Nic ...
09-21-2014, 12:35 PM
#501
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by cactiboss
Exactly, so what questions will be before them if the west gets a seat?
Any questions regarding a dispute from a nullified 2005TA will most certainly not be among the question(s) arbitrated for the panel in 2014/2015.
09-21-2014, 12:37 PM
#502
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2014
Position: A320
Posts: 225
Originally Posted by PurpleTurtle
The questions for the arbitration panel will be set before arbitration begins. Thats the point.
Any questions regarding a dispute from a nullified 2005TA will most certainly not be among the question(s) arbitrated for the panel in 2014/2015.
Any questions regarding a dispute from a nullified 2005TA will most certainly not be among the question(s) arbitrated for the panel in 2014/2015.
09-21-2014, 12:43 PM
#503
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by GrapeNuts
Thank you for the insight, Nostradamus.
09-21-2014, 12:46 PM
#504
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,619
Originally Posted by eaglefly
But the arbitrators (remember, there are MULTIPLE arbitrators) also said this regarding the construction of their "hybrid model" (remember that term) in THIS SLI, ......."We inquired as to where the respective groups have been and we have made reasonable judgments as to where they were going. We attempted to recognize reasonable expectations of both premerger groups, but rejected proposals that could not be reconciled with governing merger policy or resulted in untenable windfalls. As in all such seniority integration exercises, the fairness and equity assessment is focused necessarily on the respective groups, not on each or any individual pilot."
It would seem that the arbitrators looked at each groups pre-merger reality (where they had been, where they were going, expectations) and the elimination of windfalls.
Where was the West GROUPS pre-merger reality ?
Was realization of the Nic an imminent expectation at merger contemplation or completion with AA ?
Later they said in regard to George Nicolau's "four basic varieties of ISL arbitration", that "each case turns on its own facts". I think even old George himself would agree that the "facts" of the Nic (for right or wrong) have changed as a result of its lack of consummation coupled with a subsequent merger and SLI with American Airlines.
Again, the complexities and facts of THIS SLI make the assumption that the Nic will prevail very questionable. It will be one of the major questions for the arbitration provided first, the West even gets recognition as a party to the SLI.
It would seem that the arbitrators looked at each groups pre-merger reality (where they had been, where they were going, expectations) and the elimination of windfalls.
Where was the West GROUPS pre-merger reality ?
Was realization of the Nic an imminent expectation at merger contemplation or completion with AA ?
Later they said in regard to George Nicolau's "four basic varieties of ISL arbitration", that "each case turns on its own facts". I think even old George himself would agree that the "facts" of the Nic (for right or wrong) have changed as a result of its lack of consummation coupled with a subsequent merger and SLI with American Airlines.
Again, the complexities and facts of THIS SLI make the assumption that the Nic will prevail very questionable. It will be one of the major questions for the arbitration provided first, the West even gets recognition as a party to the SLI.
Therefore, when determining the proper relationships between East and West pilots, you necessarily have to go back to 2005 when the merger was consummated. The arbitrators can then try to have some complicated arbitration to determine what that relationship should be. Or they can simply pull out the award that was already litigated in the Nicolau arbitration and accepted by the company as a legitimate seniority list for the East and West as they existed back in 2005. The answer to that question seems obvious. They also consider the long term effects that their decisions have on labor groups in general. If the East's behavior in the last 7 years is rewarded, then it would encourage this same type of self destructive behavior out into the future for other labor groups.
The secondary consideration is the liability issue. If the West pilots do not get placement as good or better than the Nicolau award, someone is going to have to pay for that loss. Despite the amateur legal analysis that goes on here, the West pilots rights to the seniority award were negotiated away. Unless they get fair treatment, AMR management and the APA will have inherited the liability for that negotiations from their predecessors. They don't want that liability and that is why they are pushing hard for fair treatment for the West pilots.
Many pilots imagine decisions that they want the arbitrators to make and then back engineer some reason why they will make those decisions. The arbitrators have only two items to sell in the marketplace; knowledge and neutrality. If they give away their neutrality to please some party in the integration beyond the fair and equitable standard, they are essentially throwing their livelihood away. Sort of like trying to do an aileron roll in your jet full of passengers; you can do that once and once only.
09-21-2014, 01:23 PM
#505
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
I think where you go awry in your analysis is that after the merger between AAA/AWA, the career trajectories of each group was changed by the merger. However, you characterize those changes is immaterial, what you had was a single management team making decisions based on a single network and a single passenger base. There is absolutely no way to unwind those facts and determine where the East and West would have been absent the merger. The status of the East and West combined in 2013 when the merger was completed is material to their placement in relation to the AMR pilots but not to each other.
Therefore, when determining the proper relationships between East and West pilots, you necessarily have to go back to 2005 when the merger was consummated. The arbitrators can then try to have some complicated arbitration to determine what that relationship should be. Or they can simply pull out the award that was already litigated in the Nicolau arbitration and accepted by the company as a legitimate seniority list for the East and West as they existed back in 2005. The answer to that question seems obvious. They also consider the long term effects that their decisions have on labor groups in general. If the East's behavior in the last 7 years is rewarded, then it would encourage this same type of self destructive behavior out into the future for other labor groups.
The secondary consideration is the liability issue. If the West pilots do not get placement as good or better than the Nicolau award, someone is going to have to pay for that loss. Despite the amateur legal analysis that goes on here, the West pilots rights to the seniority award were negotiated away. Unless they get fair treatment, AMR management and the APA will have inherited the liability for that negotiations from their predecessors. They don't want that liability and that is why they are pushing hard for fair treatment for the West pilots.
Many pilots imagine decisions that they want the arbitrators to make and then back engineer some reason why they will make those decisions. The arbitrators have only two items to sell in the marketplace; knowledge and neutrality. If they give away their neutrality to please some party in the integration beyond the fair and equitable standard, they are essentially throwing their livelihood away. Sort of like trying to do an aileron roll in your jet full of passengers; you can do that once and once only.
Therefore, when determining the proper relationships between East and West pilots, you necessarily have to go back to 2005 when the merger was consummated. The arbitrators can then try to have some complicated arbitration to determine what that relationship should be. Or they can simply pull out the award that was already litigated in the Nicolau arbitration and accepted by the company as a legitimate seniority list for the East and West as they existed back in 2005. The answer to that question seems obvious. They also consider the long term effects that their decisions have on labor groups in general. If the East's behavior in the last 7 years is rewarded, then it would encourage this same type of self destructive behavior out into the future for other labor groups.
The secondary consideration is the liability issue. If the West pilots do not get placement as good or better than the Nicolau award, someone is going to have to pay for that loss. Despite the amateur legal analysis that goes on here, the West pilots rights to the seniority award were negotiated away. Unless they get fair treatment, AMR management and the APA will have inherited the liability for that negotiations from their predecessors. They don't want that liability and that is why they are pushing hard for fair treatment for the West pilots.
Many pilots imagine decisions that they want the arbitrators to make and then back engineer some reason why they will make those decisions. The arbitrators have only two items to sell in the marketplace; knowledge and neutrality. If they give away their neutrality to please some party in the integration beyond the fair and equitable standard, they are essentially throwing their livelihood away. Sort of like trying to do an aileron roll in your jet full of passengers; you can do that once and once only.
09-21-2014, 02:23 PM
#506
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
I think where you go awry in your analysis is that after the merger between AAA/AWA, the career trajectories of each group was changed by the merger. However, you characterize those changes is immaterial, what you had was a single management team making decisions based on a single network and a single passenger base. There is absolutely no way to unwind those facts and determine where the East and West would have been absent the merger. The status of the East and West combined in 2013 when the merger was completed is material to their placement in relation to the AMR pilots but not to each other.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what did the reality of a single-management team controlling two separate operations produce for the West over the intervening years to support the worth the West brought to THAT merger ?
How much expansion did PHX receive during the intervening years vs. PHL and CLT ? How many pilots were hired ? How many Group III or IV aircraft did AWA PHX operate from US Airways merger to AA merger ?
Parker certainly had the opportunity to expand PHX or even West flying to new hubs/routes and hire significantly if that operation supported it. Did he do that ?
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Therefore, when determining the proper relationships between East and West pilots, you necessarily have to go back to 2005 when the merger was consummated. The arbitrators can then try to have some complicated arbitration to determine what that relationship should be. Or they can simply pull out the award that was already litigated in the Nicolau arbitration and accepted by the company as a legitimate seniority list for the East and West as they existed back in 2005. The answer to that question seems obvious. They also consider the long term effects that their decisions have on labor groups in general. If the East's behavior in the last 7 years is rewarded, then it would encourage this same type of self destructive behavior out into the future for other labor groups.
Will the arbitrators discount all other issues and award the Nic to the West based on the premise it would be "rewarding" the East ?
Who knows, but I don't think so. Additionally, I think we all know the unusual and repugnant actions by the majority then are unlikely to be repeated, especially with M-B in play. Any future SLI's will include specific safeguards to ensure that won't happen and this merger and its MOU and SLI PA are proof of that.
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
The secondary consideration is the liability issue. If the West pilots do not get placement as good or better than the Nicolau award, someone is going to have to pay for that loss. Despite the amateur legal analysis that goes on here, the West pilots rights to the seniority award were negotiated away. Unless they get fair treatment, AMR management and the APA will have inherited the liability for that negotiations from their predecessors. They don't want that liability and that is why they are pushing hard for fair treatment for the West pilots.
That sounds like someone slouching toward an unrealistic expectation of a windfall to me. At any rate, as for liability, well, it appears to me that APA is more interested in absolving itself from liability while still recognizing the West has a major issue in need of resolution and bending over backward to present themselves in a neutral fashion. Remember, M-B only requires a fair PROCESS and not necessarily a fair outcome as that definition has a tendency to remain a subjective one based on ones position. If APA was singularly on the West's side, you'd think they'd do more then punt the issue to arbitrators in a multi-arbitrational process whereby arbitration will first decide if the West even exists and if so, another arbitration will decide what, if any, consideration if given to the Nic. I wouldn't be so rash as to jump to the conclusion the APA is pro-West (and thus anti-East), but more likely an entity carefully plotting out a process to prevent a future minefield from blowing them apart. You may think they are "pushing hard" for the West, but I think that's more about THEIR self-preservation then realizing YOUR goals.
As for your "amateur legal analysis" comment, based on your position it seems there you feel those that bring up opposing perceptions about the validity of the Nic in the present situation consider themselves some type of pseudo lawyers ? I can't speak for anyone else here, but I'm just 1 pilot out of 15,000+ with an opinion and nothing more. In consideration of that, your position and your comments, I'm not sure which category to place your post in, so I'll let you choose........will it be amateur legal analyst or one pilot with an opinion ?
Originally Posted by alfaromeo
Many pilots imagine decisions that they want the arbitrators to make and then back engineer some reason why they will make those decisions. The arbitrators have only two items to sell in the marketplace; knowledge and neutrality. If they give away their neutrality to please some party in the integration beyond the fair and equitable standard, they are essentially throwing their livelihood away. Sort of like trying to do an aileron roll in your jet full of passengers; you can do that once and once only.
Last edited by eaglefly; 09-21-2014 at 02:34 PM.
09-21-2014, 02:42 PM
#507
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
You gotta brush up on your ual/cal history
The ual/cal merger closed october 1 2010. Cal hired and Ual furloughed after this with Cal hiring furloughed Ual pilots. Sound familiar?
And that is exactly what the arbitrators did. CAL merger committee whole proposal was based on post merger cal hiring and ual furloughs. The Arbitrators summarily rejected that and adopted the view that reaching "single management control" nullifies post merger career trajectory expectations.
Originally Posted by eaglefly
Well, it's just my opinion. US Airways was a single financial entity with separate flight operations - East and West. There was no mixing of crews or fleets.
If the arbitrators choose to ignore their actual separation for pilot integration reasons and instead place their weight on the technical aspect of being a single financial entity, then so be it.
09-21-2014, 03:03 PM
#509
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Originally Posted by cactiboss
You gotta brush up on your ual/cal history
The ual/cal merger closed october 1 2010. Cal hired and Ual furloughed after this with Cal hiring furloughed Ual pilots. Sound familiar?
And that is exactly what the arbitrators did. CAL merger committee whole proposal was based on post merger cal hiring and ual furloughs. The Arbitrators summarily rejected that and adopted the view that reaching "single management control" nullifies post merger career trajectory expectations.
The ual/cal merger closed october 1 2010. Cal hired and Ual furloughed after this with Cal hiring furloughed Ual pilots. Sound familiar?
And that is exactly what the arbitrators did. CAL merger committee whole proposal was based on post merger cal hiring and ual furloughs. The Arbitrators summarily rejected that and adopted the view that reaching "single management control" nullifies post merger career trajectory expectations.
These points IMO don't necessarily guarantee the NIC, nor support its mandatory inclusion. As I noted in a previous post, the arbitrators statement in that SLI said "each case turns on its own facts". The fact is, there are components to THAT SLI that are inapplicable to this one and vise versa including, but not limited to the fact that SLI was conducted in accordance with ALPA merger policy and there was no previously unconsummated seniority list to consider which rendered one of the two merged carriers with two separated pilot groups pre-merger. I simply don't think piggybacking the UAL-CAL situation regarding this issue is likely to be applicable, but hey, I support your right to try and argue that too.
09-21-2014, 03:28 PM
#510
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by eaglefly
My brush is just fine. Might I suggest taking off your rose colored-glasses ?
These points IMO don't necessarily guarantee the NIC, nor support its mandatory inclusion. As I noted in a previous post, the arbitrators statement in that SLI said "each case turns on its own facts". The fact is, there are components to THAT SLI that are inapplicable to this one and vise versa including, but not limited to the fact that SLI was conducted in accordance with ALPA merger policy and there was no previously unconsummated seniority list to consider which rendered one of the two merged carriers with two separated pilot groups pre-merger. I simply don't think piggybacking the UAL-CAL situation regarding this issue is likely to be applicable, but hey, I support your right to try and argue that too.
These points IMO don't necessarily guarantee the NIC, nor support its mandatory inclusion. As I noted in a previous post, the arbitrators statement in that SLI said "each case turns on its own facts". The fact is, there are components to THAT SLI that are inapplicable to this one and vise versa including, but not limited to the fact that SLI was conducted in accordance with ALPA merger policy and there was no previously unconsummated seniority list to consider which rendered one of the two merged carriers with two separated pilot groups pre-merger. I simply don't think piggybacking the UAL-CAL situation regarding this issue is likely to be applicable, but hey, I support your right to try and argue that too.
Btw, I didn't come up with this opinion on my own, Ual own merger attorney has said this.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
