En Banc Denied!
08-25-2015, 02:36 AM
#21
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
The number of status quo lists are a contractual fact and no assumption changes that. The future single list will be a contractual fact as well.
The arb panel is empowered by the MB statute (responsible to impliment it) and all parties have contractually agreed. I doubt they fear the court's interference. The 9th were very clear that they had ZERO instruction for the arb panel. Silver isn't stupid enough to stick her neck out all by herself... Is she?
The only thing certain about the future is that pilots will fight vigorously about seniority because there is no such thing as a pilot union. By and large the "union" is controlled by duplicitous manipulators and opportunists mascarading as leaders (who occasionally get a "win" for pilots in general---completely by mistake and inspite of themselves.. The $h!ty JCBA and the Cacheral Celebration are proof).
The oxymoronic-split-personality of the courts have likewise provided nearly ZERO benefit to the pilots as a whole. Contradiction after contradiction. Unhelpful, inconsistent, and uncertain rulings. Meddling. Not any better than the so-called unions.
Maybe, just maybe, the THREE ARB PANEL can despise all the injustice, disservice, and conniving... cut through the BS, and come up with a fair and equitable solution.
Heaven knows no other dumbasses with important titles have been able to move it forward...forward.
The arb panel is empowered by the MB statute (responsible to impliment it) and all parties have contractually agreed. I doubt they fear the court's interference. The 9th were very clear that they had ZERO instruction for the arb panel. Silver isn't stupid enough to stick her neck out all by herself... Is she?
The only thing certain about the future is that pilots will fight vigorously about seniority because there is no such thing as a pilot union. By and large the "union" is controlled by duplicitous manipulators and opportunists mascarading as leaders (who occasionally get a "win" for pilots in general---completely by mistake and inspite of themselves.. The $h!ty JCBA and the Cacheral Celebration are proof).
The oxymoronic-split-personality of the courts have likewise provided nearly ZERO benefit to the pilots as a whole. Contradiction after contradiction. Unhelpful, inconsistent, and uncertain rulings. Meddling. Not any better than the so-called unions.
Maybe, just maybe, the THREE ARB PANEL can despise all the injustice, disservice, and conniving... cut through the BS, and come up with a fair and equitable solution.
Heaven knows no other dumbasses with important titles have been able to move it forward...forward.
08-25-2015, 02:45 AM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
Why do you care what happens with the west group? I don't follow this.
APA has already come out on this - they said if NIC holds, it's at expense of east pilots.
West pilots will agree to this as well, they move up at expense of east pilots.
Why would an AA pilot care what order the US combined list is? You'll still merge into the same relative seniority...
APA has already come out on this - they said if NIC holds, it's at expense of east pilots.
West pilots will agree to this as well, they move up at expense of east pilots.
Why would an AA pilot care what order the US combined list is? You'll still merge into the same relative seniority...
The West believes (among other things), their most junior reserve narrowbody group II F/O should be a jaw dropping 4500 numbers from the bottom of the combined list.
Sorry, I don't know about the arbs, but I'll never buy that, not even at gunpoint.
08-25-2015, 02:54 AM
#23
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
McCaskill Bond does not apply to the East/West foodfight. The statute expressly states that it does not apply to previous mergers. That issue was to be resolved through this process, which is to abide by MB provisions, but is not itself an arbitration under McCaskill Bond.
The company and USAPA were always ready to kick the can (of dealing with the Nicolau award) down the next street that came by in order to delay the implementation of that list. The legal road was the only route that was available since one side had rejected the arbitration process and result. Well, we are now at a dead end street. Only one way to go from here. And we have Judge Silver leading the way. No bets here as to how she sorts out the mandate from the 9th.
The company and USAPA were always ready to kick the can (of dealing with the Nicolau award) down the next street that came by in order to delay the implementation of that list. The legal road was the only route that was available since one side had rejected the arbitration process and result. Well, we are now at a dead end street. Only one way to go from here. And we have Judge Silver leading the way. No bets here as to how she sorts out the mandate from the 9th.
You lost me on this.
M-B (A/M 3, 13) simply means a process of negotiation and if no resolution, neutral arbitration to provide a "fair and equitable" result (at least in the opinion of the arbitrators).
Not much grey area there.
08-25-2015, 05:15 AM
#24
Banned
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: A330
Posts: 1,043
08-25-2015, 06:18 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,448
The West group is much younger and pre-merger was a separate pilot group than the East. It is unarguable that their desire to capitalize on this merger in the way they demand results in the biggest windfall any separate pilot group will have ever achieved in airline pilot merger history. Rationalizing it won't change that.
The West believes (among other things), their most junior reserve narrowbody group II F/O should be a jaw dropping 4500 numbers from the bottom of the combined list.
Sorry, I don't know about the arbs, but I'll never buy that, not even at gunpoint.
The West believes (among other things), their most junior reserve narrowbody group II F/O should be a jaw dropping 4500 numbers from the bottom of the combined list.
Sorry, I don't know about the arbs, but I'll never buy that, not even at gunpoint.
08-25-2015, 06:45 AM
#26
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
That's fine if it is going to be targeted for righting that wrong against the East, but not for LAA pilots (especially junior) as collateral damage. A West windfall at LAA pilots expense is unacceptable AFAIC. We'll see if the arbitrators award them their final slapshot for the hat trick........or actually in internet parlance "ftw"
or not.
08-25-2015, 07:10 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2011
Position: Airbus button pusher
Posts: 2,448
The reality is that pre-merger, there were three separate pilot groups. We're talking reality here, not coulda, shoulda, woulda's. From a reality standpoint, it DOES matter where the most junior West pilot falls as that is one benchmark of a "windfall". No single pre-merger group (and again, there where three) should be awarded a windfall as a result of this merger and SLI. If one looks at the West's initial proposal, virtually every West pilot would capitalize above all LAA and East pilots from a windfall standpoint (that which they brought TO the merger in actual seat position, actual pay position and projected advancement without this merger in both areas vs. that which this merger/ISL gives them). It is undeniable. The only thing that has occurred so far from what I've heard from West pilots, is the rationalization for achieving that.
That's fine if it is going to be targeted for righting that wrong against the East, but not for LAA pilots (especially junior) as collateral damage. A West windfall at LAA pilots expense is unacceptable AFAIC. We'll see if the arbitrators award them their final slapshot for the hat trick........or actually in internet parlance "ftw" or not.
That's fine if it is going to be targeted for righting that wrong against the East, but not for LAA pilots (especially junior) as collateral damage. A West windfall at LAA pilots expense is unacceptable AFAIC. We'll see if the arbitrators award them their final slapshot for the hat trick........or actually in internet parlance "ftw"
or not.But if they are entitled to the nic and then they have x amount of third listers underneath every west pilot, their proposal seem more reasonable. Not that I remember any of the proposals nor that it matters as it seems they will be redone.
That being said, all three proposals had windfalls and were biased as they should be.
How many more pilots did AA have than seats in December 2013? I'm curious how that factors in as well. I'm at the bottom regardless, so don't think I'm arguing for any one side . I expect to be a 330 CA
08-25-2015, 07:44 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Posts: 147
Wrong forum....Try the PlayStation forum.
08-25-2015, 07:50 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,967
This arbitration is to "abide" by M-B, but is not itself an arbitration "under" M-B ?
You lost me on this.
M-B (A/M 3, 13) simply means a process of negotiation and if no resolution, neutral arbitration to provide a "fair and equitable" result (at least in the opinion of the arbitrators).
Not much grey area there.
You lost me on this.
M-B (A/M 3, 13) simply means a process of negotiation and if no resolution, neutral arbitration to provide a "fair and equitable" result (at least in the opinion of the arbitrators).
Not much grey area there.
If you would just cough up the $675 to wear a Liberty Tie, you would never have to look at gray again. The world will instantly be filled will double rainbows and unicorns. Try it!
08-25-2015, 07:54 AM
#30
Banned
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,350
I see what your saying, and I'm clearly not a west pilot, but a lot of their windfall in their proposal is based on implementing the nic, which I couldn't care less if that happens or not.
But if they are entitled to the nic and then they have x amount of third listers underneath every west pilot, their proposal seem more reasonable. Not that I remember any of the proposals nor that it matters as it seems they will be redone.
But if they are entitled to the nic and then they have x amount of third listers underneath every west pilot, their proposal seem more reasonable. Not that I remember any of the proposals nor that it matters as it seems they will be redone.
That being said, all three proposals had windfalls and were biased as they should be.
How many more pilots did AA have than seats in December 2013? I'm curious how that factors in as well. I'm at the bottom regardless, so don't think I'm arguing for any one side . I expect to be a 330 CA
How many more pilots did AA have than seats in December 2013? I'm curious how that factors in as well. I'm at the bottom regardless, so don't think I'm arguing for any one side . I expect to be a 330 CA
In regards to the pilots vs. seats argument at pre-merger LAA, how did previous integrations handle such issues ?
I believe in the U/AWA integration, Nic based his methodology on the specifics of his belief that junior US Airways pilots had little likelihood of returning in the foreseeable future and possibly never, considering US Airways pre-merger economic and competitive situation and in this case, it DID strongly impact junior LUS negatively. In UAL/CAL, the UAL committee (Freund) felt that stapling UAL furloughees (almost 1500) was unfair and in fact, proposed that these pilots be integrated with BOTH furloughed and active pilots at CAL and that was a FAR more balanced merger in terms of pre-merger equities.
Is NOT selecting and diluting an equal number of more junior LAA surrogate pilots (dovetail) to those furloughed at LAA at snapshot date a windfall for LAA pilots and is our situation similar to either of those two situations either in the likelihood of return as in the U/AWA situation or of (in our case) the significantly imbalanced equities brought to this merger favoring LAA pilots strongly (unlike UAL/CAL aside from which the arbitrators were somewhat constrained to ALPA merger policy) also a windfall for junior LAA ?
Each situation is different IMO and the absence of dilution for furloughed LAA on the LAA committee list could be aptly argued not to be a windfall considering the specifics of THIS merger/SLI. I understand the opposite belief though.
What other windfalls did you see in the initial LAA proposal, especially those sought at the expense of either or both of the other two US Airways groups ?
Last edited by eaglefly; 08-25-2015 at 08:06 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
