Originally Posted by eaglefly

Because doing so on the LAA side is a benefit it will take me many, many years to enjoy, especially now with thousands of new previously non-AA pilots to get their first and as importantly, it's a result that WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURED FOR THAT PILOT ABSENT THIS MERGER as there was no mechanism in sight that would have made this dispute "ripe" ABSENT THIS MERGER AND SLI.

Why can't you understand THAT ?

I think it's possible the consideration of long fences may just become a more simple solution considering what appears the West's (and I suppose now the East's as well) intransigence in believing a pre-merger West F/O making $100/hour who had no pre-merger expectation of pole-vaulting to an American Airline Group III captains slot making $280/hour as a result of this merger when a similarly situated pre-merger legacy LAA pilot must wait many, many years to match that West pilot meteoric financial blast-off.

Again, it's interesting to note how the West chooses merger concepts based on value to them in a given SLI. With US Airways East, pre-merger career expectations as well as individual and carrier financials were fair game, but now in an even MORE differentiated merger and integration, they somehow don't matter.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by pilot64golfer

Well unfortunately that's a part of mergers. You get to fly what they brought and they get to fly what you brought. We have fences, but 90% of pilots can't hold 747, 777 or A-350 Captain so the fences end and that guy who should have been a Jumbo Captain now waits while the guys integrated ahead of him go to those seats.

Originally Posted by ackattacker

I don't think this ruling means what people think it means. Read the dissent and the majority's footnotes. It very directly and intentionally does NOT order that the Nic is the list. It specifies very clearly that the final result may not be the Nic, and that the Nic is not a necessary outcome to avoid further DFR. All the ruling does is enjoin USAPA from arguing a position other than the Nic. It's a gag order, and as the dissent notes, the point may be moot because Usapa no longer controls the outcome, it only has influence over it.

Originally Posted by eaglefly

Yes, that appears to be the ruling, but if USAPA (East committee) can't argue any ISL proposal unless it is the Nic and the West proposal already has the Nic, where does that leave the U pilots ?

It would seem by default regardless of the make-up of their committees or committee, the only thing left to put forward regarding their list is the Nic, which again already is the proposal by the West. It would seem the only alteration they could make would be integration philosophy with LAA pilots like a modification to their "hybrid" integration methodology.

Originally Posted by ackattacker

I don't know what the future brings but I have a suspicion that the East committee could potentially decide to withdraw completely rather than advocate the Nic, leaving the West and AAPSIC to fight it out over the Nic and APA at risk of DFR to the East.

Originally Posted by eaglefly

APA claims neutrality and the LAA committee is autonomous from APA, so I don't see how APA would be in jeopardy from East pilots if their committee excused themselves. Anyway, that would mean the two competing proposals would be the LAA and West (Nic) proposals and arguments.

Originally Posted by ackattacker

APA (and maybe the company) could be at risk of DFR for proceeding with an integration process where all parties are not fairly represented. That's why they wanted the West there in the first place even though APA has no love for the Nicolau. The West committee and the AAPSIC committe have no duty to fairly represent the East, only APA as a whole does as and the committees are a way for APA to show that they treated everybody fair by giving everybody their chance to advocate their position.

USAPA can fairly claim that this ruling states they can't represent the East pilots position so they withdraw, leaving no one to represent the East pilots at all. If APA allows that farce to proceed, they are at risk of DFR.

Long story short expect this process to become even more drawn out the arbitration hearings to be rescheduled.

Originally Posted by SewerPipeDvr

No one should count their chickens just yet. Next up. En banc (before the entire 9th). This three judge panel was 2 right leaning/ one left leaning. The entire Bench is left leaning majority.