Fine. Message deleted. I am just tired of discussions that seem to be on the same level than six-year olds in the locker saying "mine's bigger than yours".

Maybe I am just too disappointed by FNM's new album.

 

So what? Am I supposed to be a freaking robot? APA arrives in all their grandeur and all I see are ego decisions ("this wasn't invented here, so ...) like the j/s issue making life miserable.

 

All I'm saying in this industry is but for the grace of God go I. No one ever knows if the day they go to work is going to be the day that causes them to be the lead story on the news.

 

Yes, that is still my belief. The appeal by the 9th was careful not to indicate that it should be adopted by this arbitration panel and the LAA committee is equally under no obligation to recognize it. IMO, the Nic has applicability is a pure East/West equation, but that does not give is supercedence over the interests of LAA pilots in the concept of what is "fair" and more importantly "equitable". M-B ensures ONLY a fair and equitable process, not an outcome. "Fair" will always be subjective when competing interests are in play. But "equitable" is more easily quantified. I think in regards to pre-merger US Airways pilots both East and West and pre-merger LAA pilots, equitablity will be the target area and that the pure Nic will not be in the final ISL. Again, as just another keyboard warrior here, I could be wrong and IF it is and I am, then that equitability will be realized instead with a different feathering methodology with LAA pilots (which could impact the East more), fences or a combination.

 

The LAA list isn't in specific legal question for the arbitrators.

I have yet to see specific court direction IMO that the Nic is the "legal" senioirty list of US Airways pilots. I HAVE seen a ruling that says that USAPA cannot advoacte another list. Unless the arbitrators are required to consider the Nic a legal list as opposed to something that simply cannot be disregarded by either pre-merger US Airways committee, I can't see it as being "reordered", if it's not used (considered). To meet that standard, it would seem the court would have required the arbitrators to specifically recognize the Nic and work from that, but that hasn't occurred IMO.

HOWEVER, again the arbitrators could indeed use the pure Nic and then craft an integration with AA pilots that feathers differently to compensate LAA pilots for its use and also include fences and in that situation, the Nic and the LAA list would be in their pure states.

 

Hey, do as you see fit. Most though accept it as something that weakens ones position or argument. Perhaps, it's simply yet another reason to fence the two groups off. "Each case turns on its own facts" and let's face it, if the forums (and integration committees) are any confirmation, the U and LAA pilot groups are oil and water.

 

With as many 777s and 787s they have..

 

They are not represented before the Arb Panel. Clearly.

The relevant question is can the Arb Panel compel ANY party to participate? and if any party does not, can the Arb panel perform their duties pursuant to MB and the protocol agreement?

The onus is on the Arb panel... At least until the courts get involved.

 

MB is very clear on who participates and who represents. In this merger litigation of that issue has not occurred.. It had been averted by the protocol agreement.

The Arb panels decisions on "if or how" to proceed will drive the "who and if" of ensuing lawsuits. You may be surprised at who runs to court first.

 

You can't keep yourself out of trouble can you? I'd be disappointed by FNM too. Another error in decision making. Schlechte Entscheidung