The point was APA refusing comment. They will remain neutral and either two or three committees will argue for their respective pilots.

In all sincerity, good luck on with the PAB.

 

That has been my point all along, not only the APa remain neutral but the ApA merger committee will remain neutral on how the usairways pilots are ordered within their own list. Of course neither the APA or company are neutral on the preliminary arb.

 

Wanted him as an arbitrator for what? For the arbitration of whether or not the West gets a seat, or the SLI? Source? Do you know how the arbitrators are "chosen?"

 

Wanted him for us/aa seniority arb. usapA struck him. Eaglefly believes that APA putting his name on the list of arb's was a clever ploy to make the west feel good while not really wanting him on the list.

 

At this point reading the past few cactibosses post, It becomes abundantly clear, It's not worth the time even attempting to debate.

Really?!? With his explanations he's asking if anyone has been involved in arbitration and can't through his head the idea that apa would put a name in there they would KNOW would get struck, to increase the odds of their other choices surviving. Instead he proclaims. Apa wanted him on board. Ya ok. Whatever

Carry on

 

The APA merger committee is tasked to argue for its pre-merger pilots (legacy AA pilots) best interests and one that they believe is the most fair and equitable result. It will be impossible for the AA pilots merger committee to be neutral on the Nic as either their model incorporates the Nic or it doesn't. There is no neutrality there. IMO, their model will not incorporate the Nic and that's been MY point all along.

The APA as an entity must be neutral about the issue (in addition to remaining autonomous) because it now represents all three groups, but our committee bears no such burden. Our MC has no DFR whatsoever to either the East or West. The APA's DFR is to ensure a fair and equitable process in accordance with M-B and that's why there is a PAB. On that position they are indeed neutral and AAG's involvement in any portion of the process must conform to limitations within the MOU.

 

Thats not what I'm saying, I'm saying they would never put his name up if they weren't prepared to have him. Was it strategy? Probably, just means the east got played since APa ended up with everyone on their list in the panel.

 

Nooooo, eaglefly does not believe it was a "ploy" per se. It was primarily a strategic move to elevate the chances of another arbitrator to the list while concurrently capitalizing on the value of perceived neutrality in including an arbitrator they knew had less than zero chance of selection and whose inclusion deflated any future argument of APA antangonism toward the West. USAPA certainly wouldn't include him and he'd be the first one they'd strike and if APA excluded him, it would just give more credence to any argument in the future of failure of DFR to the West.

Their primary focus was acting in their best interest as to opposing yours. The two concepts can be separate, yet still related. No tinfoil hat here.

 

In most cases, yes, but putting up Nicolau was a no-brainer. Charles Manson would have a better chance of becoming an arbitrator anywhere in this SLI then Nic and that would be more apt to indicate that including Nicolau ensured the make-up of the arbitration panel was closer to their desired result. Nobody got "played", it's just that the Nic legacy gave the APA and extra ace card to better capitalize on the arbitrators they want. The Nic is a gift that keeps on giving, whether one like the gift or not.

 

I just hope after this is all said and done I never have to hear or see the words "The Nic" again. Probably not gonna happen though. Some of these West guys will beat that drum for the rest of their career