of course, some Usapains claim here, "oh no, we aren't clinging to that........not us". :cool:
Not surprising and expected, even by APA by the way. For the record, Eagle pilots DID NOT "strip" anyone of anything, it was Eagle ALPA that disputed the TWA flowback situation. I get kicked around pretty good for sticking my nose in East/West Nic squabbles and am frequently told to mind my own business, yet when it occurs in reverse, that's apparently fair ground for a Usapian or their sympathizers. What essentially occurred with the Nicolau FLO-0108 situation was Eagle ALPA's disputing that former TWA pilots had flow back rights to Eagle when they weren't part of that agreement and AMR and APA unilaterally decided they were. That was a FOUR party agreement and four parties didn't agree to that interpretation and when it was forced anyway they cried foul. Nicolau opined that if they were, then Eagle pilots had were entitled to an equal number of new-hire positions at AA and that's how the bottom "chunk" of Eagle flows were awarded their AA seniority (all at the very bottom of the AA list). Many of TWA pilots who DID flow back to Eagle BTW, did so with FULL LOS for pay and were at 18-year pay as opposed to many of the AA native flow backs who were only at 1-2 year captains pay rates.
Yes, but only with USAPA, and any AA pilots on involuntary/voluntary furlough status at the time of the merger.

Pilots who opted to take a voluntary furlough have pre-merger career expectations above involuntarily furloughed pilots. This does not trigger an AA list reordering, but it does put voluntary pilots in a relatively better position to involuntary furloughed pilots when the list is integrated with LAWE pilots. Does this make sense?

APA is expecting USAPA to most likely argue DOH or a supporting methodology should be a factor in the SLI. USAPA is virtually certain to attempt to argue for an integration that WILL try to dilute the seniority of both AA furloughees due to what they believe is a loss of longevity for time on furlough and to Eagle flows for what they believe to be a loss of longevity due to delay in beginning their training at AA. That doesn't mean the APA will agree or that arbitration will result in that, it will simply be their assertion. If USAPA were successful though in arguing for longevity adjustments for AA furloughees and/or flows, it WOULD result in a "reordering" of the AA list. What WILL be in play is the concept of "career expectation" and once you start reordering a seniority list, then you muddy up the pre-merger career expectation snapshot of any given pilot, so it then gets complicated as to meet one party's belief of longevity adjustment negatively impacting a pilot on the post merger list (misguided IMO), you violate another party's belief of career expectations on their pre-merger list.

Yes, the above will likely be the belief of USAPA (just as it yours), but APA will almost certainly argue the opposite. Who knows, perhaps APA will make arguments on why certain East pilots (or even West pilots depending on what USAPA throws down on the table as their "list") should also have "adjustments" made to their positions on whatever list USAPA presents ?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I don't believe an AA bypass pilot position would be frozen, but it would remain relatively constant to that of the next pilot senior to him and so on. Of course, you are 100% correct! We agree on something! :p
Maintaining pre-merger career expectations will be the ultimate goal. Exactly HOW that occurs is the "art" (as an APA rep put it). The DL/NW SLI was fairly quiet because it was a merger od two essential equals and the UAL/CO SLI had it's OWN issues, many aspects of which may not apply to this merger. The LCC/AWA SLI never occurred, so I can't see how that factors in, other than the bad taste in the NMB's mouth from past dealings with USAPA. There is no "precedent" when it comes to SLI's and so one could try to argue what occurred in SLI X or Y should apply, but history shows that if you look at the last 10 SLI's over the last decades, they all had differences in argument and outcome. The only two concepts that M-B will promote is a result that is "fair and equitable" and one that preserves the "career expectations" of as many pilots as possible. of course, both sides will have THEIR idea of what those two should be and hopefully the arbitrator will disregard the bulls%&t.


The LCC/AWA ISL has yet to (and may never) be put into effect, but the Nicolau ISL arbitration you advocate on behalf of West pilots did occur. In this case Nicolau was legally bound to use the May 19, 2005 merger announcement date of LCC/AWA. DAL/NWA and UAL/CAL arbitrators were also legally bound to use their merger announcement dates to establish conditional notice for accurate pre and post merger career expectations.

Concepts such as a merger announcement conditional notice is a fundamental legal matter. It is true that these mergers to "turn on their own events," but don't use this as an excuse to set unrealistic expectations.

Originally Posted by flybywire44 (Post 1571740)

Third list pilots should NOT be senior to any West pilots.

I highly doubt USAPA will attempt to do this.

Originally Posted by 70Espada (Post 1571591)

I think he might have been comparing the fact that TWA was failing to the fact US was about to liquidate. :D

Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle (Post 1571589)

We get it. The former LAS and PHX crews do 25% of their flying on CLT, PHL, DCA routes. We totally get it.

Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle (Post 1571766)

We have so-called third listers as captains.. heck, we have new hires as captains... Who is gonna flush them?

There really is no third list.. There are only two lists at USAir recognized in the MOU and in the bidding.

The only way to argue the so called third listers should not keep their relative position (senior to the West who have lower relative positions) is to argue the West should be credited with their LOS or DOH. Far be it from me to force the concept of LOS or DOH on the West. Let the West make their own argument. Their demand for relative position is just fine. :D

Originally Posted by Dolphinflyer (Post 1571922)

Any wag as to how much the East flies on former AWA routes? :confused:

Originally Posted by Dolphinflyer (Post 1571922)

Any wag as to how much the East flies on former AWA routes? :confused:

Originally Posted by 757HI (Post 1571948)

This hypocritical thinking is why the east is so highly regarded by the rest of the industry.:cool:

Originally Posted by flybywire44 (Post 1571753)

Eaglefly, we have been victimized by a lack of context. I want to clarify my last post, because your replies strike me as incongruent.



They're gonna need to take our keyboards away from us Eaglefly.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1572402)

Good Lord, I don't know where to begin with this post. It looks like a pepperoni pizza from Little Caesars. I'm not going to waste my time on the crust and sauce, but will comment on the pepperoni, that being YOUR opinion of what Eagle PILOTS did and/or are responsible for. For the record, I don't criticize all East pilots for what USAPA does nor hold all of them accountable and thus there is no hypocrisy in my comments. We both know unions frequently act paternalistically in opposition to the will of their members or act in ways that the membership is unaware of until after the fact. The TWA flow back to Eagle situation is no different. I don't understand when you say Eagle pilots stripped TWA pilots of seniority. I've heard that argument about APA, but not Eagle ALPA and especially not Eagle PILOTS. I realize you have the TWA situation dear to your heart, but I believe you are biased because of that. Perhaps you could clarify your claims on this subject for me ?

On the AA/U SLI you seem to represent your opinion as fact and appear to BE the arbitrator for the upcoming SLI. On that I'm sorry, but I see simply one more opinion. I DO consider some "hybrid" (AKA "dynamic") SLI methodology very possible though, but just because you may be aware of what USAPA will advocate doesn't mean that will be successful or won't be altered by the arbitrators. I'd like to give you more credibility in your SLI declarations, but when I see your misguided and inaccurate bias regarding what Eagle line pilots supposedly did to TWA pilots, I find myself tuning you out.

You certainly are entitled to your opinion though.