eaglefly

Well, you're bolder then me to say what WILL happen (if that's what you're saying). I only state what I THINK will happen. I'm sure the West (if granted their own committee) will make whatever arguments they feel necessary to get consideration of the Nic. As for the pay issues I bring up, I did include consideration of what East pilots made prior to merge and what they expected to make based on a pre-merger CBA that for all intents and purposes had plenty of life left in it at their own peril. The financial compensation considerations of those pre-merger "jobs" is just as relevant to the East as to the West.

Clearly, the arbitrators will have 3 significantly different integration positions to wade through.

cactiboss

Had the Nic been put in place in 2005 would it make difference? That where the west is coming from. Let's look at AA and new hires in the 767 in MIA, do those pilots deserve to be senior to dfw md80 fo's that have a earlier hire date? The record speaks for itself, the west has a right to every single airplane usairways brings and the positions associated with those aircraft

cactiboss

Well first we have to get a seat, but I am not saying anything is guaranteed. I think the west has a sound argument to make for the Nic and the guy making that argument is the best in the busisness. I just think you are off base on the reason they wouldn't use the Nic being american pilot career expectations, in other words they punish west pilots careers for what the east has done.

Xanderman

Some quick math so forgive the round numbers but:

15000 pilots at the new AA...

West pilots = 1500...

We'll say half are "younger..."

You really think they are gonna give much credence to 750 positions (at most) out of 15000?!?! We are talking 5%! Even in a relative seniority your percentage on the new list could change that much. I don't know... Maybe I'm missing something?

GrapeNuts

The two arguments proffered by EF and his newly- aligned companions from the east present two arguments, the fairness argument and the windfall for the west argument. Both are based on subjective opinion where the perceived detriment disadvantages their own personal gains. Can a two against one scenario develop in front of the arbitration panel? Possibly, because what advantages both EF and the east the most? Subjugation of a minority group for the benefit of the majority.
If both the APA and the east wish to complain about the Nic or hypothesize about ramifications of using the Nic in front of three arbitrators, go right ahead. At that point you aren't arguing against the west but instead criticizing a well respected colleague of the three member arbitration panel. Be my guest.
The best argument I see the APA and the east may have success with to bury Nicolau's decision in a coordinated argument is to recognize that Nicolau did occur but would be unduly burdensome to apply now. That's a stretch in my opinion, because again, the arbitrators are being asked to combine east and west lists , a task which an arbitrator has already completed. I can see APA arguing things have changed with them in the picture so therefore a scratch start needs to happen, but as EF already admitted to the APA interest in involving themselves in the Nicolau question is because they feel the west pilots will hurt their career expectations. I find it interesting a pilot group in bankruptcy at the snapshot date will argue career expectations.
We will see how this shakes out, but I predict lawsuits whether Nicolau is used or not.

cactiboss

Let's go one further, let's say 5 year fences on group 4. How many west pilots left?

ackattacker

I think you will find situations like this are not all that rare what with medical leaves and such. The list is full of "special cases"

When you start to address them, you realize that it's opening a can of worms and exposes the ludicrousness of plopping down a list created 7 years ago out of seniority lists from 9 years ago and just implementing it. Any seniority integration that occurs today needs to address the people actually on property today and their positions on the lists today. When you go back into the wayback machine and start reordering things based upon a document now starting to yellow you're going to need to start making projections and predictions and assumptions.

For example, in the case of our humble F/O, you could say that his seniority became frozen at a certain date and people started passing him. Clear enough on the East List. But on the Nicolau list... was it just East pilots passing him since the operations where in fact separate? Or do we assume that the lists *should* have been combined in 2007 and hence reorder the lists as if it was combined, hence everybody passes him. What about if there was somebody out West junior to him per the Nic list who was in fact furloughed at the time? Do we assume that under the Nic they *probably* never would have been furloughed, and treat that person as if they where on property, so they pass him? What if some West guy senior to him per the Nic got furloughed and came East and was therefore Junior to him on the East list and senior to him on the West list? How much to they move up then? Do they get more seniority credit than someone who was furloughed and didn't come East? I'm giving myself a headache just typing this.

This is why the PA is pretty clear that each individual committee is responsible for it's own list. They bring in the lists, and the lists get merged. The Nicolau just doesn't fit into that methodology since it doesn't jive with any of the current lists. In order to implement the Nicolau award, you would have to completely ignore the East list as it currently exists and as it will be presented by the USAPA merger committee. And that's not going to happen. The best outcome the West can expect is that the arbitrators will honor the "intent" of the Nicolau award.

Incidentally, I think the company will fight against significant fences on the argument that it has the potential to increase their training and staffing costs.

eaglefly

"Newly aligned companions"..........now that's rich.

My foundations rise from the concept of maintaining pre-merger career expectations and the avoidance of windfalls. Obviously even that is a subjective standard depending on position in this ménage-a-trois. As for APA admitting anything, now THAT is a stretch. No, what happened was eaglefly revealed HIS beliefs on what the APA will do regarding the Nic, which.........is essentially what they have done. Punt. Another streeeeeetch, is the idea that by soberingly and accurately assessing that the Nic might be worse for AA pilots interests then without it that they are somehow "involving" themselves in the Nic. Just as the West has the right to argue FOR the Nic without prejudice by the arbitrators, others are entitled to the same latitude in arguing against it. If you think any one of the three sides (or perhaps 2) is going to argue strictly for the interests of another, you're mistaken.

The misguided claim that to do so would somehow be criticizing a well-respected colleague is baseless. Nicolau's award was made with only two of the three ingredients that now exist present and indeed the recipe is far, FAR different then when it was cooked by Nicolau. You're belief that APA and the East will conspire against the West is also misguided. Yes, one or both may argue for integration models that don't incorporate the Nic, but at least in the case of the APA, I don't think it will be intended as a direct attack on the West. The APA has no duty whatsoever to place the interests of West pilots above legacy AA pilots and the best argument I can see from ANY side is one founded on giving any given pilot what he or she had before the merger and could expect pre-merger. While you're at it, I'd suggest reading the UAL-CAL arbitration for an heads up on how arbitrators look at pre-merger conditions of each carrier and their ability to wade through the biased chaff. They'll look at each carrier closely to determine that information and in the case of AA, I'm confident they will see exactly what that BK was all about.

1.5 billion last quarter is hard to ignore.

eaglefly

If you read the UAL-CAL ISL award, you'll note both sides played a bit with what pilots would be considered where, but CAL far more then UAL. Sure each side can bring whatever, but if disagreements remain post negotiations, they're remanded to the arbitrators to resolve. As for the fence issue, yes, Parker wants as few impediments to flexibility as possible and even arbitrators want to avoid fences (also see UAL-CAL). Fences are only usually need for SLI's that involve significantly imbalanced groups or to correct certain applications of integration.

GrapeNuts

Pre-merger career expectations of the west and east prior to the merger... What do you think that is? I would say that involves the Nicolau award, there wasn't going to be another arbitration otherwise. Unless, you have some sort of inside EF info here, I do not know. But it you want to go down the "career expectation" path, the 1.5 billion you cited was after the snapshot date, not before. You need to keep things relevant, which on here is sometimes hard because this a message board based on opinions.
That said, wading through your verbiage above I only got out of it one argument: The Nicolau is dated therefore it cannot be used because AA is now in the picture. Again, that is quite a stretch to disregard it with just that kind of thinking because clearly the west can agree that it has already occurred and therefore cannot be undone. The onus is on the east to explain why an east/ west seniority list which has already been accepted by the company should not be used. You and your east friends can declare the Nic dead, if I had a quarter for every time an east pilot said that I would be retired by now. But if that is the best you have then I will rest pretty well, if the west gets a seat at the table.