A New Idea for SLI Merger Arbitration Hearing
 

I will immediately offer full disclosure and state that I am not an American nor a USAir pilot. I am, however, a 17 year veteran of the industry, and have been with United for a little over a year. I was hired just prior to the SLI announcement, and I did not have a dog in that fight anymore than I have one in the USAir/AMR one.

That said, my late father was an attorney and an arbitrator/mediator, and we discussed his work extensively, so I have a bit of a deeper understanding of the way the process works than most, and one thing I get really tired of hearing is the accusations of the arbitrators being "bought off" by one side or the other. In truth, that just doesn't happen.

That said, as the US/AMR SLI process unfolds, I'd like to offer the following concept.

Instead of arguing the SLI merits in front of a single group of 3 or 5 arbitrators, go ahead and pay the money to argue the case in front of 4 separate sets of 3 or 5 panel arbitrators. Each would act as though they are deciding the case.

Once the arguments are complete, each panel will go into deliberations and decide the case as they see fit.

When all 4 groups have completed their work, one will randomly be selected as the the final decision, and they will present it as such. Once the decision is rendered, the remaining panels will present their own decisions.

The point is this: the chances are that all 4 panels will render decisions that are either the same or very nearly so. This should--in theory--alleviate concerns of the non-existent "buy off," and demonstrate that the appropriate law (and case law) will have been applied equally, fairly, and properly.

It's just food for thought, and it will not eliminate the crazy conspiracy theories that will inevitably come up, but it will help all parties to provide the most focused arguments they can, while at the same time providing some reassurance that, under the law and NOT UNDER THE CLOUD OF EMOTION, nobody is getting an unfair deal.

I'm not planning on doing a lot of responding to the replies to this thread. I'm simply using it as a conversation starter for something outside the box, a new tool that might be used in this and future mergers.

Ladies and gentlemen....start your engines! :rolleyes:

Its a great idea, but the fact is that APA and USAPA have no motivation to do an SLI because AMR and the East are the ones with all the retirements, so DOH just clicks along the longer this is tied up in court. Why rush off to arbitration?

By the way, I'm not planning on doing a lot of responding to the replies to this thread. :D

How many billable hours would that be for 4 separate panels?

3 panels of say 3 each = say $300 per hour. X 2 weeks. 8 hours per day including lunch.

It is a great idea. $30K ish.

Runaway Jury was on TBS last night.

The point of arbitration is not primarily fairness. It is partly about efficiency and finality. Not sure the proposal helps that.

Secondly, the issues here are complex so I think there really could be a fair bit of divergence in awards.

Anyways, this already is getting sucked into court. USAPA in particular needs to drag this out if they can, and the company agreed to provided the raises pre-SLI so what's the rush to arb?

SCS is the next milestone. Let's see if/when that happens. We're getting up there in dates.

So here's a question that probably has no answer.... I'm a new hire that is completely lost in this process. What is the outlook on SLI completion? Does this go to arbitration a certain time after JCBA? I've heard claims between 6 months to 2 years, but I'm not sure what the determining factor will be.... Any simple explanation for the clueless?

The end of 2015 is the absolute earliest, the most likely is several more years due to lawsuits holding it up it court. That is not what you want to hear but it is reality.

Everything is based off the "effective date" which is Dec. 9th 2013(I think?). The MOU has provisions to end the SLI process 24 months after the effective date.

I'm sure USAPA will find a way to stall it though.

You don't have a clue. APA does not worry about their WB flying (opinions of three different formerly senior Captains now happily retired). It will be protected. Your "regional" does not have enough WB flying to even make an effort to go after. APA's primary concern is allowing USAPA labor crap on their property and USAPA's idea that they will matter after SCS. USAPA is but a flea to be kept away. It will be. And the Native American pilots will have their WB flying.

You don't understand how arbitration works. The billable time is not just while the arbitrator holds formal talks with the parties, the majority of time is researching and studying the data and compiling the results . Even with a army of paralegals THAT takes a lot of time. That is where the cost comes from. For something like a SLI for major airlines, plan on at least 2-4 million dollars.

This is correct. "Fairness" is NOT a promise that can be kept. You do the arbritration as fair as possible for all involved, but that does not mean it will be "fair" to all involved. Or any for that matter.

I looked briefly at the filings in the DC court case. Personal opinion from a retired attorney. USAPA flied a junk tactical suit. The only purpose is to delay things. I would suspect to capture more attrition for the East pilots. This might not last as long due to standing issues. If the court throws out the suit it goes back to who has designated legal authority to decide things. I would suspect the reason for filing in DC is the attorney knows that court and it's operation. He will have an idea how much time it will buy (and being in his hometown cheaper on the client). If lucky the delay will last until USAPA dissolves, leaving the West with no one to sue (the strategic goal). Could be wrong but I don't think I am. USAPA would be liable to the West for this, but if they are out of business West is SOOL.

ETA- I don't do third grade banter so I won't be replying to irate shallow "fun and games".

I would think that if a protocol agreement is reached in mediation that starts next week, we will also see a global settlement between the APA and USAPA that will lead to the withdrawal of the lawsuits. Then it's on to finishing the JCBA, then the SLI. I think if they reach a protocol agreement, this thing will pick up speed and be finished quicker than most think... I don't see this dragging out for years as some seem to believe. Possibly early next year.

According to the MOU, the JCBA should be done by the middle of December at the latest. POR was 12-9-2013. APA had 120 days to file for single carrier. They filed 1-15-2014. The MOU estimated 6-8 months for a determination. That puts it between July 15th and Sept 15th. Using the outside estimate of Sept., we then negotiate for 30 days. That would end Oct. 15th. Then 60 days for arbitration puts the finished JCBA at Dec. 15th.

Then it's on to the SLI. I think with a protocol agreement in place, the sides may agree on a list or take it to arbitration. I personally think a lot of the list will be agreed upon. There will be a few sticking points that will be left for an arbitrator to decide. Either way, I'm betting we have a SLI early in 2015...

My contention all along. Some think USAPA will stall the SLI for years, but I don't think so. It will go to arbitration as there are several issues too complex for negotiation, so that won't be an issue of a few "sticking points". I've said summer-early fall 2015 for SLI completion and I still believe that.

I've got my fingers crossed...

And toes...

Agreed. Just a hunch... Think USAPA may be coming to the conclusion that they would be better off playing nice.

Their argument fails as badly as the same argument when it was used against them.

Stall...? That is a an ignorant charge.

It is USAPA that petitioned the NMB to provide a list of arbitrators to begin SLI arbitration, pursuant to MB.

And in case you didn't notice, the NMB provided that list of arbitrators months ago (despite the APA argument opposing the NMB), pursuant to their obligation to do so according to MB.

It is the APA that has demonstrated an unwillingness to begin SLI arbitration. The APA has stalled at performing their obligations.

The NMB is not run by idiots. (Mr. Daniel Rainey, Chief of Staff, National Mediation Board, agreed with the issuance of the list of arbitrators in April, and assembled the parties to his office on 23 July to suggest private mediation).

It should escape no one's notice...

The current parties to the NMB-suggested mediation are the same parties that received the NMB-issued list of arbitrators for MB arbitration.... and it is these same parties that will participate in MB arbitration, willingly or by court order.

NMB is a joke. Bought and paid for lackeys. They run roadblock to using the RLA the way it was intended, to protect labor rights while preserving services. It's all been lost except the preserving services at all cost.

Ok. Lackeys but not idiots. They will follow the law and court orders.

The APA made a mistake counter suing to have unilateral control of the SLI at SCS (unless delay is their strategy). To "preserve service" I would suppose the NMB might be reluctant to declare SCS until the APA demonstrates an intention to follow the law they necessitated. The mediation is a way to move the red tape along, albeit at the speed of bureaucracy.

PT,

Glad you're an expert on APA mistakes. It seems to be a common theme from your side. Your side dumped your dysfunctional shotgun marriage in APA's lap and have started blaming it for the associated problems.

A New Idea for SLI Merger Arbitration Hearing
 

I say out with the APA and USAPA. We need a card drive after SCS. I'd love to see a real union on property...maybe the Teamsters. There's enough disenfranchised pilots in both memberships. It just might work.

Please, please, please hook me up with those mushrooms, you are tripping balls.

A New Idea for SLI Merger Arbitration Hearing
 

Hey. We can all dream.

Not sure if many are aware that if USAPA had one list and a strong unified union, it would have had a decent chance winning enough votes from the AA side to win a representation vote.

A New Idea for SLI Merger Arbitration Hearing
 

That was made very clear to me by a couple of ex-TWA guys that graciously allowed me on their jumpseat a while back. Alas, USAPA is the one union on God's green earth with more disfunction than APA. But, I still think an outside union would stand a decent chance of winning a representation vote. (I admit it will likely never happen, though.)

The APA isn't required to like the RLA or the MB statute, but everyone is required to follow it. The delay they have chosen helps all except PHX pilots.

I'm sure the impact on PHX pilots is just collateral and coincidental.

Staunch Usapians consider EVERYONE else's actions to be mistakes if they defy the Usapian agenda. Why should other unions be different from arbitrators, managements, judges and the general sentiment of the rest of the industry ? :rolleyes:

A New Idea for SLI Merger Arbitration Hearing
 

PL,

Please don't label whole groups of people.

Stop the hate.

Don't forget that eaglefly has been on property(er um flowthrough) for about a year now and he is an EXPERT on everything.

He claims to know the "general sentiment of the industry"... If he can quantify that (and any predictable impact it has) he is certainly more of an expert than I ever hope to be.

I much prefer the law, as it is unaffected by sentiments... Indeed the law tends to exacerbate sentiments. :D

Usapians aren't "whole groups of people", just a venomous few, some of whom are here on this forum and I have no "hate". It's interesting you completely overlook the same action from one of your own criticizing outward. Speaking of venom, I see you're using initials. It would thus seem you think you know my identity and are either surreptitiously communicating that to me as a form of veiled intimidation or trying to out me. I must tell you your misguided attempt has failed miserably in either goal. It does however serve to validate my perceptions of some of the very Usapians I criticize as attempting something like that (even in faliure), proves exactly what I'd expect from a forum Usapian like you.

Many of you guys have more then your share of hate. :cool:

You prefer the law ?

Please. You can't even abide by binding arbitration.

Don't fret.......I got your message. :rolleyes: Its the tired old and frequent assertion for some of you guys of my being a flowthru (meaning I didn't "er um" earn my present position) equating with either not having the right to dissenting opinion or that I think I'm an expert on "everything", of which neither claim is valid.

All this "where did you come from " crap is just white noise; meaningless.

Sorry dude. As it stands today, your side is represented by USAPA and it's demands for APA to be responsible for USAPA real estate fees and any legal costs for DFR. Where is that in the MB legislation?

I will also note that their side has lobbed more inflammatory, irrational, seemingly Fukishima meltdown PMS inspired forum post bombs than any APA member.

Good luck neutering your crazies.

IPhone'ism Duplicate post

Eagle, I don't want you to feel intimidated. APC, is a safe place and I doubt anyone here means any harm towards you. Otherwise, know this community, and especially newAA pilots would race to have your back. Project Wingman is a great example of this.

My original message was a mobile phone typo: "Please, please don't label whole groups of people..."

You should not judge groups of people as being better or worse based on actions they are not associated with. 800 USAPA pilots came after the East/West fiasco. If your ideas are strong than let them stand on their own free of insult. I know it's convenient, but let's all pretend to have higher emotional intelligence, and communicative skill. Let's take a step back from the Westicals, East Hole, Usapaian mantras.

I'm appealing to everyone with my above post.

Mobile phone typo ?

Please.........or should I say, "PLease,

Please ? :cool:

I've made those and we all make those, but two capitals, THEN a comma followed THEN by a large paragraphical gap ?

Uh-huh, sure.........we both know that wasn't any "typo". If you do some research on other threads, you'll find similar failed attempts to intimidate me by erroneous outing including initials and even nicknames, but at least they were honest about what they were trying to do and not hiding behind baloney like that.

.....and you wonder why I come to some of the conclusions I do ?

While were improving our emotional intelligence, how about addressing our ethical standards ? :rolleyes:

I've stated this before, but I've met many apparently decent pilots from both sides of the US Airways fence, so I have nothing against any "group" per se and all of those I've met were present USAPA members.