Upsddown

Fair enough. Your response indicates it's about the integration of the Nic list as awarded by Nic, not as a lever to be used against the LAA pilots.

eaglefly

Of course they did. That was the entire point of the Bloch Arbitration; To prevent APA from stripping us of something we were entitled to. That wasn't just ANY position on the AA senioirty list, but a SPECIFIC one and we kept those, but yes, that's my argument. If the APA (or the AAPSIC who was schooled on this issue by Dean among others) advocates placing me in another position more junior on the AA list, doesn't properly defend my position on the LAA list or allows it to be diluted by omission as a result of not ensuring a fair integration process that allowed the arbitrators to make such a determination without any input from us, then yes, it's my argument we were denied fair representation in this SLI.

You disagree, I get that.

Obviously, that's all you see in me and that's unfortunate. Your solution is simply YOUR solution, not necessarily A solution. First of all, who says the concept of "longevity" (a possible integration component proposed primarily by the West) will or SHOULD even BE a factor ?

The AAPSIC doesn't angle too much in that direction, but the West certainly does. It isn't a universal component in every SLI in the past. It's odd how you seem to gravitate toward primarly West pilot concerns and positions. You remind me of one particular LAA pilot on C & R who does the same thing, rarely advicating anything for LAA pilots and concentrating primarily on validating West pilot positions as though he has a spouse or something flying at the former AWA. I didn't think much of his objectivity either.

I suppose once again we come to a conclusion of you believing me to be X, me arguing I'm Y and achieving detant.

Best of luck to you, Sir.

eaglefly

But that's just his argument and yet, it's taken at face value. Again, I think you see what you want to see.

Regarding the similarities between you and the aforementioned LAA pilot on C & R, I rest my case.

cactiboss

This has always been the case, no west filing or court case has been about anything else. We are stupidified at the reaction of some laa guys over what is an east/west issue.

eaglefly

The West's proposed integration model arguably is. Many believe on December 9, 2013 the Nic became an LAA pilot issue. The only way it could remain strictly an East/West issue is if long fences separating LAA from East/West occur, which I'm sure the overwhelming majoirty of LAA pilots would accept allowing an unimpacted resolution of the Nicolau conflict. Absent fences, the other option is a fair integration methodolgy that ensures pre-merger LAA career expectations are not impeded by either an unfair process or build models that provide windfall results to any one group.

Upsddown

Eaglefly,

You bring up some very valid and historically accurate points in many of your posts, unfortunately your closing arguments usually have no foundation.

As for the use of longevity. It was used in the DAL/NWA and CAL/UAL mergers. Mergers that were some of the most recent (post MB) and most akin to this merger. Not sure how you
come to your conclusion.

I am not taking a West position or for that matter a LAA or LUS position on this forum. I am just trying to understand points authors bring up or positions they may take. Eskimojoe has consistently taken a position that the Nic should be integrated. Is it because he believes the arbitrated list should be finalized or is it because he wants it to be used as a mechanism to gain further ground against the LAA pilots? Taking him at face value he states it's the former.

I asked the questions of you to see if your arguments were genuinely about ensuring that the West group did not use the Nic list to gain greater benefits from LAA pilots or whether your posts were centered arguments about you not the LAA pilot group. Your response verified that your positions are not about protecting the LAA pilot group but about your personal situation.

Eskimojoe's positions and your positions are quite different. He is not arguing for himself but the West group. You are arguing for yourself and a very small subset of the LAA group. You are not arguing for the entire group as Eskimojoe is doing.

I must say even after all these exchanges you do not do a good job of clarifying your point (or as you suggest, my knife may be a little dull).

Are you suggesting as a result of this integration that your actual longevity/seniority (not what you think you should have), what your longevity/seniority currently shows on the LAA seniority list should be changed during this integration?

If so how should it be changed from what you CURRENTLY have?

Or are you concerned that your ACTUAL (not what you think you should have) longevity and current seniority number on the stand alone LAA list will be REDUCED from what it CURRENTLY is?

If so how?

cactiboss

Well your aapsic should have gone after fences instead of becoming the "new nicolau". The very fact they pulled their original proposal, which should have been fair regardless of 9th ruling, shows what deep doodoo they placed themselves in(they obviously felt first proposal was doomed). Let's hope they learned their lesson this time around, either way the west proposal remains same.

Upsddown

Cactiboss,

It is quite obvious from the content of your posts you understand the arbitration process and are aware arbitrators today do not like long fences. Over the years they have seen the effects that occur from long fences and in most recent arbitrations have been resistant to awarding long fences and generally only awarded LWB fences of a 3 - 5 year duration.

It would be my guess the LAA pilot group did not suggest fences because they realized it would be wasted capital.

Why wouldn't they pull their proposal after getting a "look-see" at everyone's position? By doing so they could use it as an opportunity to make their proposal that much better (defendable).

Both appear very wise to me.

eaglefly

You think I'm arguing for myself. I'm not. If I were, I would not be advocating three committees that have free reign to argue anything they so choose. I supported (and support) a West committee to do just that. I disagree with their overall position, but I support their right to make it.

As for once again ferreting out my specific longevity concerns, perhaps the problem lies with both of us, but it may be more helpful to you to concentrate your attention to my supposed "very valid and historically accurate points" instead of my confusing (to you) closings, but I don't know. It's simply another reason for me not to delve too deeply into this issue in this venue. Just as you admit the APA would be stupid to reveal too much on inquiry, the same rational interest would apply to me for the exact same reasons. Absent your understanding of my position regarding AE Supp W. pilots longevity, both how it ends up being applied toward the other parties and possibly within LAA during this SLI, I can only assure you I expect nothing more (or less) then I already have from within and nothing more (or less) then what is equitable outward and in the latter concern, that encompasses those of both Supp. W flows and native LAA furloughees as a whole.

The longevity issue isn't JUST about AE flows, but about the LAA furloughees that surround most of them and believe it or not, my concern lies with fair application there too considering the specific of this particular SLI. I have no idea what, if any, clarifications or modifications the AAPSIC will include in their revised proposed integration model (probably submitted tomorrow afternoon), but the previous one had ambiguous contradictions in definition and application that separated the two sub-groups if you really read it and therin lies one danger. There are vulnerabilities to us present in that in several people's opinion. That's as succinct as I can be here and I suppose if that remains insufficient, we will simply have to leave this a mystery to be resolved at a future date and hopefully fairly by the arbitration panel at that juncture. There's nothing to be gained from beating this horse here any further. The various proposals should be available for review and criticism soon and I'm sure we'll all have much to talk about.

PurpleTurtle

The MOU was clear about former agreements. The only formerly recognized seniority agreement to be other than a nullity was the decision related to TWA.