So many choices to divert to would certainly confuse us.

Yes relay I'M SERIOUS. Please read TA 9 were Richard Block said there is NO third list!!! just one east list and one west list. USAPA came up with the slang term 3rd List. It's just a name and another way to divide our pilot group. The point I am trying to make here is that usapa has done more to alienate the pilots hired after 2005 at usairways east than have done to help them. By dividing the seniority list the way usapa has done has only hurt everyone by keeping everyone fighting rather than bring us together to get something good accomplished. That's why you can't get a constitutional vote or enough people interested to vote for a change in the usapa constitution and by-laws.

I know that APA has one list. They don't have a AA list and an Eagle List, a third or fourth list etc.... they have one list that they are going to present to the arbitrator. We have how many????

All of us 3rd listers know its not a real list. But the name is 3rd listers and will continue to be so. There ARE 3rd listers at east and west, regardless of numbers.

Why would you bring up an eagle list? Those guys have their own separate seniority list and company. Eagle isn't being merged here.

He is talking about Eagle flows to AA.

That was actually pretty funny! Bravo!:D

Eagle flows on property or eagle flows at eagle? People are never clear on this.

Obviously the Eagle flows on property at whatever snapshot date is set, guys at Eagle prior to that date, even if scheduled to flow, would not be included on a list up to that date.

I've read it. It made wonder why USAPA reordered the west furloughed that came east. But, I thought you said US had one list. The west is US too.

I also know the term 3rd list is internal, but the understanding was that those hired after the US/AW merger would all go below hired prior to the merger, from both sides. Will the MOU and PA change all that? Is that null and void too? I don't know.

Did you see my post where I asked west pilots if they saw any pitfalls going into this separately? That's the main one I was wondering about.

I'm thinking the "3rd list" from the US/AWA merger may not be taken into consideration as 3rd listers. I believe that they will be considered part of the list they are on. I know that's not how it was supposed to happen, but it's really kinda tied to the Nic. The TA that created the Nic also defined how the "3rd listers" would be dealt with. Well, that TA is null. That nullifies the Nic as well as the 3rd list provisions.

When the East presents their singular list, it will contain a tremendous number of 3rd listers in EVERY aircraft type from 190 Captain to 330 FO. Those pilots, and the positions they occupy, are needed on the East list during integration.

I think the real "3rd list" pilots will be defined once the merger committees decide on a "constructive notice" date. Those pilots hired after that date will go in their proper order regardless whether they are at AA or the East or the West.

They have clearly stated that they have no role as CBA except the merger committee. They are staying in business(trying) to finish the lawsuits. AOL is appealing their loss. Shouldn't USAPA be able to answer that?

Will have to go back and look. I was thinking that you said the APA would dictate all the terms, and that hasn't happened. Compromise was reached.

I don't think I said you didn't know anything about the law, I asked if you were really a lawyer. :-) That was when you said Silver said it wasn't ripe and I still don't get that point.

Not sure what you mean about the money. Are you taking about above the amount allocated by the company?

"17. Pursuant to Paragraph 7 of the MOU, American shall reimburse the Merger Committees for expenses in an aggregate not less than $4 million to be shared equally by the Merger Committees."

Rest I pretty much agree with. 767s are gone, but A330s are relatively young. I think all aircraft will be redeployed.

Yes, USAPA should be able to answer for that.

I'd say let USAPA and Leonidas battle it out. There is only one union, the APA. Updates such as these are troubling:
Seniority Arbitration Board Members

In accordance with the terms of the seniority integration protocol agreement between APA, the US Airlines Pilots Association, American Airlines and US Airways, three arbitrators have been selected for the seniority arbitration board: Dana Eischen, Ira Jaffe and David Vaughn. If negotiations do not produce an integrated seniority list, the protocol agreement stipulates that the arbitration board "shall have the authority to establish a fair and equitable integrated seniority list as required by the McCaskill-Bond Act."

USAPA is a LLC, Leonidas is a LLC. Should Leonidas be allowed a seat at the table?

I'm not sure what bothers you about that. Usapa was the CBA of US pilots and a party to the PA(logical under MB ). All parties agreed to USAPAs place at the table, not so with AOL. But a compromise was reached to let a 3rd party decide the question of AOL participation. What's your issue?

Enter Content

Either widebody pilots are protected or they are not - regardless of the domicile.

Well, they'd be included, but slotted differently. Pilots added to any seniority list (new-hire & Flow thru not yet transferred) after whatever snapshot date is used (most likely the date of "constructive notice") will likely be considered "constructive notice" pilots and their slotting with similar pilots on the other lists will most likely go DOH. It has been understood in other SLI's that these pilots career expectations were based on the combined entity and not each carriers pre-merger condition or future. Constructive notice pilots on each of the 3 lists will maintain pre-merger relative seniority but likely be slotted based on DOH (class) and then by age.

It must be noted that prior to USAPA's dissolution...well, supposed dissolution, they participated in the JCBA negotiations and are listed jointly in the initial JCBA proposal recently sent to management. Regarding seniority, it seeks to define seniority for all pilots based on "occupational date" and any future references to seniority will be based on OCC date for all pilots. The East and West lists use DOH, so it would appear both APA and USAPA agree that that date will be converted to an OCC date (but still the same date). Of course, USAPA is seeking to still remain relevant in yet another one of its endless attempts to reneg on an agreement, so until the JCBA is ratified, anything could change.

As far as Eagle flows though, any future flow isn't on any AA seniority list and doesn't get on that list until first day of new-hire class.

No bump, no flush, but the traditional concept of "wide body" is likely to be changed in this SLI. 767's and A330's are held by VERY junior pilots (even new-hires in some cases) and do a good bit of flying that isn't true long haul, so protections there may be blurred. On the other hand, 777 and 787 on the AA side is very senior and thus "size" may not be the future litmus, but "long haul" flying typically done by 777, 787 and perhaps a portion of A330 on the East. If fences occur (protections), I'd expect them to be for Group IV 777, 787 and perhaps a portion of East A330 depending on future usage of that aircraft. 767 (757) won't likely have any fences (nor will A330 F/O), of course 757/767 aircraft is likely to have only 5-7 years left or so and ultimately replaced by A319's and A321's which are no different then the 737 pay-wise.

The majority of our future fleet will be Group II compensation (737, Airbus variants) with Group IV the long-haul "pinnacle" for pay. Group I is a wild card. Right now with only 20 aircraft in a 900+ aircraft fleet, that wouldn't seem to be a sustainable fleet and unless expanded significantly would likely be eliminated.

How many AA guys are constructive notice? I only see a few hired between 2001 and the merger approval date.

Liability primarily. Do all parties include the West pilots? Was the West included in the compromise? Initially, the APA was opposed to USAPA continuing as an entity. Now they are free to take all dues money under protest from the West pilots and continue business as usual?

I've spent time reading the updates on the Leonidas site. Click on those links:

September 2014.
Today, the NMB certified the Allied Pilots Association as the exclusive bargaining agent for all flight deck crewmembers of US Airways. You can read the NMB determination here. Effective immediately, USAPA no longer has the legal status of a collective bargaining agent.

USAPA is still in possession of a substantial amount of dues monies, collected from US Airways pilots for the purpose of collective bargaining - a purpose which they cannot fulfill anymore. A demand letter was sent on Friday September 12th to USAPA officers and counsel which notices USAPA for the remittance of all funds in excess to concluding USAPA's business as a exclusive bargaining agent required under the law. You can read the demand letter here.

Additionally, a Litigation Hold Letter was sent to USAPA attorney Brian O’Dwyer for the retention of all USAPA records.

Finally, we encourage all West pilots to apply for membership to our new collective bargaining agent. The APA has a convenient online application, which you can access here.

Thank you all for your continued support.


The APA has a DFR obligation to the West pilots as well. There are a lot of lawsuits, hold letters, demand letters and trouble in general I don't want to see the APA a part.

Constructive Notice pilots would be those hired (or in the case of flows, activated their seniority by training) AFTER the constructive notice date, not before. According to APA, no relative seniority on the AA list (and thus ANY of the lists) will be altered as a result of the ISL, but those Eagle flows who did transfer post merger with more senior OCC dates like 2001 (of which there were relatively few) may be slotted in (along with everyone junior to them on the AA list) more junior to East/West pilots then those who were on AA property at Constructive Notice they might normally would have had they been on property at CN.....or it may just modify that concept to protect the most senior native above the most junior CN flow to ensure his pre-merger career expectations are not dragged down by the presence of a more senior Eagle flow who didn't come across till post Constructive Notice. This scenario would actually likely elevate a block of very junior AA pilots HIGHER then they normally would be because of the seniority (2001) of that particular flow.

That's where the longevity argument comes in, but unlike ALPA merger policy for UAL-CAL, that factor isn't required to be part of this SLI and in reading the joint APA/USAPA JCBA proposal, the definition of future seniority for the combined group will be the traditional OCC date presently used at AA assuming East/West modification of their DOH's to that definition. If the new contract for all pilots (which must be in place FIRST, before any SLI negotiating) defines all pilots based on their present OCC date (presently DOH at East/West), it would seem to be another roadblock for arbitrators to consider any other date in their determination of how to dovetail pilots from the 3 carriers together or 2 in the unlikely case (my opinion) the Nic is ultimately adopted by the final arbitration panel.

Eagle..
Where are you saying these 2001 occ date guys (those not on AA property until after merger approval 12/13) fit in with respect to airways constructive notice pilots (hired between feb and dec 2013)?

It would appear the CN date would be 12/9/13 as the PA defines the seniority list information exchanged to reflect each carriers "status quo" as of that date. The most junior pilot (flow or otherwise) on the AA list with a present OCC date in 2001 was on property prior to that date (at least on the present list), so I don't think this issue applies to them anyway. There are about 300 pilots on the present list that were hired after 12/9/13 and so those pilots would be slotted (IMO) as CN pilots with U pilots (East/West) in the same situation of which there appear to be perhaps 200. Those flows at AA then(post 12/9/13) were part of a different agreement (824) and they don't get AA seniority till they actually start a class.

Everyone pre 12/9/13 would have a pre-merger career expectation based on their separate carriers as opposed to the combined entity. That expectation would include the aircraft they would have the opportunity to fly, the routes they would have the opportunity to fly, the timeline (if any) they'd have those opportunities based on their seniority and known retirements and their expected pay based on their then CBA, etc.......among other things. It would be the pre-merger pilots that will require the arbitrators to fairly dovetail together (some in blocks, others individually), but again, the complication is to benefit one group, you'll hurt another. For example, if the arbitrators were to slot a 2005 East "third-lister" ahead of a 2001 AA flow ostensibly because they didn't activate their training (time-in-seat longevity) until 2013, it hoses any legacy AA non-flow junior to him (remember he has a 2001 OCC date) as the separate lists will not be reordered and will maintain present relativity. So in that example, do they hose the legacy AA F/O (in fact, ALL legacy AA pilots junior to Eagle flow X by applying Eagle flow longevity to the factors in the integration or protect legacy AA pilot pre-merger career expectations by minimizing or even eliminating it. Same could be argued for furloughees on all sides.

That's why I think a hybrid list that maximizes pre-merger career expectations will have the most weight above other factors in constructing the ISL. If they adopted "leapfrogging" (rearrainging seniority lists), then I could see all kinds of whacky outcomes, but that would nullify the concept of pre-merger career expectations and essentially put a "DOH" model (by another method) in the drivers seat. It would also be the most likely to provide windfalls for some at the expense of others and if there's two concepts this final ISL will have (again, in my opinion) and SHOULD have is maintaining pre-merger career expectations and avoidance of windfalls.

:)I don't think the APA has anything to worry about on the DFR front. As a matter of fact, I think they handled that very well.

First off, until SCS they had no DFR to east or west, right? USAPA was the legally elected CBA of US pilots and they carried that burden. After SCS they do, and they wanted to give the west a seat. Here's the problem with that. They were negotiating with a group that didn't want to, and apparently wasn't going to. So they could wait untilt SCS and do what they wanted, but then the east pilots would have a good claim against them as there is a standing ruling from a federal judge saying that the west pilots didn't have the right to separate status, and that it would cause chaos if they got it. So that would have been a pretty bold step, opening up DFR liablity to the east. Now, Silver also said that the east wouldn't have a right to it either, but the difference is that all parties AGREED to that(It think all parties recognized that was nuts with MB). So, they compromised with the arbitration. Now they can say "We wanted to give them their own committee, but their CBA wouldn't agree to it, so we settled." I think this keeps their hands clean.

I think you said that you are fairly new to the east/west fight, but I will give you some advice. Take any AOL update with a grain of salt. They like to write these flowing diatribes, but they are almost always wrong.

AOL wants USAPA to shut down so they cannot speak for east pilots in the AII appeal, pure and simple. They threatened to sue, so USAPA asked for a DC. We'll see what the courts say.

Great post SewerPipeDvr, I'm impressed that you have integrity to look back and own your content in such a forward manor.

Impressive.

Dana Eischen says
So you think Dana is just going to abandon the Nic or forget when east west merged?

The Mou doesn't abandon the Nic. The mou simply moves the Nic. QUestion from the courts to the arbitrators.
The PA doesn't say that only the existing lists of December 2013 are allowed, the PA specifically says that the merger committees are free to put forth to the arbitrators any list they desire. The lists of 2013 mentioned by the PA are simply lists to list pilots on property at that time.

Can you provide a page and paragraph number?

Page 4, paragraph B

No, the Nic hasn't technically been abandoned and it will be decided by arbitrators. The APA and USAPA have a very short time to exchange "status quo" lists. The APA will give USAPA one list and USAPA will give APA two lists. That's what presently exists. If the first arbitration panel grants APA ability to appoint a West committee AND they do, the West can negotiate from any position it sees fit and absent an agreement (a virtual certainty if the Nic is in play from the West), the final arbitration panel will decide to use the Nic or reject it based on the facts of the PRESENT case record and the absence of ALPA merger policy past or present. The undeniable fact NOW, is that the only reason the Nic is even in consideration now is the merger with AA and integration with AA pilots. That fact cannot be denied and again, I think the arbitrators will have to assess whether the Nic creates more damage to AA pre-merger pilot expectations and if so, which ISL priority carries more weight and which negatively impacts the greatest number of pilots.

Again, IMO, use of the Nic will require an extensive and lengthy fence construction or a massive chunk of the Nic list going surprisingly junior on the ISL.

I'm not sure how you make that connection. If the West does get a seat, they will be responsible for their list. The East will be responsible for theirs. The West trying to use the Nic would basically be trying to say neither the West or the East list would be used. That kinda goes against what 2.b says...

The PA is quite specific on what can be negotiated. And there is no guarantee that this will ever even make it to the arbitration panel...

We're not even a week from APA's new status as CBA, and AOL has already popped this off to USAPA? This is not realistic. USAPA has long running financial agreements, which it must fulfill. There is also a continuity of civil matters, which USAPA may continue to oppose. I'm afraid for West Pilots. This letter strikes me more as a targeted marketing campaign for fundraising monies, than it is an effective threat.

West pilots may face more exposure in this integration than just losing Nic. I do highly encourage the West Pilot Class to settle with USAPA, APA, and American in exchange for a SLI pre-agreement that guarantees, among other things, that third-list pilots will not be placed above west pilots in this integration. Such an settlement could also vacate the Nicolau award, and establish a West Class Merger Committee.

Please note that I do not advocate that third-list plots should go ahead of any West pilots, but we are getting down to the 11th hour, and everything is on the table. ie. AOL wants Nic, and USAPA may go to great lengths to represent all of the pilots on the "status quo lists."


Cacti, eagle fly has been making a series of accurate posts this week, which is wonderful.

That being said, lets zoom out, and get away from this minutia. The ultimate customer of SLI is American Airlines. The arbitrators would provide a very poor product if upset the majority of pilots (AA+East) by awarding Nic... Don't you think?

Is it reasonable to assume that West pilots would be harmed by the Nicolai award is East+AA pilots collectively burned the house down? Obviously, this would never happen, but arbitrators and company will seek the most mutually beneficial solution.

These underlined statements may be misleading—I'm afraid they may unnecessarily stress some of the less than 500 AA natives whom these statements apply.

I believe you suppose that AE flows with relatively less sweat equity, and who did not hold a recall right may devalue the SLI value of legacy AA non-flow thru pilots who did/do hold a recall right. Is this correct?

AE flows, and any relatively junior AA native recalls will surely be credited their sweat equity, but at this most bottom portion of the seniority list what value did either group's longevity represent? Regardless of longevity, both demographics have the same net bidding power, and I believe arbitrators will take note of this.

How much percentage based movement was there between February 14th, 2013, and December 9th, 2013? Given this question, I am confident that the arbitrators won't devalue AAnatives relative seniority to their more senior AE flows. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last AA native recall class prior to December 9th, 2013 was November 20th, 2013? This illustrates the net value of these group's seniority value.

I also must point out, as I have in the past, that the Merger Announcement Date is the typical litmus test for delineating Conditional Notice pilots. If this applies to this merger, than the majority of the people you're writing about need not worry about these things.

Furthermore, if West Pilots (against all odds) gain representation they will assuredly demand a Merger Announcement Date Conditional Notice Snapshot for delineating pre/post merger pilots. This method was used in the UAL, DAL, and Nic SLI awards. So for all the arguments AA pilots may have made advocating west pilot representation...you may have devalued a MOU effective date method for inflating system-wide AA pilot relative seniority.

It's ironic, but it's out of our hands, and as a third list pilot I don't really care which snapshot is used as I personally feel that it makes no difference for junior AA/East pilots. The net value of bidding seniority is equally inflated on both sides during the February 14th, 2014 to December 9th, 2013 time frame. Assuming relative seniority inflation between the AA & East groups is constant between MAD, and MOU Effective days than what are we worried about?

I hope my late night thoughts prove constructive.

Respectfully,
FBW

No, the PA specifically says that anything can be negotiated/arbitrated. For some reason you are assuming that the dec 9th 2013 positions are "locked" that is not the case in any way shape or form.

I agree 100% with everything you say here so do our attorneys and AAG's Attorneys

This is where you go off the rails, the position of west pilots has ZERO bearing on any harm to American pilots. USAIRWAYS brings a fixed numbers of positions to the merger, it matters not wether west or east pilots hold those positions, period. Now you want to complicate things? Don't use the nic. because then you have furloughed west pilots flying FO in group 4 airplanes, airplanes which according to your logic senior west pilots cannot fly, it only gets more convoluted from there. Your concerns about west pilots flooding widebodies is completely unfounded, as everyone understands there will be fences and beyond the fences there will be a number of seats comensurate to the aircraft each side brings.Guess what? the west and east share all of usairways widebodies and the circuit breaker there is the "no bump no flush" provisions of the mou. Anyway you look at this, the Nicolau simplifies the US/AA integration and is more "equitable". Sewerpipedriver is a lawyer yet he omits one of the key tenants of law as well as arbitration, what was the "intent" of the contracts that were made? Usairways has been managed as a single company since 2005, this isn't opinion but legal fact, everything that happen after that date is as a single carrier. Now the arbitrators might ignore the Nic but do you honestly believe they will ignore our 2005 merger? Usapa escaped another DFR simply because they never got rid of the nic. for another seniority list, the MOU and PA pushed off the NIc. to the arbitrators since the legal system decided they could not decide. The intent of the MOU and PA both are clear, the arbitrators decide wether or not George Nicolaus arbitration should be used, period. (caveat being if west gets a seat)

USAPA agreed with him. That was one of their big selling points during the CBA election, that the Nic was a product of the ever changing ALPA merger policy.

What will be in front of this panel? If you guys get a seat and propose the Nic, that's not the status quo. It's never been used, and I don't see how you can miss Eagle Flys point.

Stop and think about that for a minute. People say seniority is everything but AGE is a close second. It's the reason some guys are jumping ship from B6 to come here... their Captains are too young and aren't retiring anytime soon. East Captains are very old. AA Captains are very old. West Captains much less so. AGE means the difference between retiring as a 777 Captain or retiring as an A320 F/O and potentially millions of dollars of future income. Hardly "ZERO bearing"! All told, in an ideal world, you want everybody who's senior to you, to be older than you! So they can retire and get out of your darn seat. The Nic would upset that apple cart and don't think APA hasn't noticed!

It's good that you hope obstinately. This is especially important during emergency landings, CAT 3 Approaches, and other critical situations where it all rests on your shoulders! easglefly has grown cold toward the Nic award. Eaglefly may believe Nic is the morally sound course of action, but the PA has objectively changed the landscape. Still you poo poo him.

Cacti, you stated: "what was the "intent" of the contracts that were made?" We live in a world where sometimes contracts are meant to be broken. Sometimes groups of people sign things they will make every effort to eventually renege on. Social security is a great example.

Yes, the airlines US Airways merged with American in 2005. But the then technically controlling US/AMWest TA evaporated with the AA/US MOU.

But what's more important than that may be the idea that arbitrators respond to incentive. (Hang on, we're zooming out again.) There are relatively fewer airlines remaining. It's more important than ever that arbitrators, who are chosen based on prior rulings, be considerate to the fact that companies, and unions often hire them with preference to past performance.

Beyond this merger American, and APA will shop for arbitrators again. It would be out side of an arbitrators best interests to upset American and APA with the Nicolau award.

Does this make sense? Incentives are a fairly simple concept. Ie. you love Nic because it incentives you, not because it was an "agreement." If you were a mid seniority East pilot who has ridden the coat tails of USAPA to fly the a330, and then upgrade on the a319 you'd be anti-Nic too! It's all incentives baby!

Lets hope for a mutually beneficial outcome. We need West, East, and AA pilots to all come out ahead on this one. You hoping for anything else may be more self serving here than you realize. We need a socialized arbitration award, and I full believe we will get one because arbitrators may be incentivized by AMR and APA's desires for social harmonization of labor.

Okay, I'm off to accomplish something tangible! God bless you Cacti.

Hang in there everyone!

The NIC would absolutely have an impact on the AA pilots. Using any method of integration with and without the NIC would show the impact.

Not in the context of excluding the Nic. Let's look at the most likely reality; The West ultimately get a negotiating committee. If and when that occurs, APA gives them the same seniority list info as they gave USAPA based on a status quo date of 12/9/13. I suppose USAPA exchanges seniority list info with the West and technically the West would be required to do the same as per the PA. They then negotiate to trim as many disputes as possible from the list and then meet in arbitration to present their list of remaining disputes and begin the process of arguing their integration positions before the arbitrators.

The West will only recognize the Nic (they're committed to that as to inject optionability now is to essentially admit THEY believe the Nic isn't a requirement) and so any integration position with AA pilots will be based on that list. The East will never recognize the Nic and so their integration position with AA and the West will be based on some other ideal. APA will likely propose a pre-merger career expectation list that minimizes windfalls to any subgroup of pilots at the expense of others. The beauty is that any positions discussed in negotiations between themselves are confidential. The award will be final and binding on ALL pilots.

I think the only guarantee of the Nic NOT reaching arbitral consideration is if the West is not granted a merger committee.

Well, my point is that incorporation of the Nic presents more challenges for the arbitration panel in constructing the ISL that wouldn't be there without it. If the West plops the Nic down as their one list to merge with AA pilots considering it puts many West narrowbody F/O's (to say nothing of captains) in high percentile positions that given the Nic list couldn't be reordered (if accepted) who might end up senior to many AA legacy pilots with more time in seat and making (and expecting future) substantially higher pay, there will have to be compensation factors.

In simpler terms, the Nic benefits the most 1700 pilots that pre-merger (like it or not) were flying for essentially a one domicile LCC operation with top pay substantially below that of AA and whose order/option/retirement schedule in conjunction with the likely reality of remaining in that situation for many years to come would arguably produce a windfall for those 1700 at the expense the other 13,500 and most certainly the 10,000 at AA.

Will the arbitrators put the interests of this 1700 as a top priority at the expense of the massive majority ?

That is the question. Again, personally, I don't think so.


Well, the UAL-CAL CN litmas WAS Merger Announcement Date (MAD), but that was at agreement of the parties. I suppose it could be MAD here, but then why have status quo determined at date of merger consummation ?

I dunno, perhaps by agreeing to the consummation date, it minimizes this issue ?

Remember, my statements are based on the apparent reality that none of the 3 seniority lists (or 2 in the case of the Nic being applied) will be reordered and so as one of the complexities in this SLI, one pilot's relativity at AA (or US Airways) could theoretically lift the tides of some of those presently junior below him (to varying degrees depending on the dovetailing of blocks of pilots or a finer individual dovetailing) or likewise that pilot could sink those presently below him should his longevity (time in seat) be heavily weighed. Since leapfrogging won't occur, groups of junior pilots at all of the carriers may win or lose depending on how this factor is applied. Looking at the lists, this issue doesn't seem to apply to pilots senior to about '98 at AA, in other words it will be an F/O issue for all groups.

This is where incorporation of the Nic really seems to foul things up. If the Nic is used, a narrowbody West F/O could really elevate those junior to him against AA pilots unless they where blocked very junior to AA pilots which would then harm East captains or very senior F/O's junior to him. It's another reason I think the Nic might be more obtainable hadn't this merger occurred, but since it never was implemented (right or wrong) and the REALITY is the consideration now IS relevant to THIS merger/SLI where each pilot group was and not where one group (and extreme minority) SHOULD have been, the dynamics are altered to force the arbitrators to either uphold the Nic for the benefit of this 11% minority whose pre-merger career expectations couldn't hold a candle to those at AA or weigh the interests of the 89% majority (65% @AA) and use a different model more in line with the avoidance of such a windfall.

ANY position can be presented for consideration to the arbitrators and it's their job (if done correctly) to meet a "fair" and most importantly "equitable" standard, i.e., the maximization of pre-merger career expectations and the minimization of windfalls.