SLI Transcript, Funny Stuff, LOL
 

This a cross examination of a sCAL expert:

Q- Well, let me just say the following.
With respect to Asia, for example. It --
Narita and Palau would both be a market which would
be reflected in these charts; correct?
A- If they were served by both carriers, yes.
Q- If they were served by either carrier.
A- Right.
Q- So Continental, flying somewhere in Asia
to Palau, would be the same in terms of a market,
would be the same as United flying from Chicago to
Hong Kong.
A- Or Narita to Seoul.
Q- That's what I'm trying to understand.
A- A short haul.
Q- It would be -- each one of those would be
a market; correct?
A- In this count; correct.
Q- All right. And these charts, Charts 8,
10, 12, and 14 don't say anything at all about the
frequencies between those city pairs?
A- No.
Q- And they don't say anything at all about
the available seat miles associated with any of
those markets; correct?
A- No.
But maybe I can help you a little bit.
I already testified yesterday both as to
traffic and seat miles and block hours. Continental
Airlines was more of an international carrier than
United.

Q- I know you did testify to that, and I'm
sure there will be additional testimony in the
course of the hearing on that point.
But just so we understand what these
charts show, in looking at Continental first, a
flight from Guam to Majuro, served once a week by a
737 for 1,850 miles and producing 291,000 available
seat miles is treated for these charts the same as a
flight from -- is the same as a flight on United
from Chicago to Hong Kong seven times a week at
7,790 miles producing $18.9 million -- 18.9 million
available seat miles per week; correct, for purposes
of these charts?
A- I think I just testified that these charts
are a count of markets defined by airport fares that
were served by either carrier in the reference time
period.
These charts don't talk about frequency or
length of haul within the geographical region.

Q- Or available seat miles?

A- That's correct.
But I just told you that in the aggregate,
Continental's available seat miles were a bigger
share of its system than is true at United, and the
difference was significant.

So. The main thrust of the CAL argument resembles one of these sad, pathetic, argumentative thread hijacks in APC?

Hmm, I wonder if it will work?

Doubtful. CAL strategy is to try and distract from "the law", which is ALPA merger policy, and abrogate longevity by trying to paint United as a desperate on the ropes airline all the while claiming to be the 800lb Gorilla in the airline world. You know, the big 3 .. Delta, American, United ... what did I leave out :) ? Unfortunately for CAL the facts don't support that as was aptly brought out under cross. I'm sure UAL will paint the same dire picture of CAL when they present. At the end of the day, I don't think either argument will prevail and the Arbitrators will follow ALPA merger policy rather closely.

If you keep reading the comparison the CAL attorneys make is that if you fly a 737 once a week between Guam and Majuro and United flies a 747 daily between Chicago and Hong Kong that they are the SAME because each one is flying between a "city pair".

So using CALs attorney's math 291,000 ASM on a 737 = 18,900,000 ASM on a 747.

The actual ratio is 65 to 1. Meaning there is 65 TIMES more ASMs between the UAL route and CAL route, but the CAL attorney tried to say they were the same because its "international" and a "city pair".

WOW. I wonder if he wore lifts in his shoes so that he could also make himself look taller while he stated it.

I did and posted it ...It must be early out there on the LEFT coast!

now now, hes paid to say that stuff and "twist" the truth, bc its in his side's best interest. i feel confident the panel of arbitrators will see the math at the end of the day. i mean the witness has to try, but the other side's lawyer has to bury and discredit him so that anything he says is taken lightly amongst the panel

My reading of former arbitrations shows that all the "we're awesome & they suck" posturing is by necessity thrown out because arbitrators are bending over backwards to appear neutral.

So, objectively, I think this is CALs weakest argument.

No, we can't blame him for trying. And I won't be mad at CAL pilots for their counsel putting forth the argument either. Just commenting on the futility of aruguing APC style in front of real people.;)

Yeppah .. in total agreement. Nicolau decision was a little different because US Air was in bankruptcy when America West stepped in. Ironically, UAL Counsel represented America West in those proceedings.