Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1740705)

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".

Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1741837)

*sigh*

This isn't an integration of Wall street players (or management). Of greater interest (and seemingly more relevant) is how any such corporate "financial performance" would have translated to the Pilots financial performance, namely the thickness of their wallets going forward separately vs. combined. It is my assertion that unlike UAL and CAL, the pilots of both East and West pre-merger compensation wallowed WELL below that of legacy standards and that was due to the FRAGMENTED operations of a single entity, yet operationally split carrier. You appear to assert AA was in collapse and AA pilots careers were in decline due to furloughs (that never occurred) and was saved by US Airways, I disagreed with that.

The point was the subjectivity of opposing opinions and the fact they are essentially meaningless. If history is any teacher, the arbitrators almost universally consider that aspect (as per UAL-CAL), the only question is to what degree ?

Again, my point was that there are multiple subjective pilot opinions on each carriers pre-merger status and future and none of ours counts. The arbitrators will determine that value, if any and so why work yourself into a lather ?




Now it is me having no idea of what you are trying to say. On one hand, you're arguing the certainty of AA's pre-merger weakness in conjunction with US Airways lack of weakness and now based on the above you seem to agree on the subjectivity of it all and that was my point. Considering that, why have you not recognized yet that BOTH of our opposing opinions on this are meaningless ?




I did ? :confused:

Where have I said that and specifically WHO will they not "undermine" ?



It DOES hold up because the team that orchestrated the destruction of AA pilots pensions and (hopefully) retiree medical (the two biggest financial benefits of AA's C11) was Horton's team, not Parker's. In fact, above you reiterate my contention is WAS a "strategic" bankruptcy and not one typical of a business that had little future as a going concern. But again, WHY are you asserting something you see as certainty and then diffuse that by highlighting the its subjectivity ?

Perhaps there is a bit of SELECTIVE interpretation going on, eh ?




No, it's YOUR assertion that both carriers needed the merger EQUALLY. Others can make a viable assertion that each carriers NEED of the other was NOT equal. That's not to say both benefitted from the merge, just that what was brought to the party was not one of absolute equality. I understand your desire to see this merger as one of equals, but I don't think the arbitrators will. If you read the UAL-CAL award, you'll note that in THAT case the committees demonstrated that each carrier had strengths and weaknesses, but overall neither was superior to the other. The considerations to assist them was information THEY quantified including not only economic background, including global alliances and hubs, but economic status and prospects at merger closing date including financial status, fleet compositions and pilot staffing.

Will this panel come to the same conclusion that pre-merger US Airways was equal in all respects to pre-merger American Airlines ?

Personally, I don't think so, but they might as anything is possible. If you want to believe they were, I'm not stopping you, but I'm sorry, I just can't agree with it. Perhaps the arbitrators will agree with you on this instead of me ?

Personally, I'm perfectly comfortable they'll get this aspect of the SLI dead-bang on target.

Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1741837)

*sigh*

This isn't an integration of Wall street players (or management). Of greater interest (and seemingly more relevant) is how any such corporate "financial performance" would have translated to the Pilots financial performance, namely the thickness of their wallets going forward separately vs. combined[I].

Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1741837)

Now it is me having no idea of what you are trying to say. On one hand, you're arguing the certainty of AA's pre-merger weakness in conjunction with US Airways lack of weakness and now based on the above you seem to agree on the subjectivity of it all and that was my point. Considering that, why have you not recognized yet that BOTH of our opposing opinions on this are meaningless ?

Originally Posted by Bad-Andy (Post 1742071)

Okay, let's only look at the pilot's wallets. Absent the merger, I would have continued making my paltry wide-body rates, with an expected upgrade to paltry command rates in the 3-6 year range (3 with separate East/West ops, but more realistically 6 with eventually getting a combined contract). Absent the merger, our expectations were to continue on, approximately the same size (at min fleet count, so reductions in those numbers would have required a contract with raises) but with substantial retirements. US Airways was profitable and would have continued to remain around for the forseable future.

Originally Posted by Bad-Andy (Post 1742071)

You, on the other hand, would have been saddled with a bankruptcy contract, fleet reductions and (potentially) furloughs (in the range of 400), and an inept management team that intended to outsource some of your international flying to code-share partners and more of your domestic flying to regional partners. Your 1800 recalls would certainly not have been given the opportunity to come back, at least for a few more years. By your own admission, it was Parker (a benefit of the merger) that reversed that potential future.

Originally Posted by Bad-Andy (Post 1742071)

Nowhere did I even insinuate that AA was in their death throes and was saved by US Airways. Not even close.

Originally Posted by Bad-Andy (Post 1742071)

However, I will say that your growth, recalls, hiring, and substantial raises (from the proposed bankruptcy rates) came as a direct result of the merger with US Airways. Absent that merger, Horton would have continued driving the company into the dirt, like your last decade of management.

Originally Posted by Bad-Andy (Post 1742071)

This was exactly the point I was trying to make. Nothing you say nor anything I say will make a difference. You're a worthless flow-through guy that didn't even interview for your job, and I'm a worthless third-lister, that after 7 years with my company am still not considered a "real" US Airways pilot by most of our senior guys. We're both far too junior to have any real impact on the process.

Originally Posted by Bad-Andy (Post 1742071)

I was merely refuting your ideas that the mighty AA came in and made everything better for us lowly aAquired folks, granting you the superior position in the SLI arbitration. And, I'll make you a beer bet, one junior guy to another -- I'll bet the very senior guys and the very junior guys are relatively happy, and all the middle guys are ****ed at the results.

My prediction, in terms of how they weight the arbitration is +.5 AA (pay), +2 AA (widebody/narrowbody ratio), +1 US (Career Progression/Retirements), +.5 US (Relative Seniority -- meaning ability to hold widebody much junior). The outcome -- pretty close to relative seniority for very junior and very senior folks, and a slight advantage for the middle AA 50% or so.

Want to bet a bottle of my favorite rum against your favorite case of beer? Just a friendly wager. If so, put up your completely speculative guesses, and we'll check on it in a year or so...

Originally Posted by eaglefly (Post 1742415)

Yes, I do see what you're saying here, i.e., you had a rock-solid future of advancement and stability and I also see what you're saying......



....here, i.e., that I had a marginal future because of....., etc., etc.




Then you say this which seems to have substantial contradiction to the above. :confused:



Again, that is subjective and I fully understand (and expect) that assertion. Both the UAL and CAL committees did the same thing in that SLI and most certainly assertions of the financial future of each pre-merger carrier will be brought forward in arbitration. Likewise, the West will make similar comparators on how they were screwed out of the boons you assert US Airways East had. The arbitrators will decide that and in the end, all we have is our opinions.




Perhaps it's time to stop making these points and let them rest where it matters ? Don't worry........there's always more time to revist it post award. Heck, former TWA pilots and natives have been debating the pre-acquisition viability of TWA for well over a decade. :rolleyes:




I have no problem with you disagreeing with me and I wasn't insuating we saved you or that you brought nothing to the table. That's ridiculous, but not all mergers are of exact equals and I don't believe THIS merger to be of exact equals. We confidently disagree, so then should both be comfortable in how this aspect applies to the final ISL, but anyone who knows arbitrations would never bet on one. USAPA went to seniority arbitration with AWA and look how that turned out. ;)

IMO, the only things I'm confident of is that DOH won't be used, the Nic in its pure form (the awarded Nic) will not be used and for financial purposes, both carriers will be correctly evaluated and their pre-merger state correctly applied to any result, so as to maximize pre-merger career expectations of each group.

Originally Posted by JetMonkey (Post 1742609)

One thing I would not be (anymore) is "confident" about anything. We've been burned several times now for feeling that way so I know I speak for others when I say, no more.

But if I had to guess, I wouldn't bet on the Nic (or some form of it) to not being used. And as far as DOH.. well, I don't see any reason why that couldn't be considered for anyone hired from 2007 - present. There isn't any huge disparity for those in that range with either carrier.

Originally Posted by encore (Post 1740619)

3 lists means 3 lists.

Originally Posted by ATRCA (Post 1745303)

Wasn't one aspect of the MOU sales pitch that both LAA and LUS would enter the SLI process under the same compensation structure? Neither group would have the advantage of being paid more than the other since we are all under the same pay rates from the onset of the merger. At least it was presented that way at the road show I attended.

Originally Posted by DCA A321 FO (Post 1743595)

Additionally, if AA wants fences against the East and West list, why shouldn't the East have fences against AA and West, and the West fences against AA and East. Wide body speaking.

3 list means 3 list.