Aside from SWA/AT which appears to be a unique situation how have recent SLI’s been handled by the arbitrators?

I know that a 2011 SLI arbitration at the regional level between three carriers did not use DOH, longevity, or relative seniority but feathered pilots together based on equipment category. I believe that furloughed pilots were placed on the bottom of the list even though their DOH and longevity were greater then some of the other pilots. The single arbitrator for this was R. Bloch who I believe was one of the arbitrators for the DAL/NWA SLI.

Any insights on the methodology and outcome of the DAL/NWA and UAL/CAL SLI arbitrations? Potential for those methodologies to carry over to AA/USA? Common arbitrators on the two panels? Potential to see those arbitrators again?

The furloughs were somewhat more complicated. They had been furloughed from Mesaba, but had been offered spots with Pinnacle and Colgan or could remain on furlough. Either way for the merging they were all considered to be part of the bottom of the Mesaba list. As for the merging, if you were Colgan, you had great career expectations and were rewarded as such. If you were at Mesaba before 2001, you were a lifer and rewarded as such, otherwise you were treated as garbage. Pinnacle basically fell into the middle, with a gap of over 500 within one class date. It was a complete debacle all the way around that we are still paying for.

Read up on the Bond-McKaskill Act, I don't think you'll like the implications. Both NWA/DAL and CAL/UAL SLI's were completed without participation of the respective companies, and in fact all the surviving airline (DAL & UAL) management had to do was "Accept" the SLI as arbitrated.

The American/USAir case will be an entirely different animal IMO.

First, there are 3 different unions representing the 4 merging pilot groups. DAL/NWA and CAL/UAL were contentious enough merging under a common policy, but this merger obviously doesn't have that.

Second, Under Bond-McKaskill if the representing unions can't agree to an SLI, the company is required to participate. This will be a test case as it's not been done on such a scale and with as many participants. There is an opinion that if unions can't agree, that the company could impose a solution that it deems "fair and equitable".


One thing for sure, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

there are 3 different unions representing the 4 merging pilot groups....


Really? Please elaborate.

My Bad, USAPA represents West pilots too? This is what I was thinking:

APA - American Airlines
USAPA - USAir East
ALPA - USAir West
ALPA - AMR Eagle

Would it be fair to say that with the Nic award dispute that there are "effectively" 4 groups? APA representing AMR pilots, pretty clear there. USAPA representing a fractured group, with the Nic. award history, effectively 2 groups. And ALPA representing at least 824 named Eagle pilots who have a claim via flow through agreements.

What do you think the odds are of a consensual union-only arbitration agreement that keeps the the surviving management out of the process?

For better or worse, USAPA is the CBA for ALL US Airways pilots, both East and West. APA is the sole representative for all AA pilots. Eagle ALPA is NOT a participant in any SLI process vis-a-vis US/AA since their list is not being merged in to ours. Under a previous agreement, some AE pilots have AA numbers, but it will be up to APA to represent those folks and up to (ultimately) a panel of three arbitrators to determine how they are placed with others on the final list.

UAL/CAL will probably prove to be a very telling precedent with regard to US/AA. A blend of relative seniority with some credit for longevity and fences limited to widebody positions without regard to domicile.

The company will ultimately not care about the order of pilots on the list, so long as the list is done and finalized in a timely fashion. What they WILL care about, and will vigorously oppose, is the imposition of any oversized or convoluted C&Rs that will serve to increase their crew costs or limit needed flexibility to move the puzzle pieces to fit their needs. I would think any domicile fences are probably dead in the water, and equipment fences will be limited to larger airframes (possibly only Group 4, maybe 3-4) and for a relatively limited (less than 10 years, perhaps only 5) period of time. Anything more than that not only punishes all pilots by denying them access to the "fruits" of the merger, but it materially affects crew costs for the company, which will not fly.

I fully expect USAPA to advocate for enormous, gargantuan, over-complicated fences on everything under the sun - fences that will make the Roberts Award look simple and straightforward - and I fully expect they'll be laughed out of the room at that request.

What role to the Eagle flows have in this? (other than wanting to keep the flow through) Those who where on property before the snap shot will be considered like everyone else for the integration and those who are not will be placed at the bottom when they arrive. No?

Thanks for the clarification, looking over the fence I recognize competing interests but was obviously fuzzy on the details. I'm hoping that APA and USAPA can arbitrate a list on their own, it would be a can of worms for management to get a seat in the process!

This is why I asked the question. I agree that the past few mergers will have great influence on the upcoming one. If we take the time to understand how they were done and why we should have a much better idea of what to expect.

Where is all this Eagle will be involved with the SLI chatter coming from? Really? The 824 or whatever it is will show up as a new hire with everyone else. Did Compass have squat to say with the NW/DL SLI?