![]() |
Originally Posted by DCA A321 FO
(Post 1727512)
"...Impose a badly flawed seniority list, or abandon a binding arbitration..."
Sounds like a crapshoot. |
Originally Posted by cactiboss
(Post 1727517)
The arbitrators don't think its a "badly flawed list" only the east pilots do.
Maintaining the pre-merger career expectations of all pilot groups will be a major argument in this SLI so as to prevent a windfall for any one group within the 3 presently defined lists. Regardless of whether the West gets their own reps and even if they then argue for the Nic, the arbitrators could discount that argument in that it would force undesirable complexities on a final ISL, including, but not limited to extensive and complicated fences. Personally, I don't see this final arbitration panel placing adoption of the unconsummated Nic as the first priority if it forces excessive complexities in the ISL or sacrifices the pre-merger career expectations of AA pilots. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1727528)
Well, ONE arbitrator thought that way and in the context of a pure U/AWA merge, it's debatable with some valid arguments from East pilots on its propriety. Since it was never implemented and as a result, the two pilot groups have remained separate and more importantly from a future arbitral consideration standpoint, would likely CONTINUE to remain separate for an extended period of time (perhaps even arguably in perpetuity) absent this merger, A MAJOR question for the final arbitration panel for THIS merge will be "does adoption of a pure Nic template for the US Airways pilot group as a whole simplify or complicate the concept of pre-merger career expectations as a litmus for this SLI with AA pilots ?".
Maintaining the pre-merger career expectations of all pilot groups will be a major argument in this SLI so as to prevent a windfall for any one group within the 3 presently defined lists. Regardless of whether the West gets their own reps and even if they then argue for the Nic, the arbitrators could discount that argument in that it would force undesirable complexities on a final ISL, including, but not limited to extensive and complicated fences. Personally, I don't see this final arbitration panel placing adoption of the unconsummated Nic as the first priority if it forces excessive complexities in the ISL or sacrifices the pre-merger career expectations of AA pilots. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1727528)
Well, ONE arbitrator thought that way and in the context of a pure U/AWA merge
|
Originally Posted by DCA A321 FO
(Post 1727512)
"...Impose a badly flawed seniority list, or abandon a binding arbitration..."
Sounds like a crapshoot.
Originally Posted by cactiboss
(Post 1727517)
The arbitrators don't think its a "badly flawed list" only the east pilots do.
|
Originally Posted by DCA A321 FO
(Post 1727544)
That was from the article.
|
Originally Posted by cactiboss
(Post 1727539)
No, he was a pilot "neutral" appointed by the east side to look after their interests and his beef was only the bottom 300 pilots, while agreeing with the rest of the award. The arbitrators will have to buy the east argument that the east caused delay was legitimate and we never merged to follow your train of thought on career expectations. It will be like saying you never had any expectation to fly the 787 your airline ordered because none were based where you are.
The relevance of that SLI award is not necessarily in the factors used, but the process the arbitrators used to weigh the various positions in constructing a final ISL. Although there are some significant differences present here that were not there, the ultimate path of reasoning they chose is likely to be very apt in our final result. |
Originally Posted by eaglefly
(Post 1727571)
I think if you read the opinion and award in the UAL-CAL SLI, you'll see what mind-set arbitrators tend to use in balancing competing interests to achieve a fair result here. Our protocol agreement is not coincidentally very similar to that one and thus, I would expect the parties to avoid the errors in argument noted there, most notably from CAL ALPA and also would expect a similar rationalization from whatever arbitrators are selected here who will no doubt take that SLI result into strong consideration and how those arbitrators arrived at that result.
The relevance of that SLI award is not necessarily in the factors used, but the process the arbitrators used to weigh the various positions in constructing a final ISL. Although there are some significant differences present here that were not there, the ultimate path of reasoning they chose is likely to be very apt in our final result. CAL’s proposal assumes that we will use the April 1, 2013 pilot lists. In constructing its first tranche of captains for the proposed ISL, for example, it uses the number 2,299. That number appears only on Continental Exhibit C-5, p. 1, the total of all Continental captains as of April 1, 2013. See Tr. 1153-54. Captain James Brucia, the Chairman of the CAL Merger Committee, explained the rationale for the CAL Committee’s proposed ISL build model as premised upon two primary foundations: an April 1, 2013 “snapshot date” and Continental System Bid 14-02, cross-referenced to the United Category Staffing Requirements for Vacancies, effective 5-31-2013, June bid month. The United team's proposal uses October 1, 2010, the MCD, as the “Snapshot Date” and the October 1, 2010 pre-merger seniority lists as the “Base Seniority Lists” for building its proposed ISL.Furthermore, it maintains that after October 1, 2010, all decisions were made by a single management entity. Therefore, it asserted that the snapshot date should not be April 1, 2013, two and a half years after a single management made decisions affecting all pilots. Beginning with the October 1, 2010 snapshot date for purposes of assessing In constructing our awarded ISL, Exhibit A, we made adjustments in Step 5 (“Factor Weighting”) of the UAL hybrid model and added a new Step 6 to update the October 1, 2010 “snapshot date” lists used as “Base Seniority Lists" in Step 1 to build the awarded hybrid ISL. We explain those adjustments in the next two sections. |
Originally Posted by cactiboss
(Post 1727576)
I agree. The mind set of that award favors the west position, that's not my opinion that is the opinion of the lawyer that represented the ual pilots.
The NMB has learned that you do not want to completely alienate the larger pilot group--as bad things tend to happen. This award will appease former AA pilots to the extent that it wi indeed be done when it is done. In order to appease AA, former east will also be appeased as the pilot groups share closer dynamics. AA may take a small .22 round in the leg over BK, but it will be a small flesh wound. |
Originally Posted by brakechatter
(Post 1727585)
The Ucal award does not favor the west position. You are reaching. I get your anger. I get that you will be ****ed no matter what. Like the Comair guys, the West overplayed their hand. If history has taught us nothing in this business, it that fairness has no place whatsoever. It's about leverage and timing.
The NMB has learned that you do not want to completely alienate the larger pilot group--as bad things tend to happen. This award will appease former AA pilots to the extent that it wi indeed be done when it is done. In order to appease AA, former east will also be appeased as the pilot groups share closer dynamics. AA may take a small .22 round in the leg over BK, but it will be a small flesh wound. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:54 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands