On this we can agree.

 

This SLI is going to get jammed down the pilots throats.

 

Care to explain?

Your "superior" list has me at 98%, junior to a guy hired 11 months after I was. It's an 8% difference between the West proposal and the AAPSIC proposal. You stapled all the third listers and mixed us in with Eagle flowthroughs (who never flew a "superior" AA jet until months (and it some cases years) after LUS were on the line). I dropped 11% from where I currently sit on the US-East list (as of 12/9/13).

Please, enlighten us inferior ones how we're the big winners. Show your work.

 

Well mergers in the last 10 years haven't been the winner takes all that AA and some of the other legacies were used to.

The furloughs and 2013 eagle flows should not be above hundreds of people who can easily hold lines on pretty much every aircraft. Many of us have very good seniority now and have a choice of where we want to be. There is a lie out there that third listers are nothing more than a bunch of new hires on reserve stuck in Philly on the 190, that is simply not true. Why should people who didn't bring a job to this merger (some of whom had never even finished indoc) be put in front of us? Let's not forget which airline has the most retirements in the shortest period of time. Do AA pilots think they are entitled to the attrition as well? Simply put having a seniority number within the last 15 years at AA was worth as much as a wooden nickel.

 

There are no charts that could show what produces a "fair result" as that standard is subjective depending on ones position and situation. Look, it's obvious (to me anyway), BOTH the East and West proposals want the arbitrators to disregard any consideration of "pre-merger career expectations". Why ?

Because it's a known concept that HAS previous consideration in other SLI's and is the major "equity" that favors what the AAPSIC and most LAA pilots consider that they "brought" to the merger. The two pre-merger US Airways committees are unified in that don't want the arbitrators to look BACK, but instead look only FORWARD. The West committee seeks to muddy what AA pilots brought to the merger and instead disregard that and weigh in its place what they consider more important and which just happens to maximize West pilots placement against LAA pilots (the Nic massacres the East for them) that being just PMCE redefined as "merger expectations". They then hinge that on a 35/65% methodology of Longevity/Stat & Cat to make that happen using concepts that favor them against AA pilots.

Similarly, the East committee also anchors their desires on the merger being "one of equals" in the attempt to nullify any inequities brought TO the merger and disregard PMCE instead, redefining it as "pre-merger career progression" basing it also on only a forward-looking POST merger playing field with a 50/50% of the same self-benefitting mathematics. Just as I disagree with the claims made by the other two committees, I would expect you to disagree with what the AAPSIC is arguing. The arbitrators will be able to sort through the claims and determine what is fair. Our opinions are subjective and so will the committees to various degrees, The arbitrators are paid to listen, evaluate and rule. If you are confident in your committees "mathematics" as being the foundation for "fair" (subjective) and more importantly "equitable" (less subjective), you shouldn't be concerned. Heck, some here have already christened the West proposal as THE ISL, so if you're West, rest easy as it's a done deal and if your East, the West ISL (soon to be the New AA ISL) isn't so bad, well, except for the Nic.

 

Well, it should be noted that the company has no say in how the lists are merged. They can argue economic impact that excessive delay could cause (and I'm sure they already have) so I'm sure that has impact with the arbitrators in moving the process forward, however what impact that position would have should USAPA find a way to successfully hold the process hostage through the courts is unknown, at least as of now. I would think any success by USAPA in court litigation to stall the process would be on the merits alone as opposed to any economics suffered by the company. If that were the case, Parker could have successfully forced a resolution on the two parties back before the merger.

 

Still a lot of emotion. You need to get over the "superior" stuff as it wasn't about pilots per se, it was about a much larger network, 100+ widebodies over that of per-merger U, 900 orders/options, higher pre-merger compensation, etc. Those are facts. Of course, how the arbitrators WEIGH those facts, remains to be seen. "11 months" difference in DOH's are peanuts compared to West (and I assume East) proposals that have 14-18 year differences in DOH's like where the most junior West pilot with a DOH of 2005 is senoir to East pilots with 1987 DOH and LAA of 1999.

BTW, Slice didn't staple anyone, the AAPSIC devised LAA pilots proposed methodology. When you take things too personally, it leads to misguided words being thrown around like that.

Breathe.

 

AA only had 104 Group 4 A/C on property and on order US has 46. Seems to me if you go by ratio US brought more group 4 a/c per pilot than AA.

 

Absolutely. In most cases, SLI's are products of careful consideration based on the specifics of THAT merger.

I'm afraid in the case of Supplement W, flow-through pilots have a bit more then a wooden nickel, but I understand your desire to pull them out of their relative positions and plug them where you see fit. Same with AA furloughs. But, that's just YOUR subjective opinion. The documentation and history of that agreement isn't as subjective.

 

I agree, went through the agreements and I cannot support the claim I made.

However, it is interesting to see the company's take on a new East merger committee to skirt the 9th.

From Siegel:

"Now, from the Company's perspective, we were entirely neutral in the course of that DFR litigation. We took no sides.
But having taken no sides, once we read the injunction, and we have a -- or not the injunction, but the Ninth Circuit ruling, we do not favor attempting to maneuver or to create workarounds on federal court decisions.
And if the purpose of suggesting a new committee be formed is to then be able to assert that the new East committee is not bound like the prior East committee under the USAPA name, by the Court decision, would be to ignore what the Ninth Circuit has said.
And we don't favor that."