This may surprise you, especially if you haven't read the NWA/DAL arbitration, which I suspect you haven't (at least in its entirety). I took that quote from George Nicolau . . .

. . . originally stated in the 1990 FedEx/Flying Tigers arbitration, from the text of that same 2008 NWA/Delta arbitration. Arbitrator Bloch, withe concurrence of Arbitrators Eischen and Horowitz, used Nicolau's to explain why they were not adopting either the Delta or the Northwest pilots' proposals.

If you'll take time to read the first 32 pages of that arbitration, you'll find that the NWA proposal was not "rejected," nor did the panel "go with" the Delta proposal. They rejected some arguments of both sides, accepted others, and then made their own--in crafting a "fair and equitable list."

Unlike baseball arbitrations, of which Arbitrator Nicolau has been a party to many, the panel is not stuck with one side's proposal or the other's.

I would suspect that, when this is all over, the consensus will be that neither counselor, Freunde nor Katz, will be considered the "winner," but instead that the pilots of both sides will have their share of results to commiserate. Then, some 20 years down the road, those same pilots will look back at this arbitration and marvel at how well the arbitrators ruled.

 

I have read the whole award, many times, and I will let the quote speak for itself.

That is a direct quote from page 16 of the 32 pages you mention. I am not claiming that the Board accepted the DAL proposal "as is" like baseball arbitration, but by the Board's own admission, they went with Dal's "approach".

Sled

PS. it's Freund, not Freunde.....and the Board has about a CENTURY of arbitration experience between them, not half a century...all the more reason not to present a silly, over-the-top, unreasonable SLI case to them.

 

Where in the Continental proposal did its merger committee propose a date of hire approach? In the hearings conducted in April, which side took great pains to stress "longevity" as a component of ALPA merger policy? Which side emphasized the preamble to the new policy, which states "shall include but not be limited to?"

We haven't seen the UA proposal yet, which is almost certain to propose a carve out for the 747 pilots (category), but with regard to "status" and "ratio," the CAL proposal advocated integrating "captains with captains and first officers with first officers" on a one-to-one ratio and favored "those who brought jobs to the merger" (working pilots) as opposed to those who brought no jobs to the merger (furloughed pilots). That's a pretty strong argument based on status don't you think?

If I were you, I'd be a bit hesitant to predict a "win" for the UAL side based on the 2008 award. I'm not forecasting a loss for your side but merely suggesting that arbitrators tend to split the baby.

Oh, and thank you for correcting my spelling. I think that, in an effort to come out on top of an argument, that you're resorting to nitpicking.

 

<sigh> let me take these one at a time. Date of Hire is not a proposal of either side. Longevity is now a component of ALPA merger policy, and yes it does say it "shall include" consideration...(Capt. Brucia admitted on the record that the CAL proposal did not include Longevity as a consideration). None of this disputes the fact that the NWA/DAL Board, by their own admission, went with the DAL approach over the NWA approach in that particular SLI award.

SLed

 

First, I'm sorry my arguments compel you to "sigh."

Second, in citing Arbitrator Nicalou's quote from 1990, the 2008 board was making the point that neither party in the arbitration posed an acceptable solution, and that arbitrators do not expect such.

Third, I think that in quoting Capt. Brucia, you're taking his words out of context, just as you did with the quotation you cited about the board's preference for status and category over date of hire. Just as that statement did not express a overall acceptance of the Delta position over the Northwest one, Jim patiently explained two things about longevity that you failed to mention.

His first point with regard to longevity stressed that it is impossible to integrate CAL pilots strictly on that basis because our list is a product of two arbitrations and a commuter flow-through agreement. The dates of hire do not line up chronologically on the list. There was abundant supporting testimony on that point from other witnesses.

His second point with regard to longevity stressed the longstanding arbitral president of not putting furloughed pilots on the list ahead of working ones.

As a co-author of the revised merger policy, Jim stressed that the inclusion of longevity as a named consideration did not negate the preamble to the policy, which stressed that the three specified considerations were to be factored in "among others."

 

I love how you keep dancing around the direct quote of the Dal/Nwa Board and instead inject your opinion of what the Board was trying to point out.

DOH is not necessarily Longevity, I know your side likes to try and make it confusing, and given the cold facts, I would probably try deception as well, but Longevity can and will be established in a general sense.


Page 1220 of the SLI transcripts....

And I am well aware that Jim was a co-author of the policy. We had a co-author as well. I am sure we will be hearing from him this month. His take is quite different.

SLed

 

Apparently, in citing the Board's paragraph that expressed a preference for status and category ratios over date of hire, which you attributed as a win for the Delta pilots and their counsel, you neglected to mention the qualifying and mitigating language of this one.

Neither the Delta nor Northwest pilots "won" the arbitration. Neither the CAL nor UAL pilots will "win" this one.

 

Not denying there was "qualifying and mitigating language". Just that Dal's proposal was Status and Catergory ratio, and NWA's proposal was Date of Hire. The Board decided that "the Status and Category approach was more fair and equitable". They went with Dal's proposal (with tweeks and exceptions).



Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

Sled

 

 

With quite a few tweaks and exceptions, don't you think? In fact, enough tweaks and excerptions that the final list really didn't resemble the proposed Delta Committee list. Also, in rejecting the date of hire methodology, it appears that the ratio method adopted seemed to trump longevity, don't you also think?

As you, sir, are entitled to yours.

Now, if you claim to be clairvoyant, I suppose you can posit how this arbitration is going to turn out. I don't have that talent, but only venture that the final list will look nothing like what either committee proposes.