The PA stipulates arbitration. The parties have a period of time to negotiate to minimize "disputes and inconsistencies" in pilot data, determine snapshot and constructive notice dates, fleet composition, staffing assumptions and pilot bidding patterns. Whatever not resolved on this info goes to the arbitrators to quantify and factor. The parties (2 or 3) then propose their competing ISL build models during arbitration and explain why they believe their model should be adopted. The arbitrators accept, reject or form a "hybrid" model based on various positions of the parties that were accepted that in their mind is the most fair and equitable model. That is the ISL award.

Personally, I think the PA has UAL-CAL stamped all over it. That award IMO offers the best look in advance into the likely arbitral mindset that will craft our ISL. Of course, ALPA merger policy isn't in play (but any of the 3 factors COULD be adopted, although weighed differently) and there are significant complexities in this SLI that weren't in that one, but the mindset is very apt.

I agree the Nic will probably not get used. My concern is if they find something wrong with the results this time, more problems lie ahead. The Leonidas site has articles written back in 2000 discussing a possible United/US merger. One of the names which sticks out is Mike Cleary who was the former USAPA president. It is clear they knew the risks, the article has quotes from George Nicolau, an arbitrator they were familiar.

Todd Cardoza (PIT)

Mike Cleary (BOS)

Randy Mowery (PIT)

Merger Committee

June/July 2000 – US AIRWAVES

The Arbitration Board conducts an evidentiary hearing, with witnesses, evidence and a stenographic transcript. The Board’s Opinion and Award are to be issued simultaneously, within 150 days following the PID, unless both

pilot groups and ALPA’s President agree to an extension. The Merger Policy provides, “The Award of the Arbitration Board shall be final and binding on all parties to the arbitration and shall be defended by ALPA.”

No ALPA senior-

ity integration arbitration result has ever been

set aside by the courts although some dissatisfied

pilots have challenged the award before

administrative agencies and the courts.

Seniority Integration Rights

of Furloughees

Mike Cleary (BOS)

Todd Cardoza (PHL)

Randy Mowrey (PIT)

Merger Committee

US Airways pilots facing imminent

furlough can rest assured that should

US Airways be involved in a transaction resulting

in a seniority integration, your merger representatives

will represent the seniority interests

of all pilots on the list, including furloughees.

This is not to say that furloughs are irrelevant

to seniority integration. Under ALPA

Merger Policy, the employment data the merger

representatives are required to determine and

exchange include each pilot’s date of hire, date

of birth, seniority number, and furlough time.

In addition, one recognized method of integrating

seniority lists is by length of service, which

is usually defined to exclude time spent on

furlough.

A pilot’s status as a furloughee at the time of

the merger announcement or arbitration hearing

may also bear significantly on the pilot’s

placement on the merged list. Because reductions

reductions

in force occur in inverse order of seniority,

furloughs and juniority go hand in hand. Beyond

that, the absence of current employment

and uncertainties about future prospects are

among the equities likely to affect a furloughee’s

seniority placement.

No pilot, regardless of furlough status, can be

guaranteed any particular placement on a merged

list. The only certainty in seniority integration is

that the outcome is never certain until the merger

representatives reach an agreement or, failing a

negotiated solution, the arbitrator issues an award.

Each case presents its own facts and equities, and

each requires a resolution tailor-made to the

situation presented. With that said, the past

provides several examples of arbitrators and

negotiators grappling with the proper seniority

placement of furloughees. These precedents,

while not determinative of future proceedings,

shed light on the kinds of considerations likely to

come into play.

January/February/March 2002 – US AIRWAVES

Here is a link to one of the articles. Look at the past to see what might happen in the future:


http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/us_a...tober_2000.PDF







Another article:

Seniority Integration Rights
of Furloughees

http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/us_a...March_2002.pdf

Interesting article. Of course, traditionally furlougees are usually (but not always) grouped at the bottom of merged lists, but in our situation we have furloughees spread out at status quo date due to deferral. It's just one of the many complexities that face this SLI, notably that since respective seniority lists here will maintain their pre-merger relative seniority (which ALPA stipulated that in the UAL-CAL SLI) after integration and so how do you potentially negatively impact pilot X when dovetails him into another pilot group at point Y without dragging all those presently junior to him down as well who may not have as much jeopardy on that issue (returned sooner, thus more longevity) ?

I would hope this is one area (given our complexities and clearly past East position) is that the "longevity" factor be minimized (or possibly eliminated) by agreement. It would SEEM that to be the case as both APA/USAPA agreed that in their joint JCBA proposal to AAG regarding the definition of "AA. Occupational date" and its establishment as the determining placement on the seniority list.

Good synopsis. Bottom line, arbitration results will produce some sort of dissatisfaction. It's the morning after which concerns me and how parties handle it.

Eagle, this is all my opinion, but you cannot be serious. For one, not using the Nic. is way more "unclean" by wide margin than using it. That is a simple undeniable fact. The Nic. places all 3rd lists below active pilots and furloughs at the awa/us merger date and accounts for all positions back in 2005. Don't use the Nic and now you have 3rd listers on both lists with disparate hire dates, you have west furloughed flying a330 east etc. a real mess.

Why you insist the Nic. hurts AA pilots I cannot understand, it would equivalent of me saying the MIA new hire widebody fo's are proof that widebody's are not premium flying. Think of it as PHX being a super senior base in the Usairways system because that is all the effect Nic. has, it's no different than that new hire 767 driver in MIA not being able to hold the same in dfw, your dfw based pilots still bring that mia seat to the table.

I agree 100%, as a matter of fact our lead arbitrator, Dana Eischen, was the lead in the Ual/cal list. Dana embraced the fact that combined career expectations start at date of single corporate control. In the Ual case, Cal hiredand upgraded while Ual downgraded and furloughed after "single corporate control". CAL guys tried to use that as proof of better career expectations, didn't workout for them when the arbitrators decided that everything that happens post single corporate control can't be counted. Sound familiar?

Maybe they will fence off PHX like STL was

As I said yesterday, arbitrators understand the big picture and look at each situation objectively. Each party to the upcoming arbitration has their biased views/ opinions on how the SLI should be constructed, but objectivity usually rules in the end. Nicolau, Bloch, Eischen, they all get it. And that is where the undeniable strength rests with the west case because the Nicolau list is simply a product of a fair process and all the west is advocating for is for that product be used. To argue that discounting the Nicolau arbitration is proper because it would benefit a particular side more by not using it (as EF stated yesterday in his post) or because the east pilots think it was unfair (announced numerous times by R57 and his crew of third listers looking for a spot above the AWA pilots) is not going to cut it with Eischen (my opinion). The east and EF side will have to come up with some sort of technicality to disqualify Nicolau and so far we haven't heard anything of substance from George Nicolau haters. If the west gets a seat, I predict the east/ west list will be Nicolau.

To be fair I don't know of any third listers who want to be above anyone on the west. Well, except a certain poster by the name of texaspilot on here:rolleyes:

Unfortunately yes......I am serious. I'm basing my position on the reality that the Nic was never consummated be it right or wrong and had little chance of being consummated in the foreseeable future. There were no 330's in PHX, so I fail to see how I should consider it senior (at least in that respect) as no West pilot could reasonably expect to see that aircraft anytime in the forseeable future. The East ALPA/USAPA guys screwed you no doubt, but the issue is no longer in the U/AWA vacuum, but has escaped and is now impacting a new atmosphere that also must be considered. Only the arbitrators opinion on what impact, if any on that counts though.

I guess we just differ in consideration of what "reality" is in that regard. You believe US Airways AA pre-merger reality was a Nicolau world and I see the claim of that world as (and don't take this personally) a fantasy. A fantasy not that such a belief isn't valid (a delusion), but a fantasy in that it ACTUALLY didn't exist and had no real expectation of existing in the future due to the unalterable positions of the two combatants. That's just the way I see it. Again, unlike USAPA, I support your right to have the opportunity to argue just the opposite. Whether you get that opportunity will also be decided by arbitrators.