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.

After all these years the basic reality of going to arbitration is still lost on some people.

When parties agree to arbitration they give thier input, then abide by the decision. Arbitration means you agree to a decision by an outsider.

As a west pilot, I will do what I have always done.

I will abide by the decision, whatever it may be.

I'm going to go way, way out on a limb here. If the west doesn't get their way in the preliminary arbitration, the majority will not just accept it.

For all of us, the good news is that Eischen is on this Board and as he was among the three arbitrators on the UAL-CAL who understood that every integration is different and hinges on its OWN facts and thus so shall this one. Again, we should all expect the goal of maintaining pre-merger career expectations and the avoidance of windfalls to be paramount to meet the fair and equitable standard in crafting our final ISL.

I agree with everything you wrote, it just doesn't always work out that way. Good luck to all of us.

Did they agree to this arbitration or was that decision made for them?

Not really. I would say that it is lack of knowledge of the merger process as it were during the E/W merger.

SLI===>Joint contract===>Independent ratification

vs

Joint Contract (including layout of SLI process)===>independently ratified====>SLI (already ratified)

Se the difference? All of those years of ALPA merger policy and nobody ever exploited the loophole. Somebody was bound to do so, and all it really took was an extremely lopsided arbitration.

Think you will see the AA furloughs at the bottom of this list?
Think you will see the top XXX positions go to one side?
Think you will see fences based on a soon to be changed age limit?

BTW, IMO Parker could have gotten that mess done by offering a Delta contract when it came out, or the new one in 2012. A public leaking of it would have had USAPA pilots surrounding USAPA headquarters with torches and pitchforks.

Did I agree to the Nicolau arbitration? No.

They overwhelming agreed to the process that got us here, the MOU.

3 way seniority integration-Fire Away
 

Eagle, what happened to you between now and the release of our SLI PA. You're so much more reasonable.

And yes I meant airplanes, but my iPhone meant airlines! 😀

3 way seniority integration-Fire Away
 

Did you personally agree to the Nic? No, but your bargaining agent did agree to binding arbitration on your behalf?

I don't know but did the process in the MOU specifically spell out binding arbitration to decide on whether the West get their own independent say in the SLI arbitration? Or did the mechanism in the MOU that allowed the parties to agree to this binding arbitration include the consent of the West's representative (was he over ruled by the majority of East representatives)? If so, I don't see any reasonable person believing that that amounts to agreeing to this binding arbitration but actually see it as others agreeing to this binding arbitration on their behalf, against their will.