Saabs

Oh. No. You. Didnt.

PurpleTurtle

Pretty much the only reason for everything is maneuvering, always. The SLI will meet expectations for about a dozen pilots. Everyone else will grouse about it for decades.

biigD

If only twelve guys are happy with the SLI, I'd call it a success.

eaglefly

Isn't there more then one arbitrator ?

I don't think any single arbitrator will dominate. In reviewing the UAL-CAL award, Eischen didn't say "I" or "me", but instead along with Kaplan and Nolan said "we" and "our" in summarizing their closing to explain how they crafted their hybrid ISL from the various arguments. Although it's likely that there will be many similarities in our final ISL as the UAL-CAL model, I think the most important thing to glean from that award is THEIR position that "each case turns on its own facts".

eaglefly

Not all new orders at AA are replacement. The order was perhaps 460 aircraft and adding up the S80 and 75/76 fleets, some of those Airbus and 737 orders are indeed for expansion. The 777 orders especially are for expansion along with the 787 (primarily destined for ultra long-haul that are not done by 767 or any other aircraft). Since pre-merger widebody opportunities will likely be a consideration, one could expect the pre-merger fleet plans to be an issue.

The argument for SLI purposes of what mainline (be it AA legacy, East or West) would have done is speculative and it's tough to say how the arbitration PANEL will weigh that component suffice it to say that at least in the UAL-CAL SLI, both the pre-merger situations of the carriers was considered as was fleet composition, which included both orders and options.

eaglefly

Another of the several reasons that inclusion of the Nic complicates the SLI with AA and would require a more complicated offset system such as fences to mitigate that complexity. Again, as per the PA, they are operating on the assumption of a status quo at merger date.

eaglefly

Which perhaps is also ANOTHER reason they may seek a compromise with USAPA. One wonders if they've internally run the possibilities and have determined that they'd risk a worse result with a Nic then without. It could be a case of their own "pyrric victory" of getting something that ultimately cost too high a price for that long awaited victory. In a vacuum with only the East and West in consideration, the Nic is one thing, but with the AA component, it becomes something quite different. The argument by some on the West that a Nic is better for them is based on assumption about how they then might be feathered in with AA pilots and/or what mitigators would apply.

Those are all assumptions.

It seems tough to argue against a result that becomes a "new" Nic, just one that treats the West like the original Nic treated the East. In consideration of that, MAYBE the West is now being very careful about what they ask for ?

flybywire44

How would AA have flown all of those airlines had they furloughed 400 pilots?

eaglefly

You mean "airplanes" ?

Because that claim was simply a clumsily played pre-contract posturing move by Horton. At the very same time Horton was "floating" that possibility (early post bankruptcy in very early 2012), Hale was on record as saying he was exactly that same amount SHORT of pilots for the Summer 2012 schedule. In fact (and not assumption), through the entire bankruptcy and to this day, this carrier is short of pilots in virtually all statuses and that was under both Horton and now Parker. Green trips are rare to non-existent as proof, at least on the AA legacy side.

Not to worry, the arbitration PANEL will correctly evaluate what was reality and what was fiction in the three pre-merger carriers conditions and likely future both absent the merger and with it just as the PANEL did in the UAL-CAL SLI.

R57 relay

You better hope so. A lot of guys said that about George Nicolau, but he missed it by a mile. He didn't consider orders from either side, but I'm sure that's because the east had more on the books.

"In the exercise of caution, we have also constructed the list on a
no-growth basis, using the fleet as it existed on January 1, 2007, and
giving no weight to pre-merger orders except to the extent that any
such additions were in place as of January 1, 2007. Our judgment as to
the fleet is based, not on asserted expectations as both sides urged,
but on reality. Particularly in this day and age, with airline instability a
way of life, it makes little sense to rely on pre-merger projections. This
is especially the case here when the financial picture of both airlines
was less than optimum. A January 1, 2007 list also is a closer
reflection of reality on the merged airline."

You never know what you will get in arbitration and I'll bet everyone is surprised by at least one thing in the outcome.